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

[Politicalmom]

ALL fiber testimony was "may or may not" be from the same source. The fibers were not subjected to the most accurate test, either.

[Green]

Speaking for myself only, I have never seen a clerk at a dry cleaner look over my clothes for stains when I drop my clothes off. The lack of noticing the stain by the clerk really doesn't seem odd to me. If I specifically point out a stain, then of course they mark the stain to be cleaned. Otherwise, they grab the clothes and clip the tag on and away they go. The clerks don't appear to me to be interested in looking every piece of article of clothing for stains. Also, I haven't noticed whether anyone has said what color the jacket was that had the stain on it? Was it in a very visible location that would have stood out to someone?

[small_l_libertarian]

Also, two of the detectives who were also at the van Dam house sat in the SUV for some time at Westerfield's house. They could have transferred the orange fibers if the source is/was in the vD house.

[UCANSEE2]

Also on the stand Wednesday, was DNA analyst, Mitchell Holland, from Bode Technologies in Virginia. He testified that the blond hair found in the bathroom sink of Westerfield's motorhome matches the DNA of Danielle van Dam. Holland also testified that DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim. Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. When asked about the bloodstain, Holland told prosecutors that the chances were "one in 660 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA. "Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered.

I am glad you posted this SPUNKY.

NOW, it is one thing when the Prosecutor asks questions to get a desired answer. It is another if you ask if different question. (why didn't Feldman, I don't know).

DNA extracted from a bloodstain in David Westerfield's motorhome matches the profile of the 7-year-old victim.

Matches the PROFILE, meaning it would MATCH her MOTHER or BROTHERS ALSO.

Regarding the hair, Holland said the chances are "one in 25 quadrillion" of selecting a person at random from the Caucasian population who would have the same DNA.

So, what would happen if we picked a person, but NOT AT RANDOM? What if we picked her MOTHER? Would the DNA be a match?

"Is this an example where samples match?" asked the prosecution. "Yes, it is," Holland answered.

YES, the example of ONE IN 660 QUADRILLION is used for where samples match, and we take a random person from the population. However it you don't select at random, then the number goes down and a match could be made for more persons if in the same bloodline.

[small_l_libertarian]

Green jacket. Front, on the lapel. One-plus inch bloodstain.

[CedarDave]

So, then if nothing in the car, then maybe he tied her up in the bedroom until he could bring back the motorhome. (Still thinking the DNA blood evidence on his clothes is most damning here -- not buying the cops planting evidence as alleged done here and charged done with OJ.)

[UCANSEE2]

Wasn't there Saturday Morning early either, because DW took the SUV to go get the MH. I goofed again.

Danielle still could have gotten into his house after he left in the SUV.

I am trying to come up with possible explanations for the evidence the police /prosecutor are using in this case.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Remember these cops are not above 'falsifying evidence' to win the case.

I hate to have to agree with you, but it's true. I believe that the vast majority are honest but it only takes a few.

There are varying degrees and types of cheating in police departments. My son-in-law's department had an incident in recent years where a long-time officer had embezzled thousands of dollars from some type of in-department retirement fund or something. It shocked everyone, but he did it under their noses.

I also had an experience about 14 years ago in San Diego Juvenile court. I was served a subpoena to appear as a witness for a man that was accused of molesting his daughter. He was not a personal friend, but I knew him through business.

It was a bitter divorce situation and the wife was a druggie and certifiably whacky. She was angry because the father had the two children; 2 y/o son and 4 y/o daughter. So she accused the dad of molesting the child.

Of course, there is no proof needed for CPS to step in. I knew the woman was lying and it made me sick.

I arrived at court and the dad was sitting outside the courtroom. It was a hearing type of thing in Juvenile Court. He was not on trial.

He showed me a transcript of an interview that a Social Services psychologist had with his daughter. It was several pages of the psychologist asking over and over, with different wording, if her dad had touched her improperly. The answer was repeatedly, "No".

Toward the end of the interview there were a couple of questions about the mother. The child began to tell of the mother beating her with a hair brush and such things. The psychologist abruptly ended the interview.

I realized then that this wasn't about whether or not a little girl had or hadn't been molested. This was about railroading a dad because the mother was being represented by a bunch of liberal, socialist welfare attorneys and they were out to get the dad....period.

After a long battle, Dad got the kids and that was wonderful, but......... I drove home so depressed that day. I witnessed what could be done by a few people in strategic places. In the blink of an eye, these people could have ruined this man's life and he had done nothing at all wrong.

[UCANSEE2]

Judge Mudd's "discretion" was more like his "directions'. He played every card in favor of the proscecution, right down to refusing to sequester the jury. Shameful performance !!!!!!

Not only did he not SEQUESTOR the JURY when it was obvious they could be influenced by a HIGHLY BIASED SOURCE like COURT-TV which was given special consideration for FILMING the TRIAL, and even after the JUDGE had warned them several times about concerns they were being influenced by watching TV about the TRIAL, and

THEN AFTER JURORS THEMSELVES TWICE SENT NOTES TO THE JUDGE ASKING TO BE SEQUESTORED,

He still denied it.

[crystalk]

Conflicting testimony on size of DNA spot on jacket. It was not said to be blood. It was either .25 inch or 1.25 in in diameter, and I go with the smaller size. It was not blood, but some other DNA (such as spittle?)-- not identified.

It is very hard to see how it would get up near the right side collar like that if the jacket was being worn at the time. Looks more like it was put on when the jacket was hanging up somewhere. Men usually hold small children with the head of the latter to the left, not right, of their own head.

More likely a very small medical sample of some body fluid of Danielle's was available to LE, and they planted it in two tiny spots, one on the jacket and the other on another surface in the MH.

[Green]

Wonder what shade of green. If it wasn't a dark shade of green and the stain was that big on the lapel, seems odd that it wasn't noticed, particularly since the tag from the cleaners is usually attached to the tag in the neck area.

[UCANSEE2]

Did they do this before the cops came?

Rumors were that they cleaned Danielles' room. That they had a steam cleaner and vacuum. The VD's said they steam cleaner was used to clean up dog pee in the Master Bedroom. They have conflicting stories about cleaning up too. The dog tore it's dogbed up, according to Damon. Where is this dog bed? Where was the DOG? Why the steam cleaner and vacuum out. Brenda says she left it out. Damon says he was cleaning up, like a good hubby, before the partiers came home. Or after the partiers left, or gee he knows it was sometime and he just loves to clean.

Here is what bothers me. Brenda mentioned that when she came home, or in the morning she thought Danielle might be in bed with Damon. Isn't 7 a little to old to be sleeping with Dad?

When MOM is out at the bar?

[UCANSEE2]

None of her prints in her own room?! So someone wiped them clean, and her diary, too. Who?

Well, I would guess it wouldn't be the parents because there prints being there would mean nothing.

Now, Bill LIbby's or Barbs, or Rich or Keith's, those would mean something.

[small_l_libertarian]

The 1/4" stain was the one on the floor in the MH. The one on the jacket was supposedly fairly big, dropwise (not like buckets of blood, though, obviously). I find it quite odd that the dry cleaner didn't see a big red stain on the front of a green jacket.

[CedarDave]

So you're intimating that the blood could have come from another family member -- maybe Brenda had a nosebleed or a cut when she was dancing with him! Very unlikely, but possible, though he'd remember it. Other than actual blood from the daughter (which most likely landed there during a commission of a crime [it would be an unbelievable coincidence if she had cut herself during an earlier visit and left a blood drop on his coat!]), Brenda's blood (which he'd remember), or the cops planting evidence, there aren't any scenarios to account for this. Unfortunately for DW, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely one and could be the one that leads to a guilty verdict.

[UCANSEE2]

Damon is molesting Danielle. She has mentioned it in her diary. She wants to find somewhere to hide. She has run away several times. Mommy gone to the bars two weekends in a row. Damon molesting her.

Partiers come 'home'. Damon in somber mood. Danielle has run away again and he knows why.

Partiers leave. Brenda drunk, falls asleep. If Danielle still home, Damon (who has apparently been doing cocaine)(traces were found in the home but PR firm got LE's to ignore it) goes and molests Danielle again.

EARLY ,morning, Danielle sneaks out of the house. Heads to park. DW's SUV is there, and open. DW is in the house getting things ready.

Danielle sneaks in and hides. OOPS, here comes DW. Danielle gets out and hides somewhere.

DW takes off. Danielle remembers DW's pool, his nice house. She climbs over gate and gets in the backyard. The side door to the garage has been left OPEN (per testimony). She goes in his house to hide. She wanders around, then goes to the bedroom and sleeps some on the bed. P>Pretty soon, Damon heads to park, notices DW gone and sees side DOOR open. Figures Danielle might be there. Goes in, finds her and when she says she is going to tell, he kills her. Takes her to the DAMN VAN and drives her body somewhere and dumps it. Somewhere way off on a mountain bike trail. Takes something out of DW' laundry room to wrap Danielle in or maybe he wrapped her in a comforter or sheet that was on DW's bed where he found her.

[bvw]

Thanks for the cite! Thanks to all who have followed this case on FR since those days in February, and the regulars, the refugees, the faithful sciveners typing the transcripts on the fly, the gatherers of info, the playful and the profane. Still ... the glad-handing can't be too wild ... the jury's still out, Westerfield's still in the pokey and defamed for little just cause, and those who were responsible for the dire fate of that young girl are both unrepentant and unknown.

[crystalk]

Yes, and What did she write?

"I am thinking of a beautiful place with blue skies and green grass and trees, where I can be safe."

This implies that her human environment was threatening to her, and she was dreaming of getting away into Nature where she would not be molested any more.

[UCANSEE2]

So then if he abducted her, he would somehow have to get her to the motorhome, either by taking her in his own car (in the trunk likely), or somehow tying her up in the house and then getting his motorhome back to the house to put her in it. What testimony in that area was presented?

According to DUSEK, HOW, WHY, WHEN, WHERE don't matter. The GIRL is DEAD, therefore DW is GUILTY. That is all the jury needs to know to decide the case.

DW is guilty of KIDNAPPING/RAPE/MURDER (even though rape is not a charge in this trial, DUSEK said he RAPED HER).

Here is what the JUDGE said. ON the KIDNAPPING and MURDER charges.

If he killed her, he kidnapped her to do so. If he KIDNAPPED her, then he KILLED her. I have already decided he KILLED her, so you must now make your decision based on this.

[small_l_libertarian]

Here's a link to some photos of the jacket:

http://community-2.webtv.net/westri/WesterfieldTrial/