WESTERFIELD GUILTY!

SS

[maeng]

JUST ANNOUNCED, WESTERFIELD GUILTY IN VAN DAM CASE.

[Bad~Rodeo]

With Special Circumstances, although he's still eligible for the Death Penalty.

[Lucas1]

Special Cirmumstances MEANS he IS eligible for the death penalty...that has always been my understanding at least?

[Sacajaweau]

I was listening to the "bug" evidence in the trial which amused me since it was something similar to what was on a CSI program (a copycat attorney).

But the forensic evidence was overwhelming.

I'm pleased with the verdict...it's one less sicko that is on the streets.

Sac

[Dimensio]

Quite a bit of the defense arguments were 'amusing' in a dark sort of way, especially how they blamed the parents for leading a lifestyle that put their children at risk -- as though that has any bearing on who actually killed Danielle or wether or not Westerfield was guilty.

[b4its2late]

Good. About time.

[Valpal1]

what was the verdict on the porn charge?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Curious, my post WESTERFIELD GUILTY WAS POSTED AT 11:16 but was deleted after 10 posts. What gives AM?

[dd5339]

OOOrah! Give this freak the gas chamber and let him burn in h*ll!

Semper Fi!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Yes, of COURSE the fact that the parents were having multiple strangers over for drug and sex orgies was not "putting their children at risk". How silly of those of us who thought so- but thanks for setting us straight.

Anyway, good result- a California jury manages to get one right, against all odds...

[ken5050]

I'll wager that it was one juror that was holding out the whole time, and the others worked to convince him/her.....

[Bad~Rodeo]

Hmmm, scratching head. Have to research it,being Left-Coast law and all

[Bad~Rodeo]

Guilty on all 3 charges

[wndycndy]

GUILTY!

[southern rock]

Yes, of COURSE the fact that the parents were having multiple strangers over for drug and sex orgies was not "putting their children at risk".

LOL! Absolutely. IMO, the Van Damm's lifestyle was all the reasonable doubt necessary to aquit ANYONE of this crime. I'm not sure I could have come back with a guilty verdict, had I been on the jury.

[Dimensio]

Er, I wasn't arguing that the defense argument was false, I was only pointing out that even if the statement is true, it would not have any bearing on Westerfield's guilt or innocence. Danielle van Dam was murdered. Whomever killed her is the murderer. That her parents might have put her in an at-risk situation would not make the one who killed her any less of a murderer.

[Enterprise]

In order to be able to get a death penalty, when the prosecution files the case and state it is with "special circumstances." If they file a case without asking for "special circumstances" they would not get a death penalty. Perhaps you were thinking of a phrase like "mitigating circumstances."

[pikachu]

Okay, now let us cast the TV movie:

Westerfield: David Ogden Styers (would have been Jack Nicholson but subject is probably sore after his days with Roman Polanski)

Mrs. Van Dam: Heather Locklear or Anna Nicole Smith

Mr. Van Dam: Doesn't really matter

Danille: Olsen Twins or Britany Spears

Defense attorney: Steve Buscemi or Tony Schalub

Prosecutor: Some rehashed LA Law actor And Martin Sheen as the man who blames it all on the Republicans.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

I agree with you- the defense HAD to bring up the parents deviant lifestyle, because it introduced the possibility that any one of their "guests" could have committed this crime.

When the jurors are interviewed by the press(something I have always opposed, BTW), I think you will find that the childs palmprint found near the bed in his camper was THE deciding factor- absent that evidence, he would have walked!

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

Well, I went back and reread your post #5- and I can't interpret it any other way than as some sort of dismissive attitude towards the parents miserably poor judgement and abberancy. I am glad to see you backtracking so quickly, though- it shows that, at some level, you know were wrong.