Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

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

[marajade]

I would sincerely hope all the naysayers out there feel pretty silly now that this has come out...

But maybe I'm just getting my hopes up...

Remember how I got creamed because I thought he was guilty just on the fingerprints alone?

[BunnySlippers]

That was the welcoming committee don't ya know.

Maybe it's just me. But I think that anyone who sits on the side without pointing out the problem is PART of the PROBLEM. There were a lot of problems here and no one that I know of (there may have been some) from the Westerfield crowd minded the massacre.

[John Jamieson]

Yes, the jury has spoken. Now, I want to know if anyone else is involved.

[Freedom2specul8]

Yes it did drive people away. But you know what? Some folks are not use to defending their position and take it hard when they are forced to. My oldest daughter took debate courses..and one of the major things they did was prepare prepare prepare do defend their stances. The hardest thing they had to do was defend that which they did not agree with. YikEs. Can you imagine switching sides just to see what it's like in this case?

[Freedom2specul8]

Well, my definition of lively discussion excluded the insults. :(

[marajade]

"Now, I want to know if anyone else is involved."

Give it up man... it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference...

[BunnySlippers]

Not unremitting, but too often, and I've defended her, when I saw it. I think she is really tough, but a sweetheart underneath it all.

I'm happy to hear of your support. But your most vocal members of the Westerfield Club were the biggest offenders. What exactly was their problem?

[marajade]

"What exactly was their problem?"

Please don't take this the wrong way because I'm teasing but they came across as some kind of cultists...

[bvw]

Tell Kim that I already have a "Cretin" award named after me. I am not willing to share the Title.

... Being called cretin is not so funny. But what is the best response? Generally I look to Winston Churchill for advice in being rejected. He would say .... well what he would say is pretty obvious and I'm not doing him any honor by repeating it in this present context. That's my advice.

And here's my own advice: Hang in there. Do what you think is right, but avoid worrying about any conspiracies against you. Bop if banged and bang if bopped. Don't save up any bops and bangs for later use -- they don't age well at all. And you don't have to bop or bang back when banged or bopped a lot of times. Don't send someone else to do your bopping or banging for you. If you can't do it yourself, don't bother at all.

This is a ramble, I'm up too late.

[BunnySlippers]

Please don't take this the wrong way because I'm teasing but they came across as some kind of cultists...

I agree absolutely. That's why I call them the "Squeakies" after Squeaky Fromm.

[John Jamieson]

"feel pretty silly now"

Why would anyone feel silly because of information that was NOT available at the time of their decision making?

I don't that agree yet that DW "confessed", but if he did it doesn't bother me. My argument was with inadequate evidence during the trial to convince me of his guilt.

Maybe I just have a higher standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" than most people.

[marajade]

"That's why I call them the "Squeakies" after Squeaky Fromm."

LOL

[marajade]

There was enough information out there without this to come to the same conclusion as the jury did...

[John Jamieson]

"it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference..."

It could save some young childs life.

[marajade]

"Maybe I just have a higher standard of 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' than most people."

Well as a juror you follow the judges instructions as to what constitutes reasonable doubt because if you don't you fail to do what you are sworn to do as a juror.

[John Jamieson]

Yes, for many people, but not all.

[marajade]

"It could save some young childs life."

Did you hear to read about any evidence that either side presented that supports your theory?

[Amore]

It wouldn't matter if there were others because the aider and abettor doctrine in Calif. makes aiders and abettors liable for their accomplices' actions as well as their own. "It obviates the necessity to decide who was the aider and abettor and who the direct perpetrator or to what extent each played which role." People v. McCoy, 24 P.3d 1210, 1215-17 (Cal. 2001).

[marajade]

"Yes, for many people, but not all."

See my post 515

[Freedom2specul8]

"But I think that anyone who sits on the side without pointing out the problem is PART of the PROBLEM."

That's a fair statement... unfortunately, there was the one for all and all for one mentality. Bring on the wrath of the thread monster if you dare correct anyone in public. :-\