Van Dam Jury Update, Monday August 12th: Westerfield's Fate Lies In Mudd Instructions?

Court TV ^ | August 12, 2002 | Court TV

[FresnoDA]

Jury's time Jurors will resume deliberations Monday in the capital case of David Westerfield, who is accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam

DAY TWO: FRIDAY, AUG. 9, 2002
12 noon ET	Jury enters jury room.
2:30 p.m. ET	Jury goes home for the weekend.

DAY ONE: THURSDAY, AUG. 8, 2002
1:10 p.m. ET	Jury begins deliberating. After two months of testimony, the capital murder trial of David Westerfield is in the hands of the jurors, who began their deliberations following more than two days of closing arguments.
2:50 p.m.	Jury sends a note to the judge.
3:00 p.m.	Jury at lunch.
4:30 p.m.	Judge calls the lawyers but not the public or the press into the courtroom.
5:15 p.m.	Judge says jurors sent note asking to deliberate five days a week instead of having Friday off and he approved their request.
7:00 p.m.	Jury goes home for the day. Will return Friday morning.

[UCANSEE2]

I still have a problem with the DNA on the JACKET.

Feldman had the RECEIPT for the item of clothing known as the JACKET that police got the DNA from. This RECEIPT shows 01/26, I believe, as the date.

There was another jacket taken in on Monday 02/04.

Now, Prosecution and police say the RECEIPT is WRONG. How can a receipt be wrong ?

WHY IS IT in this case that PHYSICAL evidence is TRUE, RIGHT if it supports the DW GUILTY case, but the same type of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is WRONG, INVALID if it supports DW NOT GUILTY ?????

How can a COURT accept PROOF if the police get to determine when an ITEM is RIGHT/WRONG?

HELP me OUT. Am I missing something here, or is it obvious the SD DA, LE's, (and maybe LE's across the whole US, all LE's in state,local,national gov't) are edging towards totalitarianism???? Towards a POLICE STATE, a POLICE RUN SYSTEM where only WHAT THEY 'SAY' is the TRUTH?

[the Deejay]

I've never heard a prosecutor keep saying over & over, "We don't have to prove....", in all the trials I've watched. They usually just say, "We don't have to prove motive." And that's certainly true.

This Dusek is something else. I think he needs to change careers.

[bvw]

Hmmm ... I meant that we are in a post-Orwell world. We can understand how he was right and beyond that, how he was wrong. We are beyond Animal Farm, beyond 1984 -- to include the young Huxley in this too.

[Jaded]

Prolly 'cuz it wasn't there in the first dang place.

[UCANSEE2]

Dusek would never argue the theory that Danielle was killed in her own bedroom. The place of her death is a problem for him, and he left it open intentionally.

If you noticed, that wasn't the only thing.

The place, the manner, the motive, the method. How the killer got Danielle and where he got her from.

[Jaded]

Actually, he has to have her killed outside of her bedroom for the special circumstances. Because if she was killed in her room there is no kidnapping and not special circumstance therefore NO DX.

[L,TOWM]

We can understand how he was right and beyond that, how he was wrong.

My bad. I was'nt too sure of what the 'beyond' meant in your original reply to me.

No disagreement from me on the quoted statement. I will give him credit, though, he saw some possible patterns that gave him a predictive success rate higher than most "psychics" or self-proclaimed prophets.

[bvw]

"Towards a POLICE STATE, a POLICE RUN SYSTEM"

History says this kind of out of bounds law-and-orderism comes on now and again. Ask most Australians and some folks from the state of Georgia about where their forefathers came from. They were swept off the streets and cheap gaols of London and other English cities and towns and permanently deported for the slightest named infraction.

Besides, in my humble opinion, we are post-peak on that law-and-orderism and the social momentum is against it. That is, we are seeing the death throes of a fairly long period of this media-stoked-excessive-law-and-orderism. I believe it actually ran out of fuel back around 1980 and has been climbing on momentum, hitting apex in 2001.

[JudyB1938]

The sketch would have been done at a time, wouldn't it, when he was still a healthy teenager and perhaps still had some "baby fat"? In addition, sketches aren't always right on. Close, but not perfect. The main things, I think, are the eyes and brows. Plus, did you notice the nose? Pretty much the same.

[the Deejay]

"How the killer got Danielle and where he got her from."

Dusek is stuck with his theory, she was taken from her bedroom. And that's where the jury has to start & believe. It's just a matter of who did it.

[small_l_libertarian]

Are we sure that the 1/26 receipt is for THE jacket? I really can't remember anymore. I know that there is A jacket on 1/26. And there is A "sport jacket" on 2/4. Are you saying that the sport jacket is really a sport jacket (like a blazer-type thing)?

[JudyB1938]

I don't remember if you were pinged to this thread or not. What do you think about those jacket receipts?

[I. Ben Hurt]

It also ruins his fingerprint, blood, etc evidence in the MH if she was killed in her bedroom.

UCANSEE2, on the other thread regarding the possibility of Damon being in Flordia, same town even, when Adam Walsh was killed, yes it would be most ironic if "Most Wanted" had Damon and Brenda on their show. I can't recall if they were or were not on there.

[bvw]

Orwell predicted a bunch of important things -- archtypes, even -- that became highlighted in the last fifty years. However his wisdom has run its course, for a while, although many things he mentioned are perennials, it is a new world today in terms of social focal points and currently pertinant useful wisdoms.

[Bluebird Singing]

It's weird, isn't it, that if you look feature by feature, the similarities are striking? Remember this is done by an artist from the memory of and description by the witness. The nose is as close as you can get - and look at the lower eyelids!

[small_l_libertarian]

It also ruins his fingerprint, blood, etc evidence in the MH if she was killed in her bedroom.

Oooooh! Good one!

[UCANSEE2]

I am confused about the jacket issue.

It seems the police claim the 'reciept', which would normally be accepted as PROOF in a court of law, is somehow 'wrong' because it doesn't jive with what the police want to prove.

Others have said it would appear the police went to the dry cleaners, picked up DW's clothing items, then went and 'put' the DNA on his jacket, so they could have some PROOF. Problem is they got the wrong jacket and had to come up with an explanation for why the receipt for that particular jacket shows it was taken to the dry cleaners on 01/26.

Some would argue that DEFENSE should have made a big deal out of this. I think the point was made by defense.

When you have the clerks giving conflicting (or appearing to be conflicting ) testimony about the computers(?) being UP/DOWN , and the cops saying that the receipt date is wrong because the computer that was UP/DOWN did it wrong, there isn't much to do as DEFENSE except to expect the jury to see the obvious.

[small_l_libertarian]

and look at the lower eyelids!

You're absolutely right - the lower eyelids have that raised part in the middle. Damon has those, too. This is too, too weird.

[the Deejay]

Sean Soriano, criminalist, San Diego Police Dept. Examined Westerfield's clothing and testified three areas on the jacket tested positive for blood Testified a beanbag chair found inside Danielle's room had seven blood stains Said he found two long blond hairs from inside the medium boxer shorts taken from Westerfield's dryer.

Now, I don't know if Sean Soriano actually collected the items from the dry cleaner or not. But it was in his testimony, that the green (casual) jacket was disected. Therefore I'm not sure whose testimony the collection (including the receipts) could be found.

[small_l_libertarian]

Problem is they got the wrong jacket and had to come up with an explanation for why the receipt for that particular jacket shows it was taken to the dry cleaners on 01/26.

This is the part I'm not sure about. I know that A jacket went to the cleaner's on 1/26. A "sport jacket" went on 2/4. How can we know if they're the same jacket, or if two different jackets, which is which?

Maybe the obvious confusion will be enough! I, however, have a real problem with the "sport jacket" description. I would never think to call that green jacket a "sport jacket." Maybe it's just a Florida vs. California dialect kind of thing, but here, sports jackets are what men wear over a shirt to go out to dinner. That green jacket would be just a "jacket." Maybe even a "coat."

But if it isn't the same jacket, where's the other jacket?