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

CourtTV ^ | August 8, 2002 | CourtTV

[Jacy29]

Thank you for responding to a day old post. I didn't forget anything, autopsy photos of your child are bad regardless of how many times you see them, and I doubt that was what she was crying about anyway, and it is still careless

[mouser]

sorry it took so long to get back to this

if the soil was hard or full of clay(nearby quary)
it would form a puddle and evaporate like a mud puddle

if real sandy it would just sink way down maby 8-10 feet
i think it was right there otherwise parts would of came off like hair and skin maby even limbs

[bvw]

"They individually prove that each specific piece of evidence could have an innocent explanation even thougfht the sum total makes it improbable"

The law pertaining to this trial is that for circumstantial evidence, which ALL of the evidence is, each piece must be weighed individually. This is because it is circumstantial, and not direct evidence. Shall we hang a man because a mountain of circumstance is against him, where each individually has a reasonable innocent explanation? The Law says clearly, NO!

The sum total may seem to make it improbable to us, but in order to protect the innocent victim of circumstance, the Law is such. I remember a poker game that I played, and the stakes were big. I had four of a kind. By all reasonable probability I was the winner -- I reached out for the pot, a happy man. Yet I was stopped. The one player in the game I really disliked threw down his hand and grabbed my arm at the same time. "Read 'em and weep." -- he had straight flush. I was embarassed and cut up wallet-wise. I vowed never again to jack up the bet so high in a game with wild-cards and plenty of beer. My inexperience showed and cost me.

[bvw]

Thanks! And I'm glad you are back on these threads.

[Krodg]

You almost made sense, but then you added;

There is a reason the media started avoiding him and his statements. The same reason the defense didn't use his "testimony". He's a loon.

The only media giving him any credulence in the beginning was what most people call 'rags'. True they backed off, but they are known to follow the wind and the 'real' media had already made their agenda known.

[crystalk]

Different jacket. Instead of planting the blood on the sportscoat that was brought in that weekend, the LE officers bungled and put it on the casual warmup jacket that had been at the cleaners since 1/26.

[Eva]

I agree with the hung jury part, but I don't believe that the Van Dams will go to civil court. The rules are much different there. Westerfield's defense would bring in all the evidence that was over looked by the prosecution, like Damon's lie detector test, Danielle's diary, the blue van and possible porno connection to the Van Dams.

I am not sure that Westerfield is innocent, but I do not feel that the prosecution came close to proving his guilt.

What about this scenario though, if Westerfield is guilty?

Maybe Westerfield was terribly drunk and saw Brenda go outside with her friend for a few tokes and a little sex, but Westerfield thinks that they are leaving to go back to the Van Dams to party. So, Westerfield leaves, too and goes to the Van Dam's door. Damon answers and says they aren't back yet, but wait a minute, maybe I have an alternative for you. Damon's mad at Danielle for not co-operating with his perverted sexual demands, but Danielle says she's sorry and will try to do better the next time. So... Damon decides to give her an chance to prove it and hands her over to the drunk Westerfield. Westerfield takes her home and doesn't mean to kill her, but he is so drunk and clumsy that when she protests he tries to quiet her and accidently smothers her.

[Krodg]

If Westerfield was turned on by the women in the bar, why would he settle for a scared and sreaming little girl? He would have been looking for 'fun' sex. I don't think a little girl would fit the bill. Either he did it because he was a pedophile, or he didn't do it.

[crystalk]

I do not believe the VDs have anything that would hold up ten minutes in civil court. Sue your neighbor if anything untoward happens to you. We have seen volumes on here that would be very extenuating if any civil attempt were made, and Westerfield could bring in things that Mudd disallowed and that we know about, that would tie them in knots, like their lies and changes of story.

I have been following VD/DW threads on FR ever since this hit the news in early Feb., and the original threads from about March 1 show FReepers thinking and supposing with the general public that DW was guilty. I was one of the few at the early date when body was found, to say it could not have been DW that put it there.

I would say we have had a steady progression on FR from about 80% anti-DW on March 1 to about 70% pro-DW on August 1. Surely the sheer weakness of the prosecution case, their failure to prove or even evidence ANYTHING, must be the reason.

Let me again sum up the relevant facts:

1. No evidence DW had any tendency or motive to do anything at all to Danielle or had ever even noticed her.

2. No evidence that anyone entered the VD home, not only did DW not enter it, no one else entered it without permission EITHER!

3. Lots of evidence that things were pretty abnormal at VD household on Fri pm already, weird...was she already gone or harmed or dead?

4. If as I assume, Danielle was out playing in the street or at the local mini-park, there is no reason to think DW is the one who took her, indeed he was probably already gone in the MH before she ever came out to play.

5. VD children and Brenda had been in MH. We still have no adequate disclosure of just how far DW/Brenda relationship had gone, at least once.

6. Whoever killed Danielle hated the girl, brutalized her, knocked out her teeth, not so easy to do...Not DW.

7. Attention to body rather than immediate dumping, possible keeping of her alive for a week or 10 days, ...indicates against a stranger perp and argues for an inside job. DW would be a stranger perp if the prosecution is correct.

8. DW could not have put this body on Dehesa Rd; an accomplice would be needed. If we start with the body placement and work BACK, we will be better able to see what happened.

9. All the DNA evidence was likely planted from the one sample available to LE, that from the vaginal discharge in Danielle's panties. This is why such tiny spots only were put in the MH in one place, and on the WRONG jacket in the other. LE goofed up and put the Danielle DNA not on the sports coat he left with cleaners that weekend, but on an old warmup jacket that had been with cleaners since 1/26.

[Eva]

I don't think that Westerfield knew that the women had rejected him. People say that Brenda danced with Westerfield. Brenda was probably too young for Westerfield and that probably went both ways. Barbara may have rejected him, though. But Westerfield may have been too drunk to know that he was being rejected.

Anyway, it was just a possible scenario, that seemed more likely than the one that the prosecution offered.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

if the soil was hard or full of clay(nearby quary) it would form a puddle and evaporate like a mud puddle

Body fluids are not at all like mud puddles, they are more viscous and oily.

if real sandy it would just sink way down maby 8-10 feet i think it was right there otherwise parts would of came off like hair and skin maby even limbs

8-10 feet??? okay.......

As far as the last part of you post, I can not make any sense of it. Parts of the childs body were missing, and as far as I have read the transcripts - no one ever did any forensic soil testing to prove/disprove whether or not the body had lain there since death.

Although I am a bit confused as to what you think was "right there"

[Eva]

I misread your post. I don't know where my brain is today. You'd think that a grown woman would know what "turned on" means. I can't believe that I misread it. I am still laughing at myself.

Anyway I don't think that Westerfield is a pedophile, and I really don't think that he did this, but I am not certain.

[PoisedWoman]

Good luck with the chain jerking....how did it work out? And thanks for the compliment! Blush!

[mouser]

sorry i did not make myself clearer

i live on a farm and every year it seams a cow or two dies we drag them back by the woods where they will not cause problems if it is warm enough in a few days the gasses expand the body and they split and leak often causing a puddle when it evaporates it leavs just a small amount of black junk on ground

the it was refering to her body if she was moved because of the oder ect i feel both westerfield and van dam were probley not involved also after a few days things like hair will pull out quite easily and limbs can come off i know she was missing one foot and probably some of the internal organs
internal organs ares the first thing scavangers go for

as far as things penetrating soil look up info on home sewer systems and leach fields or epa studies on fuel and additives like mtb getting in ground water

just an old farm boys take i am sure there are those on the board who know more about some of this from a more scientfic studies

[itsahoot]

Never, ever, defer to a lawyer, or a medical doctor, or a an accountant

Well said. I just didn't want to get into a legaleses argument. It
distracts from the issue. I couldn't care less about the "wittness"
or his sanity. I was just making a personal statement, that I believe
will prove to be true. They will not sue, probably for the reasons
I previously stated.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

"they split and leak often causing a puddle when it evaporates it leavs just a small amount of black junk on ground"

This black junk on the ground would have been detectable in the soil had the forensics team done soil tests.

"also after a few days things like hair will pull out quite easily"

Mouser, clumps of her hair were found in the surrounding vegitation, so in fact some of her hair did indeed come out.

"limbs can come off"

Yes, this is true, but with a smaller corpse, this does not always happen, especially in warmer, dryer climates.

internal organs ares the first thing scavangers go for

Yes, this is correct also, but they rarely go after a foot for obvious reasons.

[John Jamieson]

What happened to the last current thread? I'm THREADLOCKED.

[bvw]

Greg Weston, thread theif, thread pervert, thread disruptor, heroin addict, wife-beater, scum-sucker, yellow-bellied nincompoop did show up there. That's just my humble opinion, btw.

[I. Ben Hurt]

The link's at post no. 688.

[I. Ben Hurt]

Sorry meant that for J.J. (Up too early this a.m. canning pickles.)