Does it matter?

[xMorganx]

In San Diego Ca. the trial of the accused murderer of seven year old Danillele Van Dam entered it's third day today. I was looking over some news reports of the testomony given so far and it seems that the defense of David Westerfield is trying to say that the "altrenate" lifestyle the Van Dam parents lived could be the cause of her disappearence and murder.

The parents basicly smoked marijuana the night of her disappearence. Mrs. Van Dam went to a bar with friends then after returning home her husband admits to sleeping with one of her friends with his wifes knowledge.

So my question is this my open minded friends? does ones lifestyle choises matter in this case. I mean unless the defense can prove that their behavior caused her disappearence then why should this matter. Granted i know it is a defense tactic, but it seems...well i am not sure what it means. I just want to know everyone elses opinion,.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

You aren't supplying enough information. A judge wouldn't allow a defense attorney to present that defense unless the credibility of the parents entered into the case somehow. Apparently the Judge has already determined that, in this case, it does (though I doubt it really plays into the matter).

So the question of "does it matter" must coincide with the specific points of the case.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[TN_Vixen]

I agree with the other legal minds who have discussed the defense attorney's tactic of drawing the jury's attention to the lifestyle of the parents rather than focusing on the very real issue that a little girl was kidnapped & murdered, will backfire on him.

DNA evidence of the little girl was found all over the inside of this guy's RV and evidence of capet fibers from his RV on her body. Anything the defense attorney says about smoking pot & swinging will do nothing to take away from that.

 

[*bratcat*]

 

[alvin462]

All I know is ,the girl is dead and someone should pay!

 

[enjoyingitall]

This trial is being covered by the media here in great detail. I watched part of the mother's testimony. It was heartbreaking.

I'm sure the defense thinks bringing in the couple's lifestyle is going to cast some sort of blemish on the parents. But, when people here in town discuss this, I have yet to hear anyone say it would sway them. As of yet, the defense has not shown that their behavior endangered or neglected the child.

 

[Bluesboy2]

What the hell does that have to do

With the fact he killed her. As a juror I would be pissed at that bullshit!

 

[xMorganx]

Re: What the hell does that have to do

I agree with you guys on this. I mean why the hell should the fact you enjoy pot or swining have anyhting to do with it.

Personally i think there is no way a jury could not convict him. He was convienently out of town and like it was said fibers from his RV were everywhere. Plus i guess they found tons of child porn in his house.which is annother aspect of the case

 

[bored1]

The parents life style has nothing to do with the fact that the girl was murdered. The defense attorney is doing what he can to divert attention and responsibility from his client. It wont work.

 

[Northern Lights]

A common defense is to throw many possibilities at a jury in the hopes that at least one sticks. Worst case, it misdirects the jury's focus from the basic facts. It appears in this case that the defense doesn't have a plausible defense of the scumbag, which is a good indicator that his ass is grass.

I don't believe that the parents behavior endangered the child's safety in any way.

 

[Siren]

the defense is doing what it can to deflect attention away from client