[bvw]

(1) Westerfield was railroaded. The case wasn't made against him, except by encouraging a mindset of "presumption of guilt" and insisting that the defense prove he didn't do it.

(2) The Jury -- at least the two seen on Van Sustern last night, were (imo) slacker spoiled brats, all to willing to buy in to the railroading. That can and does heppen -- not every jury is perfect, and that's why we have a system of appeals.

(3) If this thread is anything, it is a demonstration of the pack mentality at work. There are packs on both sides of the issue. If anyone counts themselves as a memebr of either side without looking hard into the case himself -- well, that person is no help to anyone and hasn't anything but discord to the threads. And, I think a *statiscal* count will show -- (admittedly I'm not making one, just stating a close observer's hunch) -- that the posters most willing to state and restate an "opnion" on the case without any evidence of self-study in the case are the hang-em-high crowd. Is Free Republic become a haven and home of a bunch of cheerleaders and a yapping mob of followers?

* * * * *

If Westerfield did murder the girl, why was this trial such a farce? Most on this thread so far say "Justice" was served -- and if he did murder, that is true to some extent, yet even in that case why was this trial as much a farce as the OJ trial? A prejudiced jury in that OJ trial returned the verdict by seemingly according to its prejudice, and a prejudiced jury in this Westerfield trial returned its verdict seemingly according to its prejudice.

The bug evidence was given by the field's best experts -- it is not so dismissable as the two jury dilettantes let have in their interview -- and there are dozens and dozens of men and women convicted on the basis of it's science. The folks who casually deride it -- that is foolish.

Who says Westerfield is innocent? Those who want to mock unfairly those -- like me -- who believe that according to the standards of presumption of innocence requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a proper verdict was "Not Guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt]".

[First Conservative]

My sentiments also. I sure hope he was the killer, cause he will eventually pay the price for this crime - whether or not he really did it. (If someone else was the real culprit, can anyone imagine that fact ever coming to light in this lifetime?)

I believe the railroad whistle has sounded and the holdout jurors - both phases - were overwhelmed by the others - in violation of their oaths. You supporters of these verdicts better hope you are never accused of a crime.

[Helen]

Thank you for saying that.

One of the aspects of this trial that troubles me is Dusek's comment that the prosecution didn't have to prove anything. Danielle was dead and HE did it and that was all they needed to be concerned about. What a blow to our system of justice and the presumption of innocence and the delicate balance between the rule of law and anarchy!

[NYCVirago]

Who says Westerfield is innocent? Those who want to mock unfairly those -- like me -- who believe that according to the standards of presumption of innocence requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that a proper verdict was "Not Guilty [beyond a reasonable doubt]".

Gimme a break -- you won't even concede that Danielle was murdered!