No Decision From Westerfield Jury: Deliberations Continue Tuesday, August 13, 2002

SAN DIEGO -- Jurors completed a third day of deliberations without reaching verdicts Monday in the trial of David Westerfield, a former Sabre Springs man accused of kidnapping and killing Danielle van Dam.


	WESTERFIELD TRIAL Share Your Thoughts About The Case Get The Verdict: Sign Up For Breaking News E-mails Westerfield Trial Jury Questionnaire VERDICT COVERAGE Verdict coverage of the David Westerfield trial will air live on Channel 10 NewsChannel 15 and will be live streamed on TheSanDiego Channel.com DANIELLE VAN DAM 1994-2002 Watch Danielle Video Montage E-mail: daniellevandam @yahoo.com Send mail to: P.O. Box 501515 San Diego, 92150

The six-man, six-woman panel was handed the case Thursday after more than two months of testimony.

According to search warrant affidavits made public after six months under seal, Westerfield admitted to police that he dropped off bedding and other items at a Poway dry cleaners two days after Danielle disappeared.

The warrants and affidavits had been sealed since shortly after the girl's mother discovered her missing from her bed the morning of Feb. 2. Last week, the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the documents unsealed.

Westerfield, 50, a self-employed design engineer, is charged with murder, kidnapping and possession of child pornography.


	Jury Has To Consider Question Carefully

He could face the death penalty if the jury finds true a special circumstance allegation that the murder of the 7-year-old happened during a kidnapping.

The trial, which started June 4, included 23 days of testimony, 98 witnesses and 199 court exhibits.

Trial observers say the deliberations could come down to DNA vs. bugs -- DNA evidence that the victim was in the suspect's motor home 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, also could factor into the jury's verdict.

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.

SURVEY

	What decision do you think the jury in the David Westerfield trial will reach?
	Guilty on all three counts Guilty of kidnapping, murder Guilty of possessing child pornography Not guilty on all three counts Hung jury
Results \| Disclaimer

Westerfield was arrested Feb. 22.

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

Physical evidence -- including Danielle's blood on Westerfield's jacket and fingerprints, hair and fibers found in the defendant's motor home -- point to Westerfield's guilt, prosecutors said.

Feldman said the prosecution 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.

lie-detector specialist who interviewed a man accused of kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was convinced that the defendant was "deceptive," court documents show.

DANIELLE VAN DAM 1994-2002
Watch Danielle Video Montage
DISCUSSION
Share your feelings, thoughts
Email: daniellevandam
@yahoo.com
Send mail to:
P.O. Box 501515
San Diego, 92150

The interview occurred two days after the girl was reported missing from her home. After an exhaustive search involving hundreds of volunteers, Danielle's body was found along a rural road more than three weeks later.

Paul Redden, who conducted the interview, was "convinced the defendant was deceptive when he stated he was not in any way responsible for Danielle's disappearance," according to court documents filed Thursday by prosecutors.

It was unclear whether a polygraph test was actually administered because many of the key details in the documents have been blacked out.

David Westerfield, 50, who lives near the van Dam family, has pleaded innocent to kidnapping, murder and child-pornography charges. His trial is scheduled for May 17.

Court documents show that Westerfield signed a consent form before he was interviewed and the conversation was recorded. Within hours of the interview, police obtained a warrant to search Westerfield's home more thoroughly than they had in a prior visit.

Police have said that DNA evidence links Westerfield to the crime, but have not publicly confirmed that he underwent a lie-detector test. Those tests are not admissible in court, but police often use them to pressure or rule out suspects.

Previous Stories:

Court cites a danger to fair trial for defendant Westerfield as reason

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 9, 2002

A judge imposed a sweeping gag order yesterday in the Danielle van Dam murder case, citing a "clear and present danger" that news leaks might jeopardize defendant David Westerfield's right to a fair trial.

Superior Court Judge H. Ronald Domnitz's ruling prohibits all law-enforcement officials, potential witnesses, prosecutors and Westerfield's attorneys from speaking about virtually any significant aspect of the case.

Document: The gag order

From the U-T: A community unites

Quick poll:
Should a gag order be issued in the case?
Results

The order was necessary "to prohibit the case from being tried in the media," Domnitz said in a four-page written ruling.

Attorneys for Westerfield – the Sabre Springs man charged with kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle – said the gag order was necessary to keep misleading information and "inadmissible evidence" from becoming public.

An attorney who argued against the order on behalf of The San Diego Union-Tribune and several other media organizations called the ruling a disappointment.

"Basically the court has gagged the people who are the most knowledgeable about the criminal process in this case," said the media attorney, Guylyn Cummins.

She said such a gag order would violate well-established First Amendment court precedents.

The judge's ruling comes three days before Westerfield, who lived two houses away from Danielle, faces a preliminary hearing in San Diego Superior Court. The 50-year-old self-employed engineer also faces a misdemeanor charge of possessing pictures of minors engaged in sex acts.

Danielle was reported missing by her parents the morning of Feb. 2. Her body was found Feb. 27 in a hollow along Dehesa Road east of El Cajon. Westerfield was arrested Feb. 22 after police said they found Danielle's blood on an item of his clothing and in his motor home.

It was unclear yesterday whether the ruling will apply to Danielle's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, since attorneys in the case wouldn't reveal yesterday whether the parents have been subpoenaed to testify at Monday's hearing.

Attorneys for the Union-Tribune and other media outlets were reviewing the order before deciding whether to appeal Domnitz's four-page decision.

In his order, Domnitz prohibits all of the principals in the case from talking outside of court about "the character, credibility or reputation of the accused"; the possibility of a plea agreement; the identity and credibility of witnesses; the content of any of Westerfield's pretrial statements; the existence or nonexistence of physical evidence; and the results of polygraph or laboratory tests, among other things.

"This court has both the authority and the duty to put the interests of justice first in addressing the issue of pretrial publicity and when making the determination whether to issue a protective order," Domnitz wrote in his opinion.

"Furthermore, the court may, when necessary, control the release of inadmissible evidence, leads, information and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses and counsel. Otherwise, inaccurate information may be disclosed."

The District Attorney's Office had no comment on the judge's ruling, a spokeswoman said yesterday.

Westerfield's legal team cited unnamed sources quoted in the Union-Tribune who have revealed details about the investigation. One story, quoting unnamed police sources, said Westerfield failed a lie-detector test. Other stories have quoted unnamed law-enforcement sources as saying police believe the motive for the crime was sex-related.

During yesterday's hearing, the judge served notice that he planned to issue a strict set of guidelines for media behavior during the preliminary hearing.

"There will not be a circus atmosphere in this court, in the hallways of this court, anywhere in the court complex," the judge said.

He later issued a ruling forbidding the media from photographing or interviewing any attorney or witnesses anywhere inside the courthouse except within the courtroom itself. The media will be allowed to photograph and televise the court hearing itself, the judge ruled.

The judge also decided to wait until Monday to take up the issue of whether to issue an order preventing police from trying to interview Westerfield in jail. Westerfield's attorneys filed the request after discovering that two San Diego detectives tried to visit Westerfield in jail Feb. 28 without informing either the defense or prosecution.

Police officials have called the two officers' actions inappropriate and said the matter is being handled internally.

Alex Roth: (619) 542-4558; alex.roth@uniontrib.com

Opinions expressed in the forums are those of individual contributors and do not necessarily represent those of SignOnSanDiego or the Union-Tribune

Highlights from SignOnSanDiego's Westerfield Forum

From the thread: Green Jacket DNA - Smoking Gun or Bloody Glove
After re-reading the Redden interview, I'm convinced more than ever that DW was clearly trying to conceal his guilt in that interview. The man is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! Cleaning the Motor Home before he gets to the house? In the interview, he says he expected the a mere baby sitter to there at the house? Going tothe dry cleaner with the jacket? Washing laundrey at just the right time? He says in the interview he could probably figure out the VD floor plan if he had to? He said he was really drunk when he went home? He has had experience with children and knows how to handle them? It's all over but the penalty phase...verdict of guilty This Afternoon! Tomorrow AM atthe latest!
Posted by: Best Juror

Yellow Pages

Bars & Clubs
Business Services
Computers
Education
Health & Beauty
Home & Garden
Hotels
Restaurants
Shopping
Travel

Search by
Company Name:

Local Guides

Cars
Coupons
Eldercare
Financial Guide
Health
Homes
Jobs
Legal Guide
Shopping

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

No Decision From Westerfield Jury

Jury Could Take At Least A Week, Experts Say