Skip to comments.
Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found
San Diego Union Tribune ^
| September 17, 2002
| J. Harry Jones
Posted on 09/17/2002 5:28:16 AM PDT by Bug
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 641-655 next last
To: John Jamieson
No, you just didn't like my answer, because unlike me you are obsessed with the press and what they say or (in your mind at least) don't say.
In this day and age the mainstream press is only one channel of information.
If they were so mesmerizing, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't have 20 million listeners and FR wouldn't have 100,000 members.
441
posted on
09/17/2002 7:44:14 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: marajade
Maybe you should move to AZ. Our state bar hardly disciplines any lawyer in our state. Not necessary for me, since I am an ethical attorney. Attorney discipline is probaly pretty uneven throughout the various States.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Despite the jury's recommendation, the judge has the authority to reduce Westerfield's sentence to life without parole, a move that would be rare but not unprecedented for a San Diego judge. I'm hoping the judge will have a heart-to-heart with him,and offer him life without parole in exchange for telling where other bodies were disposed of. I have a hard time believing that this was his first one. Not at his age. I know this won't bring any of them back from the dead,but it may help their greiving parents to finally be able to bury them.
To: Illbay
Another confusing statement by Illbay.
To: John Jamieson
I'm a Florida lawyer, not Calif. tho I've researched a lot of Calif. law regarding this case. In any event, I can certainly tell you the law on this. You're wrong. Even if others were involved that does not, would not, negate DW's conviction.
445
posted on
09/17/2002 7:46:19 PM PDT
by
Amore
To: John Jamieson
So you think that this newspaper is LYING and that no one said anything to them, right?
Most people, when complaining about the press, complain that they embellish the facts with their own spin. I think that's true.
What is "spin" about the straightforward statement "these people told us thus and such"?
That's a statement of fact, or it is a false statement.
To me, it sounds like it's true.
But YOU are saying it is a "four month old press rumor." That would mean that, four months ago, some statement like "unnamed sources allege that..." was made.
That isn't what happened. This paper said "we spoke to LE sources and THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID."
446
posted on
09/17/2002 7:47:23 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: sneakypete
If I'm remembering it right. Judge Mudd was the last to do just exactly that.
To: John Jamieson
It's a technicality I agree, but if DW didn't act alone, the jury should have found him not guilty because he was charged as the lone perp. Any CA lawyers that can verify this?Don't think so. Even if the Jury felt there might be accomplices, they could still find him guilty as long as the evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
To: 11th Earl of Mar
Westerfield is not spring chick. If the state takes 15 years to finally put him to death, he will be 75, IF he lives that long. There is a better than even chance that this man will die of natural causes in his private room.This might be true, but it sure was gratifying to see that child murderer tremble in fear as the death sentence was handed to him.
To: Illbay
I don't see much difference between:
1. "unnamed sources allege that..."
2. "we spoke to LE sources and THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID."
The same conversation could be described either way.
To: Illbay
It was a personal attack. But then, when you have one arrow only in your quiver you do tend to give it many names.
The trial wasn't in the court room as much as it was in the media through a pattern of leaks -- for that explains the almighty sneer of her Nanciness. The evidence presented in the trial, as we followed it these months just does not pass the standard of reasonable doubt, unless one starts from a presumption of guilt.
Do you think that no juror heard of this rumored plea bargain that almost happened? The grapevine seems to have been red hot.
451
posted on
09/17/2002 7:53:16 PM PDT
by
bvw
To: Cultural Jihad
I missed those threads wherein some DU types were proclaiming his innocence Nope,almost all of them were your basic FR "Bush is the new Messiah" Bush-Bot types. They HAD to claim he was innocent so they could justify having the parents given a death penalty for having sex with others.
and decrying how evil Amerika is. Anytime illegal drugs, or orgies, or gunplay with LEOs are involved, they seem to descend out of the trees to whine and bemoan the persecution of these upstanding citizens.
No. It just seems that way to you because there has never been a case in the recorded history of the world where you have ever thought the police were at fault.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I think in a lot of states the bar associations are tougher on unethical lawyers than a state-run, probably under-funded system would be. But it's true that in disciplinary proceedings, as in all aspects of the legal system, the lawyers have the system in their grip, and they're not letting go. This, IMHO, is NOT a good thing.
As for Florida, you get a lot of leeway unless you comingle your funds and clients' trust funds. They'll nail you on that -- hard.
453
posted on
09/17/2002 7:55:21 PM PDT
by
Amore
To: CharacterCounts
Dusek won anway, but it wasn't obvious in the middle of the trial. Why didn't he suggest that an accomplise might explain the lack of evidence in the vD house and the dumping date then?
To: Amore
Wouldn't it cast doubt about who did the actual killing?
To: John Jamieson
The prosecutor proved his case that it was Westerfield who dumped the body why should he prove otherwise?
And if all these press reports are to be believed Westerfield knew where the body was...
To: John Jamieson
"Wouldn't it cast doubt about who did the actual killing?"
No. You have heard of cases where more than one defendant is found guilty for the same crime haven't you?
To: Bug
There are two different issues here: (1) whether DW was in absolute truth the personal perpetrator of DVD's disappearance and death or not; and (2) what went on in the courtroom to get a verdict. If the negotiations with the prosecution are indicative of his true culpability, why didn't that get aired at the trial too? "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."
To: John Jamieson
I have always fought for civil posts (since 98). I may have slipped myself on one or two occations (probably with Kim!), and if so I'm sorry, I know better. Actually I don't fault you per se. I don't fault you at all.
But the posts on this site from the pro-Westerfield crowd to the anti-Westerfield crowd were viscious in extreme.
I spoke up ... not just because I was the target. But more people should have spoken up on the pro-Westerfield side decrying the tactics.
To: drlevy88
" ... why didn't that get aired at the trial too?"
How on earth would he get a fair trial if it had?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 641-655 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson