Quantcast

Ok their almost done what do you think did westerfield do it

shocktower

shocktower

Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
622
0
Molalla Oregon
Did you follow some of the trial ,do you think the bug evedence is more compelling VS the DNA ,since all the entamologist info is more common in the mid west or areas of high humidity ,or just the Idea that the little girls blood was in the RV and she has never been seen alive again ,also she is a know sleep walker ,and there was no evedence of westerfield entering the house ,but there is some evedence that westerfield had contact with Daniell befroe her demise ,So do you think he did it :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
LeatherFace

LeatherFace

Creepy
Jul 12, 2001
281
0
That old creepy farmhouse you thought was deserted
First of all, the alarm lights were on indicating that a door was open--none of the van Dam family investigated anything when this occurred. Secondly, Danielle's blood/fingerprints/hair could have gotten into the RV at any time, up until her disappearance. What if that evidence was a year old, as opposed to a few months? And most compelling is evidence that shows Westerfield was not in the van Dam home. She was taken and no one heard anything? No one investigated the open screen door? Come on...sounds like a bunch of hooey to me, and a massive media witch hunt. Even if the guy is found innocent (though such a high profile crime with a young victim--not likely) his life is ruined.

I'm not convinced he did it...prosecutors can make up any story and convict someone. And juries! If I was on trial for my life, no way would I want 12 yum-yums deciding my future.
 
bikebabe

bikebabe

Monkey
Jul 31, 2002
133
0
Maryland
And her blood could also get on his jacket? Sure, it could all could be innocent but I think the chances of that are about as high as winning the jackpot in Vegas.

If the jury is aware of the Samantha Runnion case, they will be hard pressed not to convict unless the prosecutors did a lousy job. (though technically they are not supposed to have any outside influences)

Then again, I couldn't believe OJ got off.
 
Heidi

Heidi

Der hund ist laut und braun
Aug 22, 2001
10,184
797
Bend, Oregon
Yep, he did it, I'm convinced. The problem is, did all that damn bug testimony confuse the jury? Were they even awake?
 
LeatherFace

LeatherFace

Creepy
Jul 12, 2001
281
0
That old creepy farmhouse you thought was deserted
Originally posted by bikebabe


If the jury is aware of the Samantha Runnion case, they will be hard pressed not to convict unless the prosecutors did a lousy job. (though technically they are not supposed to have any outside influences)
Click to expand...
But the jury should not convict based on another case. To have that influence their decision would be a mockery of justice. Samantha Runnion has NOTHING to do with the van Dam/Westerfield case. And you would convict someone based on blood on his jacket? Any other convincing evidence?
 
bikebabe

bikebabe

Monkey
Jul 31, 2002
133
0
Maryland
Originally posted by LeatherFace


But the jury should not convict based on another case.
Click to expand...
Ethically they should not. A jury should base it's decision ONLY on the evidence presented. Now I'm going to get myself in a jam because this argument can be turned around----but if juries based their verdicts only on evidence then why are innocent people in jail?

Realistically, a lot more than just the evidence goes into deciding the case---personal experience, values, predjudices. Actually all that goes into interpreting the evidence too. We're told to leave our predjudices the door but not many people can---and those that say they can are probably not being honest with themselves. That's one of the reasons so much time and effort goes into selecting the jurors.

Obviously the only story of the Van Dam/ Westerfield case I heard, was the one the media presented. From that, there are too many "coincidences" to make me believe that Westerfield didn't at least have a part in her murder. DNA evidence and his activities after her diappearance are pretty damning.

Waiting for the verdict.......
 
LeatherFace

LeatherFace

Creepy
Jul 12, 2001
281
0
That old creepy farmhouse you thought was deserted
Originally posted by bikebabe


Ethically they should not. A jury should base it's decision ONLY on the evidence presented. Now I'm going to get myself in a jam because this argument can be turned around----but if juries based their verdicts only on evidence then why are innocent people in jail?

Realistically, a lot more than just the evidence goes into deciding the case---personal experience, values, predjudices. Actually all that goes into interpreting the evidence too. We're told to leave our predjudices the door but not many people can---and those that say they can are probably not being honest with themselves. That's one of the reasons so much time and effort goes into selecting the jurors.

Click to expand...
That's why I don't think jury trials are effective. I wouldn't want someone to convict me based on his or her prejudices. And juries aren't selected carefully--they are selected by the attorneys, who hope they will have a jury they can pursuade. That's why when there is a capital case, they don't want someone who doesn't believe in the death penalty.

Like I said, I don't want 12 yum-yums deciding my fate, who have no experience with law or the criminal justice process. I think innocent people are in jail because of jury bias...but of course, I think the entire CJ system is flawed and corrupt, so you will find me supporting little to no of the processes that surround it.
 
Damn True

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
couple of thoughts:

a) How might someone "accidentilly" get the childs blood on his jacket by anything other than nefarious means?

b) Jury trial. I'll take the collective subjectivity of 12 citizens over that of some political apointee. It ain't perfect, but it sure beats any alternative I know of.
 
El Jefe

El Jefe

Dr. Phil Jefe
Nov 26, 2001
793
0
OC in SoCal
Originally posted by LeatherFace


But the jury should not convict based on another case. To have that influence their decision would be a mockery of justice. Samantha Runnion has NOTHING to do with the van Dam/Westerfield case. And you would convict someone based on blood on his jacket? Any other convincing evidence?
Click to expand...
"They found her hair -- Danielle van Dam's hair -- in his bed, on the pillow, on the top sheet, on the bottom sheet." Umm, sure, he had her here for an innocent sleep over? no way.

"Westerfield appeared at a dry cleaner's wearing no shoes or socks, and carrying a comforter with hair on it from the van Dams' dog." - he was in their house, no doubt about it.

"A day after taking a trip in his recreational vehicle, Westerfield also gave the cleaners a jacket which a DNA analyst said was spotted with Danielle's blood. Investigators also found Danielle's blood and fingerprints in Westerfield's recreational vehicle." - yeah, it was left unlocked, but still, it is one more set of circumstances pointing to Westerfield.

"The reports also contain Westerfield's explanation for once using the plural "we" in describing his trip, although he claimed to be alone. When an interrogation specialist questioned the comment, according to the report, Westerfield said that 'we' was just a slip." " - that's a slip for sure. He slipped up in trying to hide the fact that he had a dead or nearly dead little girl in his RV.

Westerfield knew a lot more about the van Dam family and their habits, lifestyle than someone who'd never been to the house.

There was a lot more circumstantial stuff pointing to Westerfield that was broadcast on TV before the trial that seemed to disappear once the trial began - likely because of motions to exclude / suppress from the defense.

This guy is guilty.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget the kiddy porn stash they found during the search of his house.:angry:
 
fourgivn1

fourgivn1

Monkey
May 8, 2002
439
0
Somewhere near 37 degrees, 19 minutes North, and 7
Originally posted by LeatherFace


That's why I don't think jury trials are effective. I wouldn't want someone to convict me based on his or her prejudices. And juries aren't selected carefully--they are selected by the attorneys, who hope they will have a jury they can pursuade. That's why when there is a capital case, they don't want someone who doesn't believe in the death penalty.

Like I said, I don't want 12 yum-yums deciding my fate, who have no experience with law or the criminal justice process. I think innocent people are in jail because of jury bias...but of course, I think the entire CJ system is flawed and corrupt, so you will find me supporting little to no of the processes that surround it.
Click to expand...
I'm in total agreement with this one. In principle I don't have a problem with juries or a justice system, but in reality I have a HUGE problem with it. My father's entire divorce and the things that followed it are a perfect example of this. True, it's not the CRIMINAL justice system, but it's still 'justice.' (Yes, the quotes denote sarcasm. :D)
 
mikec918

mikec918

Chimp
Aug 22, 2001
89
0
Virginia
Why I agree our justice system could use some inprovement. I do think it better then what most countries around the world have.

Some things I would change.

The use of confession to convict people for capital crimes. With a little bit of time I could get most people to confesse to killing JFK.

Use of jail house informers who testifie (SP) in exchange for lighter sentences.
 
Heidi

Heidi

Der hund ist laut und braun
Aug 22, 2001
10,184
797
Bend, Oregon
Originally posted by LeatherFace
Penalty phase starts next week. I say give him life, but throw him in with the rest of the prison population. Convicts don't like child killers--they will take care of him. And that's less money for us to spend on executing him.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Damn True

Damn True

Monkey Pimp
Sep 10, 2001
4,015
3
Between a rock and a hard place.
Originally posted by LeatherFace
Penalty phase starts next week. I say give him life, but throw him in with the rest of the prison population. Convicts don't like child killers--they will take care of him. And that's less money for us to spend on executing him.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I could probably get some polypropyline rope for about $0.50 a foot at home depot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom