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

[small_l_libertarian]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20020617-9999_1n17trial5.html

This is a link to an article describing the drycleaning clerks' testimony. The portions that relate to what I was talking about are posted below. I think I have transcript fatigue (see Glossary), but you can go to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/ and go to the transcripts for June 17 for the full testimony.

From the article:

Defense attorney Steven Feldman asked Mills if any of the clothes he was wearing had "any blood" on them.

"I don't remember," she said.

"If any of the items had blood on it, you would have spotted it, wouldn't you?" he said.

"Yes," she said.

Mills also said the usually talkative Westerfield "appeared tired, very distant" and would not make eye contact with her.

"He'd smile a lot, hold a conversation. This time he was very opposite. He would not talk to me. He was very distant, would not look at me eye-to-eye, no eye contact," she said. "I would look at him and he wouldn't look back."

Mills said Westerfield dropped off a sports jacket, two comforters and two pillowcases. The receipt for the items is marked at "9:44 a.m.," but Mills said that wasn't accurate because the register's printer was not working properly.

"Then the time on there is meaningless," said prosecuting attorney Jeff Dusek.

"Yes," Mills said.

Kelly Belom, who also works at the cleaner, said Westerfield returned later in the day to drop off a black T-shirt, a pair of black pants and a black sweater. She said Westerfield asked if he could have same-day service, but Belom told him it was too late in the day.

She said there was nothing unusual about the clothes, noting Westerfield had dropped off similar items in the past.

Feldman also sought to draw jurors' attention to mistakes Mills made while dealing with what she called computer ``printer problems'' that morning.

She placed a couple of the items under another customer's name, so she was unable to retrieve them when the police came to investigate.

Receipts from the transaction with Westerfield also displayed later times than what she testified to, and there was a separation of 25 on identification numbers she said normally were in sequence.

Mills explained that because of the printer problems, the orders may have been entered into the computer later in the day.

San Diego police detective Terry Torgersen testified he found Westerfield's dry cleaning receipts Feb. 5, located the store the next day and seized the items with a search warrant on Feb. 7.

[CedarDave]

Then why does UCANSEE2 keep using a scenario where DW's bedding is used to wrap her body? Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Except for a discussion of sweater fibers, nothing I've heard of connects DW to the dump site, and at that time (if the bug experts are to be believed) he was under police surveilance. You can talk about DVD being an alternate suspect, but for right now I'm focusing on DW and what evidence in the trial record there is for and against him and the strength of that evidence.

[Green]

Thank you.

[UCANSEE2]

That's why he was not called to testify, and the journal wasn't used, because there is nothing unusual or sinister in it.

THis I wonder about too.

DHP could be called but his word wouldn't mean much. I.E. His word against Brenda saying NO.

If the LE's took the DIARY, you think the prosecution would have entered it into evidence if there was nothing 'wrong' in it.

Since they didn't, I think there was 'something wrong' they didn't want the JURY to know about.

Since the VD's , the Prosecutor, the DA, wouldn't ALLOW the DEFENSE to have their own INVESTIGATORS ENTER The VD residence to check anything out for themselves, well, I guess if the DIARY was still in her room, that means there is NO WAY DEFENSE was allowed to have ACCESS to that DIARY. Doesn't it?

So, that explains why DHP wasn't called as a witness. No book. No proof, just his word. Brenda or Damon say different, WHO IS THE JURY GONNA BELIEVE? Kinda pointless to even waste time bringing him in, without the DIARY itself.

See what I am saying, V ??????

[dread78645]

Yes, and I remember because some adorable FReeper said, "Washing towels and rugs together? Yucky!"

I've been divorced for 5 years and even I wouldn't do that.

Hey!! I am adorable!! : )

Pmom: Yes, you are.
;->

[fatima]

Dear Green,Police did pick up at least one load and I think went back for first because they did not know it existed,

[UCANSEE2]

I've seen several references to the VDs using cocaine in this thread. Where did that come from? I thought the only thing they admitted to was pot.

I always try to be clear. There is public admittance (to the press) , there is testimony, and there is RUMOR.

This is RUMOR. For your consideration only.

The rumor was that early in the case, when LE's started searching for evidence in the VD household, that the police found TRACE EVIDENCE on the carpeting of COCAINE.

They were, alledgedly, coaxed by the retired policewoman that was a close personal friend of the VD's and CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND of the INVESTIGATORS, and by the PR TEAM into ignoring that finding.

[sawsalimb]

Regarding the fiber evidence,I keep hearing the words,"consistent with" pop up. Being the nasty old bachelor type that I am,my sheets,towels(the ones that didn't come from hotel rooms,lol),rugs,socks,and a lot of other stuff are from either WalMart,or the outlet store across the highway. I suspect that I have quite a few fibers in my place that are "consistent with" what was found in the Westerfield house. And the house across the street from mine,and the house next door to mine.

[UCANSEE2]

but DVD giving his 7-year old daughter to his friends is not. You may have shot yourself badly with that suggestion.

I have made many suggestions. I am trying to find all possibilities and eliminate them one by one. Finally I hope to get down to WHAT HAPPENED.

Just because you find it hard to believe that he couldn't have done something like that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.

Did you know about the INTERNATIONAL CHILD/PORN/RAPE ring they busted in SD/POWAY right about the time Danielle disappeared?

Why was there UNKNOWN DNA in Danielle's BED?

Many other posters have discussed this same theory.

If you can provide PROOF IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, please do, so I can eliminate it from the list!

[Green]

I agree with you about the fiber evidence. However, the problem I have with it is that this "similar" fiber wasn't found in the VD home. At least I don't think there was any testimony to this being the case.

Yet, there was similar fiber found in DW home, DW MH, and on Danielle.

[dread78645]

There was some testimony that was squelched about some fingerprints being found in SUV. Speculation is, they were Brenda's prints, that she got in the car in the parking lot at Dad's, accounting for orange fibers and the possible fingerprints.

One of the stories that'll never see the light of day. Westerfield & BvD doing the backseat-Macarena ...

Sweater was red or orange? what color fiber was in the Toyota?
Only met Westerfield a couple of times? But it was a very friendly meeting.
Blonde hair on his clothes? Duh...

[Green]

More than the fiber testimony obviously not being "exact" but instead it is "similar, the bug testimony is what has me questioning his guilt more than anything.

[UCANSEE2]

How did LE lie about the statement that DW only told them about one of his trips to the cleaners when he actually made two trips that day?

Well, it is the trend of this whole case.

DW told police he did this he did that. He told them he went to the drycleaners and took some stuff.

LATER, when the police found he went in the AM (returning from his trip, in the MH, still Barefoot from being out in the desert, t-shirt,etc), then found he came back LATER after he had gone home, gathered up all the dirty stuff from home (from sleeping off the drunk of Friday night), tried to claim that DW LIED.

IF I tell you I went to the STORE, but I don't tell you, OH, WELL, I WENT ONCE, then I WENT BACK, and you don't ask me, IS THAT A LIE?

He only told them he went to the DRY CLEANERS. At the time he didn't think it was necessary to say he went twice. As far as he probably knew, it didn't make a difference.

POLICE said his COMMENT that "OUT HERE IS A GOOD PLACE TO HIDE A BODY", when he was driving them out in the desert.

POLICE, MEDIA and the PROSECUTOR claim THAT WAS VERY SUSPICIOUS.

Well, give me a break. Was the body found out there in the desert? NOPE.

DID the police TELL EVERYONE what QUESTION they just ASKED HIM that he gave that as a RESPONSE?

Nope.

they have been very good in this case at LYING, taking THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT, and trying to say a simple omission is a lie.

[small_l_libertarian]

Perhaps the reason that a "similar" fiber wasn't found in the vD home is because they didn't look very hard for one. Either Jennifer Shen or Tanya DuLaney testified that the only fibers from the vD home they received for testing were carpet fibers from Danielle's room.

And all of us should keep in mind when considering any of this fiber evidence - Shen and DuLaney testified about several fibers that were similar in every way that they believed were a match - until they tested them with the microphotospectrometer (if I got that wrong - I know what I meant!). Only after that test were they determined to definitely NOT be a match.

These fibers all over the place that they are calling "similar" have not been tested with the microphotospectrometer. Why should we believe that all or even any of these fibers match anything?

[UCANSEE2]

The fact is, the DW jacket was already at the dry cleaners, clean and waiting to be picked up, on the night when Danielle disappeared. There is no way that anything that was on it, had anything to do with Danielle at least at the time of the crime...but only earlier...

If this is truly the case, I (like other posters do me) would ask, why didn't FELDMAN intro this information.

It would blow most of the Prosecution's case if true.

[fatima]

"Because as Feldman implied yesterday, there was more to David and Brenda than we have heard. That much falls into place about the RV. Brenda would lie through her teeth about it. Feldman would have been foolish to put David on the stand. Dusek would have twisted anything he said.


502 posted on 8/8/02 6:45 PM Pacific by Jaded
If she had sex with Westerfield and came home and her daughter is missing ,she tells police she suspects her husband.

[UCANSEE2]

is that what the defense have to work with, all kinds of wrong information?

Yes, would be my guess.

[CedarDave]

Out of here for this evening. Thanks for the dialog. Still haven't made up my mind, but as I said earlier, more doubts than certainty about his guilt.

And one final thought, and one that scares me more than anything, more than the Van Dams, etc. And that is that DW may be just a middle aged man, single now, who thought he might have some fun with a "swinger" (BVD), who had some porn on his computer (maybe some of it barely illegal), who is nice to kids but didn't molest little girls (or boys), who for the most part was minding his own business, but through coincidence and circumstance has been drawn into being charged with a terrible crime and may pay for it with his life. Now more than a few of us out in FReeper land are male and single now, live and work in the community, but don't have a family nearby (including myself), and could have something similar happen to us through circumstance. That is what really freightens me, and I imagine more than a few normal men in my situation, in this politically correct mad society, watch and are careful how we act and what we do so that we do not find ourselves being accussed of actions we have not done such that we might find ourselves in the position that DW is in. Assuming, of course, that he's innocent.

[small_l_libertarian]

Brenda says she didn't know Danielle was missing until morning. Why would she suspect Damon?

[Green]

I see what you are saying about how one could say they are lying. However, we weren't in that interview when he told them. Another possibility is that they asked him to tell them everything he did that day in the order the did it and he failed to mention the first trip. If that be the case, then he did lie by omission. Now, whether he did it on purpose or not would be a whole different discussion altogether. In a situation where being questioned by the police who can say they would remember every single detail under the pressure that one would be under.