An Absolute Disgrace in the Murder Trial of Danielle Van Dam

foxnews.com ^ | Bill O'Reilly

[rintense]

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

An absolute disgrace in the murder trial of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points memo.

According to a report in The San Diego Union Tribune, convicted killer David Westerfield's attorneys, Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, knew their client was guilty.

[rintense]

This is how Bill began his show last night... and went on the completely slam the Westerfield lawyers. He was spot on in his assessment and his anger is completely justified. My highlights are in bold.

[rintense]

PING!

[bvw]

You's love Joe Stalin, wouldn't you? The State knows best!

Dah, Commisar, we hail the wisdom of the Ruling Class!

[areafiftyone]

I saw it last night. Boy was he going at it. I thought he was going have a brain hemorrhage!

[Dante3]

I totally agree this time with O'Reilly (as well as on his stand on our military protecting our borders). After these two outrages, juries will tend to dismiss anything a defense lawyer says.

The losers are not only the defense lawyers and what little credibility they had, but any innocent person who might be falsely charged. Juries just might tune out whatever arguments his lawyer makes.

[winodog]

I wonder how bill would reform our justice system? Did he just arrive in America yesterday?
I believe this is one reason (amongst many) people hate lieyers.
It isnt perfect but it is the best one going.

[Nephi]

That was quite an episode last night and I believe Bill is right. This is why, though I disagree with him on many issues, I am glad he has his forum.

[kellynla]

You had to see him to appreciate it. For the first time in my life I actually saw a talk show host on live television get out of control. I mean this guy went ballistic! He was totally out of control! They went to commercial and went they got back he had contol. But during the interview he looked like he was going to blow a gasket at any second.

[Boxsford]

I know you're not a lawyer but know you know something about lawyer ethics and law. Any thoughts here?

[Aquinasfan]

Bill also mentioned the statute that was violated. It was Bill at his best and the reason why I still tune in despite his incoherent stand on homosexuality and his ignorance of religion.

[scouse]

I still think that both of those lawyers should be charged with being accessories AFTER the fact.

[rintense]

*YAWN*

[Dante3]

Good for Bill! It's about time people start showing outrage.

[Steven W.]

he (O'Reilly) was also put off by the Feldman comment along the lines of "except for his quick 3 day rape & molest & killing binge, Westerfield is really a great member of society"

[rintense]

He actually mentioned on a show a while back how *he* would overhaul the justice system. I forget the details, but he's all for letting criminals rot in jail rather than get off easy with the death penalty.

[Texas_Jarhead]

what in the hell are you talking about?

[Quilla]

You've got to admit, he did warn them:

"On a personal note, if I ever run into these guys I will verbally let them have it and I don't care where I am."

[Whilom]

Hey, wait a minute. It you took lying away from defense attorneys, all they'd have left is their high self-esteem.

[MJY1288]

I watched O'Reilly last night, And I've never seen him that P*ssed off before. It was justified.

[Nephi]

I wonder how bill would reform our justice system?

Reform isn't needed, just enforce the rule for attorney conduct he quoted:

Rule 5200 states, "A lawyer shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." An artifice means making something up.

[bvw]

Something a modern royalist like rintense would not understand. Liberty.

[gcruse]

 He was spot on in his
assessment and his anger is completely justified

No, he isn't.  Whether a defense attorney believes
his client to be guilty or not, he has to provide him
with the best defense he is capable of providing.
O'Reilly is showing massive ignorance.

The state has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that a defendant is guilty.  Just because
he has confided guilt to his attorney makes
no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the
charges.

[YaYa123]

I watched O'Reilly's head explode last night. Great television, and I've no doubt his anger and disgust is real. But his argument is beside the point to me... I don't know from nuttin bout no stinking defense attorneys. What interests me is how anyone could still think Westerfield is innocent, after we've been told he wanted to cop a plea.

24 hours after the story appeared in the San Diego paper, and nobody, but nobody has denied it. No body!! Not even an anonymous source speaking on behalf of the defense.

The world's goobers can argue OJ's innocence all they like, but Westerfield's guilt seems to me, a sure thing.

[Chemnitz]

Good for O'Reilly.

[rintense]

Yes, quite obviously you are a much better American than I. Folks like me have ruined the country and should probably move to Canada.

Next time, before spouting off, why not do a bit of research before practicing the politics of personal distruction. But then again, that might be too hard for you. It's always easier to condemn folks without knowing your facts.

[rintense]

Well, if the statute that Bill cited is true, then these lawyers have willingly violated the oath they took. True, this isn't about the failure of the judicial system, but a failure of lawyers to do their job in an ethical manner.

[bvw]

What is the basis for your support of O'Reilly's rave?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Rule 5200 states, "A lawyer shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law." An artifice means making something up.

Artifice in this context means falsified or fabricated evidence. Positing a alternative theory of the crime is one way to force the state to prove its own theory and not "artifice," in my opinion.

[MrB]

The lawyers have a duty to be truthful, but they also must do their best to defend their client.
If a defense lawyer does not provide the best defense possible (short of unethical behavior), the defendant could get free due to a mistrial.
Now that would be an outrage.

Don't misconstrue my comment here. These guys were unethical, and should be held accountable.

[cynicalman]

The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty. Just because he has confided guilt to his attorney makes no difference, if he pleads not guilty to the charges.

An attorney must do his best to make sure the prosecution proves it case beyond a reasonable doubt. The attorney can do this by challenging every bit of evidence BUT that means making the prosecution prove it case not making up or suggesting to the jury a set of facts that is known to the attorney to be false and misleading.

In the VanDam case the attorney could have challanged the DNA testing, the credibility of the witnesses, the method of collecting the evidence. But knowing he was guilty what was relevancy of the VanDam lifestyle.?

[rintense]

I disagree. Would justice have been served if the jury found him not guilty, and this SAME report had been released? See, I believe, as a lawyer, you can still provide the best defense possible without compromising your ethics and the oath you swore. Westerfield's lawyers did nothing remotely close to this. Of course, this is probably why I never became a laywer.

[McGavin999]

Modern royalist? Oh, how clever. I'll bet you're one of those totally brilliant anarchists aren't you? Pretty easy to spot these days, especially when posting with people who have average or better IQ's. You're the ones posting moronic posts, babbling incoherently, and generally making a public laughingstock out of yourselves.

Good job, keep it up you provide some much needed laughter these days.

[NautiNurse]

Looks like O'Reilly isn't finished with the subject yet. He has one of the jurors scheduled to be on the show tonight.

[rintense]

Completely agree. Just basically stated the same thing.

[MJY1288]

"Something a modern royalist like rintense would not understand. Liberty."

Another mental midget who feels the need to give someone an idiot lesson about "liberty". And you useless libertarians wonder why you're irrelevant.

[bvw]

Oh and by that sword hanging over their head, few the lawyer would dare argue a case where perchance he might be strung up for the state's or the mob's view that he should have known his client was guilty. That's a lot of cases, and many the innocent riding on the rail you carry by making it.

[djreece]

Amen, O'Reilly.

It's time to bring justice back to the court system.

[rintense]

The actions of Westerfield's lawyers, in my opinion, were completely unethical. As such, they should be held accountable for their actions. And that is the basis of my support for O'Reilly's rant.

[STD]

Gotta have a brain for a hemmorhage

[McLynnan]

O'Reilly almost stroked out and he had a blood vessel in his temple that was visibly throbbing. He's absolutely right. Defense attorneys are obligated to put on the best possible defense for their clients, but they are NOT permitted to fabricate stories about other parties to the case. Westerfield's attorneys knew he was guilty, yet they blatantly pointed the finger of blame at the Van Dam's and their houseguests because they couldn't find a feasible reason to explain away the mountan of forensic evidence. I don't condone the Van Dam's lifestyle, but they weren't the ones on trial for murder. Nothing they do in their private life is a justification for the murder of their child.

[bvw]

Forgive me for daring question the unimpeachable wisdom of the State and the magnificant bureaucracies that make it up. I should know my betters!

[rintense]

Excellent points. In fact, if I recall, O'Reilly himself questioned the parent's lifestyle.

[gcruse]

as a lawyer, you can still provide the best
defense possible without compromising your ethics

I applaud your ethos and agree with you.  However,
I have been on both ends of the stick, and prosecutors
use 'artifice' every bit as much as defense attorneys do.  I don't
know how flagrant it has to be to be actionable, but
with the stuff that goes on every day in the courts, this
one doesn't stand out at all, unfortunately.

[demsux]

I lost interest in No'Reilly after about 2 shows. He's a blow-hard that appeals to people that can't think for themselves, much like whorealdo, zahn, etc.

[Salvey]

Precisely why I retired from the bar early. Good riddance to them all; may they rot in hell.

[justshe]

Seems like you have an admirer....NOT! Interesting that he is more determined to attack you, then debate the topic of the thread. His POV, literally, is NOT on the ball....lol.

I saw the show last night. O'R was even MORE upset than the night he interviewed WSJ editor.

I agree...he was right on the money.

[rintense]

Well, I'm sure on the whole, lawyers are pretty ethical (did I just say that???). But it's the ambulance chasers, in it for a buck and fame, etc. types, that make all laywers look like sharks. Happens in most professions, I'm sure.

And yes, maybe Bill is using the high profile cases as his basis for wanting to overhaul the justice system. But what about the thousands of cases where the law is followed and justice is served correctly? For the record, I don't think the justice systems need to be overhauled. Just hold the repugnant few accountable for their actions to set an example for the rest. Sounds a bit like corporate responsibility...

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

It's difficult to join a thread where I find myself in disagreement with people with whom I usually agree.

Many who have weighed in on this trial only know what the media has reported; they did not watch it from beginning to end.

Furthermore, this story HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED and that fact was emphasized last night on local San Diego news. Since when do we fall all over ourselves with UNCONFIRMED reports and treat them as gospel truth?

The van Dams, themselves, were asked about this story in an interview yesterday. They said they knew nothing of it and "you can't believe everything you hear on the news."

There have been a variety of opinions about the guilt or innocence of David Westerfield, but unless an individual actually witnessed the trial in its entirety, the opinion is only a parroting of the news.

O'Reilly made a huge issue of something that has not been verified. I think that is an outrage, in and of itself.

[rintense]

Well, it's like attacking the messenger and not the message. O'Reilly gets that quite a bit, as does Rush, Hannity, Buchanan, etc... There are, however, some on FR who will challenge the message while questioning the messenger. Now those are the interesting debates.

[rintense]

Well, *if* he is right, then I am outraged. *If* he has blown this way out of proportion and it can be proven as such, then I will apologize, and then BLAST O'Reilly for not reporting the facts- only spin. I give credit where it's do, and call a spade a spade.