Westerfield's Fate In Hands Of Jury: VERDICT WATCH BEGINS in Van Dam Murder Case

CourtTV ^ | August 8, 2002 | CourtTV

[FresnoDA]

Jury's hands After two months of hearing evidence, jurors have begun deliberating the fate of David Westerfield, who is accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam

[JudyB1938]

Just trying to relieve a little pressure around here waiting for the jury to get back, old sort. Operating Room Humor, you might say.

[Howlin]

Well, everybody knows Nancy Grace lies; tell me something new.

[the Deejay]

Snarly Lips isn't on the jury, nor did she 'speak' to them. And the jury knows where DW lived in conjunction to the vdams. If any of them have forgotten, they have the airial views in the jury room

[oremus]

Can anyone tell me - if he is acquitted, will anyone actually take a look at Damon, the BLUE DAM VAN, his strange instructions to the searchers, his visit to Dehesa @ 2/16, the friend, the talk of him having gone out to paintball that night??? Why haven't they already??? Too many things to wonder about. I am really on the fence - primarily concerned that the wrong guy could be convicted here. I don't give a rat's butt whether I'M right or wrong, I want the RIGHT GUY. And these VanDams WERE a little too concerned about THEMSELVES and acquiring new clothes and expensive cars and their image than their "missing" daughter, IMHO. Puhleeeeease!

2nd question: I thought the DNA on the jacket was found to not necessarily be blood - yet they kept calling it blood?

[the-gooroo]

Of course you're right. My only point was that I agree that Nasty is a big fat liar. And she does it with such glee.

[UCANSEE2]

They wouldn't ask to be sequestered this early.

The JURY already asked the JUDGE to SEQUESTER them and HE REFUSED.

[JudyB1938]

Did I miss something? Did everybody meet in the courtroom yet? I thought they were supposed to do it at 1:30? Help. I'm lost.

[demsux]

heading to the cardinal game...just bookmarking for later reading

[Neenah]

I thought they were supposed to do it at 1:30? Help. I'm lost.

They were a little over a half hour late, waiting for everyone to get into court.

All it was, was the jury requested to work 5 days a week instead of 4 days. The judge said that they would work 5 days, but would not publish what hours they would be.

Kind of sounds like they have anticipated a long deliberation, to me. Also, they want to work on Friday's to keep going, instead of a 3 day weekend.

[small_l_libertarian]

Judy - everyone went back into the courtroom and the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT was that the jury would deliberate 5 days a week and not 4. That's it.

[KnutCase]

Judy....yes they met. Result: the jury sais they will meet five days a week, not four. They also told the judge that they will not announce time they start or time they will quit for the day, nor will they announce when and what times they will take lunch or breaks. In other words, since the judge refuses to sequester them, they in essence are imposing a type of "sequestering" on themselves and to hell with the judge or media. They simply do not want media pressure or constantly be watched by the press or anyone else. Good for them.

[JudyB1938]

All that hullabaloo for that? It was so insignifcant that I didn't think that was what it was.

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I can go do something else for a minute.

[small_l_libertarian]

It doesn't necessarily mean that they anticipate a long deliberation - they may think they can get it done in a day and want to get it over with tomorrow, rather than wait until Monday.

[the Deejay]

That's the reason, during this trial, I don't have
court tv on. A few times I did during hearings out
of the presence of the jury, but muted commercials
and hosts. (I keep aggrevation out of my life.)

[UCANSEE2]

I thought the DNA on the jacket was found to not necessarily be blood - yet they kept calling it blood?

the DNA on the carpet, on the jacket.

12 of 13 markers matched.

Now, what does that mean to you?

The 'expert' stated that a perfect match meant 1 out of a jillion people were who that DNA belonged. BUt THE EXPERT didn't say this was a perfect match. According to another poster it takes 25 markers matching to make an exclusionary match.

SO, the DNA evidence was a TOTAL SHAM !

[KnutCase]

I agree...they did not want to take Friday off because they may be fairly close to a decision and think that a three day weekend may cause second thoughts among some jurors. In other words, let's get it done now..not drag it out forever.

[small_l_libertarian]

Actually, I think it was the hair in the sink drain trap that matched 12 out of 13 markers. What I find important about this piece of evidence is that the evidence technician testified that over time a DNA marker can degrade, so you might not get a match on a particular marker. OVER TIME, a DNA marker can degrade. How much time? Do you think her DNA degraded (any of it) in a weekend? You have to believe that to believe that the hair proves that she was in the motorhome the weekend she was killed. Otherwise, it's an old hair. Period.

[small_l_libertarian]

Whoops, correction. It's not necessarily an old hair if you don't believe that her DNA degraded in a weekend. It could also be her mother's or one of her brothers' hair. Their DNA would be lose to hers, but not an exact match.

[oremus]

Are you serious??? Then why didn't Feldman bring that up, or did he?

[small_l_libertarian]

Whoops again. lose = close.

I'm gonna stop now.