Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | September 17, 2002 | J. Harry Jones

[bvw]

Would it change your mind about what? Whether Westerfield is guilty, or whether the Jury reached a proper verdict that followed due process?

[Freedom2specul8]

"Kim, your belief in DW's guilt is based on hours and hours of research, discussion, debate. You have kept an open mind on the subject. I don't know why you think you are on the 'other side'. I am talking about the process. I think we all should be questioning it. Those that don't question the process because it gave the answer they wanted all along, are the ones that , to me , are on the other side. "

I see no reason to classify some of the freepers who think he's guilty into categories. I think we had enough of that from the loud group who no longer lives to disrupt those of us who really want to discuss/debate. I don't mean to offend you or people who agree with you..I'm just sick and tired of all the labels.

As far as the legal process goes, of course it deserves scrutiny. I still think that there has to be a legal watchdog group out there that can help you guys.

[John Jamieson]

I take the jury at face value. They see alot of things we don't. I do think that juries operate on a little too much on emotion instead of logic, but I don't see anyway to change that.

I could not have found him guilty because the evidence didn't reach beyond my reasonable doubt. It's a matter of settling for 1 in 100 wrong convictions vs 1 in 1000. I think the 1 in 100 is probably about where we as a nation operate.

[Freedom2specul8]

"Why would the defense be about to plea bargain guilty and tell where the body is to avoid the death penalty when it would seem Westerfield would have a better chance in trial if the body was never found. (It is possible the body may never have been found) "

Doesn't that depend on who is judging the value of the evidence? I can sure guarantee you, I'm glad the cops et al took the blood, hair, fiber etc., evidence seriously.

[CharacterCounts]

Keep in mind, as this and other similar threads so well demonstrate, the difficulty of getting twelve people to unaminously agree on anything,

[Amore]

1. Just like Washington state, this case isn't being tried in Michigan either. It's a California case; hence, I provided Calif. law in my #217.

2. Don't know why you thought I needed it, but thanks for the lecture. Takes me back to my old crim law class my first year of law school -- OMG! -- exactly 20 years ago. Boy, time flies!

[CharacterCounts]

As far as the legal process goes, of course it deserves scrutiny. I still think that there has to be a legal watchdog group out there that can help you guys

Legal watchdog groups are already in place to scrutinize the legal process. They're called appelate courts.

[JLO]

"Well, obviously, all the questions that I had about inconsistencies have evaporated
into thin air. Westerfield obviouly did this heinous crime..."

Ditto, what you said! I was amazed to hear the news this morning about the plea bargain.

I also had my doubts, but what's to doubt now?

[Freedom2specul8]

That is true..we're talking about conspiracies, and corruption in law enforcement officers, the judicial system and whoever else worked closely in the investigation.

[CharacterCounts]

No lecture was intended. I was just trying to point out the variations in the rule in other states. I thought I was adding to your statements. Time sure does fly. Its been 27 years since my crim law class. Don't think I could, or would, do law school thing again.

[John Jamieson]

I know it. It's amasing that they ever do.

A lot of jurors have second thoughts too. I wonder about that juror #1, she may be in for a tough time as she learns about the doubts that some people have.

[CharacterCounts]

Most State Bar Associations scrutinize lawyers. In most states there is a Judical Tennure Commission of some sort to scrutinize Judges. Usually, a complaint must be filed before these organizaions step in. I don't know if there is an outside organzation that scrutinizes the conduct of police officers.

[John Jamieson]

The press.

The 3 "terrorist"/medstudents sure looked guilty based on false evidence for 17 hours.

2 bomb dog alerts, detenator found, stolen licence plates, running the toll booth. All turned out to be wrong.

[Freedom2specul8]

Although I have to wonder why is it that feldman refused to bring these issues up in court. It's not like he didn't have public dollars paying for his time.

[bvw]

I've been hard on the jury -- I trust the system, generally, yet with a full measure of that truer trust Reagan called "Trust but Verify" -- yet I've seen juries that were "vacationers" -- that took their duty very lackadasically -- prejudicially. In Philadelphia Federal Courts the juries are famed for so favoring the defendant in civil trials because of a general disregard for the seriousness of their duty.

When I saw the two smirking slackers on GVS last night, that threw me on this Jury. They went in looking to convict, and were too easy in the chair before the camera, with no dread aspect seen in their ken.

[marajade]

Have you ever been a juror?

Those jurors followed normal court timeframes...

They came up with the correct decision, what does it matter how long or short it takes?

[lawdog]

Gee, I'm so shocked,shocked I tell 'ya.

[John Jamieson]

As you well know, I expected more from Feldman too. He let me down. I'll have to change my list of preferred lawyers if I ever get in big trouble.

I feel like everyone in this case, Feldman, DW, Dusek, Mudd, the van Dams and all the pizza gang know more about this case than we, or the jurors know.

[John Jamieson]

Under our law it's "correct", no matter what it is. You mean they agreed with you.

[marajade]

"I expected more from Feldman too."

What more could he have done considering he knew his client was guilty?