And the purpose of this post was??? Discrediting you as a source of reliable thought and presentation of the truth in this (or any) case? Bringing into question the credentials of a presenter of fact? Since Westerfield was found guilty, is this post somehow supposed to create doubt as to your credibility on any level?

I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.

Using that expression of doubt or concern against someone in the discussion of another case (Ramsey), leaves a lot of room for any thoughtful person to wonder about motive. It certainly leaves ME wondering about MOTIVE and (right or wrong) I see it as an attempt at discrediting and as a way to distract/detract from any truths Jameson may bring to the table in this case. What other purpose does it serve?