Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: MizSterious

Westerfield jury must consider stronger evidence -- DNA or bugs?


SIGNONSANDIEGO

August 12, 2002

As the David Westerfield jury returns to the San Diego County Courthouse for a third day of deliberations observers say it comes down to DNA versus bugs.

The six-man, six-woman jury was handed the case against the former Sabre Springs self-employed design engineer and last Thursday.

Westerfield, 50, could face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping and killing his neighbor, 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

The divorced father of two also is charged with misdemeanor possession of child pornography, which prosecutors say provided a motive for the crimes.

The trial included 23 days of testimony, 98 witnesses and 199 court exhibits.

Trial observers say the deliberations could come down to DNA versus bugs -- DNA evidence that the victim was in the suspect's motorhome versus testimony from defense forensic experts who said bugs on the girl's body indicated it had been dumped while the suspect was under police surveillance.

The alleged swinging lifestyle of the victim's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, could also factor in the jury's verdict.

Jurors deliberated for less than three hours on Friday before going home for the weekend. Superior Court Judge William Mudd -- citing security concerns -- refused to reveal the jury's exact hours of deliberations.

During closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek told the panel that Danielle was essentially speaking to them from the grave via blood and other evidence pointing to Westerfield as her kidnapper and killer.

Dusek also took on a defense contention that there was no smoking gun. "This jacket -- this is the smoking gun," Dusek told jurors, referring to a photograph of Westerfield's jacket displayed on a screen.

"Danielle's blood was on that jacket," he said. "Give me another explanation for how it got there -- please. You got none. There's no dispute - - no defense evidence it was not Danielle's blood. This is a smoking gun. This is hard evidence."

Dusek displayed graphics listing all the evidence the prosecution has entered in the trial, which started June 4.

"Look at all of that and ask yourself if there's two reasonable interpretations," Dusek said.

"Fingerprints, hair, blue fibers, dog hair -- and the blood -- all found in the back of the motorhome" that Westerfield drove around the weekend following Danielle's disappearance, Dusek said. "There's no reasonable explanation but guilt. None."

Earlier in his argument, Dusek said Danielle was dumped "naked in the dirt like trash for animals to devour."

Defense attorney Steven Feldman told jurors forensic evidence involving bugs on the victim's body proved it was "impossible" for his client to have dumped the body beside an East County road, where it was discovered Feb. 27.

The defense claimed throughout the trial that Westerfield was under tight surveillance by police and the media beginning Feb. 5, three days after the Sabre Springs girl was discovered missing from her bed.

Westerfield was arrested Feb. 22.

Feldman told the jury that every expert who testified said the girl's body could not have been placed beside the road until well after Feb. 5.

Prosecutors contend the defense did not accurately represent the information provided by experts who study insect infestation of corpses.

Feldman said the prosecution had presented no evidence that Westerfield had ever been in Danielle's home. He noted that her parents testified to holding sex parties in the home, and said one of their house guests might have committed the crime.

Feldman also suggested that Westerfield could not have maneuvered his way through the darkened van Dam home the night of Feb. 1 without anyone hearing him seizing the 58-pound child.

 

287 posted on 08/12/2002 2:40:17 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies ]


To: All
Can someone clear up my confusion? Were the "blood" spots definately blood or just some DNA containing body fluid.

And were Layla's hairs (or probably Layla's hairs) found in the MH??

If the dog hair was in the MH, that would mean that either Danielle carried the hair in there during the kidnapping/murder, or that Layla had been in there which could cause one to believe that Danielle could have been in there to get her out.

All I need to have resonable doubt is to believe that Danielle could have been in MH before she disappeared. The fingerprint does not bother me because I know that when I wipe stuff down, I wipe down the areas that I would expect to see dirt. I rarely wipe down the vertical sides of cabinets, I just wipe down around the handles regularly. So I can believe that Danielle was in there awhile ago and left a print in a place that DW doesn't touch and therefore would not clean as often.

And if no one believes that Layla was ever in there, that would lead credibility to the transfer of trace evidence theory. If Danielle's body could have carried in dog hair, why couldn't LE have carried it in there?

For the record, I believe the bugs. Bugs are not driven by sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, they just do what they do. You don't have to figure their motivatation or if they have deep seated issues. The bugs have more credibility than most of the witnesses in this case.
312 posted on 08/12/2002 3:02:55 PM PDT by tunneldiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson