Evidence On Insects Likely To Continue: (Westerfield Trial "Creeps" Along At An Ant's Pace!)

The fr swinger said it was common knowledge in those "circles"

I believe he said they were divorced now . I do not remember the name does that fit?

My point is that the ussual profile on something like this is the child is killed almost immediately.

I disagree. The point of the prosecution's case is that this is CHILD RAPE PORN. That DW fantasized about having sex with a CHILD. So, he would have to kidnap her, take her somewhere he could not be disturbed, and have sex with her for a while. Then he could murder her, get rid of all the evidence. All these things take time and planning.

He puts her in his SUV

The SUV was taken into custody be the police and thourougly inspected. Dogs were used on it. No evidence of Danielle in the SUV. No hits by the dogs.

You are wrong, or if you say again that negative proof is no proof at all, then we are going to have to either let everyone out of jail, or put everyone in jail.

and drives her to his RV

He drives her to the PRIVATE PROPERTY where he kept his MH, and no one notices, no dogs bark, no one notices he comes in the middle of the night. But they do notice him later that morning. Guess he drove the MH back to their property, again with them noticing it, and parked it, then pulled it out again.

Yeah, just killed a girl. Nothing like heading back home where the police might be searching the neighborhood. Also take the MH to get there. They will never think of looking in it.

vagina but some of it fell on the floor of his RV probably dripped from his penis. I doubt she was in the house. The blood on his jacket was from handling the blanket she was wrapped in and got there by touching it when he took the jacket off.

And the genius that planned this all out didn't notice he dripped blood in his own MH, and had all weekend to search and clean it up, jacket too.

Your theory is so full of holes it looks like a lace doily.

Perhaps John is referring to the argument whether to include the 2nd degree murder charge?

I'd like to see the transcripts of today's hearing, too. They usually aren't available for a couple days, but due to the shortness of today's session maybe they'll be transcribed more quickly.

Well, thanks for that eye-opening info.

SAN DIEGO — Should jurors be allowed to convict David Westerfield of Danielle van Dam's murder and at the same time acquit him of her kidnapping?

A judge in the case says no, according to his tentative ruling Monday.

Judge William Mudd told defense lawyers who had argued for adding the option that he was highly skeptical that the panel could hold Westerfield responsible for the murder and not the abduction.

"The only way the girl gets into the possession of Mr. Westerfield is by kidnapping," Mudd said. "That's the only way."

The defense asked at a conference with prosecutors and the judge Monday that panelists be allowed to consider a second murder charge, first-degree premeditated murder. Such a charge is not linked to kidnapping and requires the prosecution to prove the crime was planned.

Judge Mudd said he was reserving a final decision on the matter until the last witnesses in the two-month trial testify, which is expected later this week.

Someone snatched Danielle from her suburban bedroom last February. Prosecutors allege Westerfield, a neighbor, abducted her and later raped and suffocated her. He faces charges of felony murder, meaning he killed her in the commission of another crime — kidnapping — as well as kidnapping itself and misdemeanor child pornography possession. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

Prosecutor Jeff Dusek urged Mudd to reject the defense's request, saying only felony murder fit the facts of the case.

"It is simply, 'Did you do a kidnapping? Did that child die during the kidnapping,'" said Dusek.

Defense lawyer Robert Boyce argued that without the second murder charge, jurors who had reservations about the abduction part of the prosecution's case might feel pressure to convict if the only alternative was acquittal.

"A juror who believes that the prosecution has proven that Mr. Westerfield is the actual killer, but a juror that has some doubts about how the murder happened or how the girl got where she got" should have an alternative to felony murder, Boyce said.

He pointed to testimony by Danielle's father about her occasional sleepwalking and other speculation that she might have walked away from her home during the night and said it was possible she could have been killed without being kidnapped.

"I’m not saying we are relying on those theories but those theories are certainly out there," he said.

But Mudd shook off those arguments, saying in a loud, agitated voice, "The parents have indicated no one had a permission to take the child out of the house. That’s kidnapping."

Prosecutors expect to complete their rebuttal case Tuesday with the testimony of M. Lee Goff, a forensic entomologist who is expected to attack the findings of two defense insect experts. Those entomologists suggested Danielle’s body was dumped along a roadside after Westerfield was under police surveillance.

Defense lawyer Steven Feldman said depending on how Goff's testimony survives cross-examination, he may call an expert in surrebuttal. That expert, he said, will come from out of state and may not be available until next Monday, significantly delaying closing arguments.

That potential postponement comes as there is increasing concern about the security of jurors and their exposure to news reports about the case. Last week, two jurors saw a man writing down their car license plate numbers, prompting Mudd to blame the media and threaten to close the court to cameras. Additionally, the case of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, who was kidnapped and killed in Orange County, continues to hold a prominent place in the southern California headlines.

After defense lawyer Steven Feldman said he was worried jurors might feel pressure to convict because of their anger at Samantha’s accused killer, a man previously acquitted of molestation charges, Mudd said he still did not think sequestration of the jury was necessary.

As a precaution though, the judge said, he has ordered court official to begin making a contingency plan for sequestration during deliberations.

Comprehensive case coverage

	Trial Coverage 9am-5:00pm ET/PT Today: Calif. v. Westerfield Danielle van Dam Murder Tomorrow: Westerfield continues

	Catherine Crier LIVE 5:00pm: Michael Skakel's appeal Forensic Files 9:00pm: The first criminal case to use DNA evidence 9:30pm: Two boys are viciously attacked Mugshots 10:00pm: The Night Stalker: Richard Ramirez A Los Angeles crime spree that left 13 dead *All times ET/PT

No, you're not confused. You are playing a game. Dusek never, to my knowledge, used the exact words that I used. IMO, he has built his case on the theory that DW had Danielle in the MH. IF you ever read the trial transcripts and get a different take on it, I'll be interested on your opinion.

Latestest transcripts I can find are for last Thursday. Today's? This was all said during the discussion about adding in a 2d degree murder option.

There must be some wishful listening going on around here.

The judge will not allow the jury the option of a finding of guilty to murder, not guilty to kidnapping.
It is the DEFENSE that wants the option.
The judge said that the kidnapping is proven by a verdict of guilt for the murder.

"The only way the girl gets into the possession of Mr. Westerfield is by kidnapping," Mudd said. "That's the only way."

The judge doesn't buy any theories that Danielle sleepwalked to DWs RV, or ran away to sell him cookies.

He drives her to the PRIVATE PROPERTY where he kept his MH, and no one notices, no dogs bark, no one notices he comes in the middle of the night. But they do notice him later that morning. Guess he drove the MH back to their property, again with them noticing it, and parked it, then pulled it out again.

How many times must I post this on my scenario.

In my scenario, HE NEVER DROVE THE GIRL ANYWHERE IN THE RV.

All driving took place in the SUV.

I see you beat me to it - thanks!

And the genius that planned this all out didn't notice he dripped blood in his own MH, and had all weekend to search and clean it up, jacket too.

I believe he not only cleaned it so that the blood wasn't visible to the eye he brought it to the dry cleaners.

I just don't buy that

OK. Since most of the evidence in this case consists of what appears to be cross-contamination, and the statements of witnesses were incorrectly copied by police, and the police admit lying to get a SEARCH WARRANT, and the witnesses for the prosecution have repeatedly lied, I think they could. It has happened again and again.

If you think the police can not get you when you are innocent, then think about how many people get speeding tickets. When they aren't speeding but the laser picks up another vehicle, but the cop decides you are in a closer lane, so he will just give you the ticket.

That is a simple example.

What I am trying to say is that the evidence they have on DW, can be gotten on anyone.

What would you do if someone ran over an old lady, and an eyewitness id's you as the driver? You have no alibi for the time as you were driving and in the area. The paint they find on her clothes is the same color as your car.

You think they can't stick you with it?

"The judge said that the kidnapping is proven by a verdict of guilt for the murder."

Yes, he said that. And he said proof of the kidnapping is also proof of murder under CA law.

Sounds like a classic example of circular reasoning to me.

Dusek never, to my knowledge, used the exact words that I used. IMO, he has built his case on the theory that DW had Danielle in the MH

I don't think any of us know where he is going with the evidence just yet.

However in this case common wisdom about what Dusek said is in error.

Mainly because Dusek couldn't back up his opening statement with evidence. Everyone assumed he was trying to prove DW kidnapped Danielle from her bedroom, took her in the SUV to the MH, and describe what he did with her while she was in captivity, then how and where he killed her, and how / where he dumped the body.

He proved none of this, so we all must have understood his opening statements.

The judge doesn't buy any theories that Danielle sleepwalked to DWs RV, or ran away to sell him cookies

I don;t believe the judge will be a trier of fact. I assume he is saying that the idea that there can be anything but an abduction would need to have been established by evidence or testimony and that not much is going to contradict the parents statements. If however the dfense could have brought forward a witness to contradic the parents like maybe they asked Westerfield to babysit or something then they might have an issue.

Did you hear about yesterday's video of a cop planting a gun on a guy he wanted to arrest? Somewhere in the midwest I think.

Now I am not sure, could be TEACHERS. I think you are right.

I think the reason defense wanted the separate murder charge is that the prosecution would have to prove when, why and how (maybe even premeditation) versus that he kidnapped her and then it does not matter why, how, when she was murdered just that she died. Prosecution would only have to prove she was with him to prove kidnapping and then it does not matter how she died.

"All driving took place in the SUV."

Where is the evidence that Danielle was ever in the SUV? I must have missed that.

Evidence on insects likely to continueTrial winding down; closing statements may be this week

Evidence on insects likely to continue

Trial winding down; closing statements may be this week