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

KGTV ^ | August 13, 2002 | KGTV

[FresnoDA]

No Decision From Westerfield Jury

Jury Could Take At Least A Week, Experts Say

Posted: 5:30 p.m. PDT August 12, 2002
Updated: 5:47 p.m. PDT August 12, 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.

[belleoftheball414]

I've been watching the trial since it started. The man who found Danielle's body went to my school. In my young, naive mind, David Westerfield is as guilty as sin, and all evidence points to that. I apologize if you don't agree.

I feel stupid for displaying my obvious ignorance to people to seem to know better. Forgive me.

Ave,

*Belle

[Bluebird Singing]

I happened to see a little of MSNBC discussing the jurors this morning. A psychologist saying there is probably one "rogue" juror who is into pornography, who is nullifying the evidence, has been wrongly accused in the past of something in his life, and has sympathy for Westerfield.

[bvw]

"In my young, naive mind, David Westerfield is as guilty as sin">

Where have you watched the trial, what network or station?

[KnutCase]

You gotta be kidding! Who is this psychologist? If brilliant minds think alike, could the psychologist be into porn also? Same type of reasoning, isn't it? Howver, don't you think that since porn was part of the trial every potential juror was asked specific questions about their knowledge or interest in porn? Come on, MSNBC give us a break, find another psychologist!

[KnutCase]

The prosecution has to show three things:

1. Motive
2. Means
3. Opportunity

How does the evidence against DW stand up against these threechallenges by the prosecution?

[small_l_libertarian]

No, Belle, not all evidence points to Westerfield's guilt. There are unidentified DNA and fingerprints in Danielle's room, unidentified fingerprints all over Danielle's house, blood in and around Danielle's house and many different colored fibers on Danielle's body that ALL exclude Westerfield and his environment. That evidence points AWAY from Westerfield's guilt. Also, there is NO evidence that Westerfield was ever in the van Dam house, which points away from his guilt. The search dog did not smell Danielle's scent in Westerfield's motorhome (even though the evidence shows that she was in the motorhome at some time) - that demonstrates that the DNA, fingerprint and hair found in the motorhome are old (or that the items weren't in the motorhome before the dog was - scary). Which, again, points away from Westerfield's guilt.

I can understand how you would have an emotional reaction to this case, especially considering that you know someone who was involved in the search. That doesn't make Westerfield guilty, though, and you should do some more research before you post.

[Spunky]

yes, Susan L took the pics and emailed to DW to print.

I thought I heard that the picture of Danielle L. was a crotch view of her sitting in her bikini.

Did her mother actually take that and send it to DW?

[small_l_libertarian]

1. Motive. Prosecution says "child porn." Their own witnesses do not confirm that what was found on Westerfield's computers is actually child porn. The jury has to decide whether the porn is actually child porn or not. If they decide that it is child porn, move to 1a. If they decide that it is not child porn, no motive proven.

1a. The prosecution did not prove that child porn is a precursor to murder. No mental health or other experts testified that viewing child porn leads or can lead to murder. No motive proven.

2. Means. No evidence that Westerfield was ever in the van Dam house. Prosecution contends that Danielle was snatched from her bed. Also, no testimony or evidence to prove that she was even murdered in the first place (she could have suffocated under her beanbag, for all we know). No means proven.

3. Opportunity. The van Dam house, at any given time on the night Danielle disappeared, was occupied by from one to six adults, two or three children (pre/post disappearance) and a dog. Prosecution did not provide any coherent theory on how DW got past all those people and the dog to get to Danielle and then get her out. No opportunity proven.

I think the prosecution's 0 for 3.

[small_l_libertarian]

Depends on what you call a "crotch shot." My understanding is that Danielle L was sitting on a lounge chair with a towel over her face. Her mom took the photo from the direction of the foot of the lounge chair. Doubt her mom even noticed that her crotch was in the shot.

Dirty old Dusek, though...

[KnutCase]

I'm with you...0 for 3.

I posted that to see if others could fill in the blanks. You scored 100. Now, go back to jury requests of the past two days: a) they wanted audio tape of DW's interview with police, b) they wanted pics and porn tapes. From here we must assume they the jury is looking for a way to exclude DW from involvement, or to include him. My thoughts are they are going over these two items with a fine tooth comb. If they get by these two obstacles, then they go on to Means and Opportunity. Am I getting this right?

[Rheo]

Her mother did take the pic...the pic supposedly is one of those "mom cuts the head off, can't take a pic" pics.

Do not believe it was anything other than innocent....which is why Mudd excluded it from the porn.

[mommya]

"Did you read that the jury requested the pics of Danielle L on Friday, along with the porn?"

Thanks Rheo - I hadn't heard that.

So they wanted that stuff before they wanted the Redden tape - Hmmmn.

[KnutCase]

Rheo......re my previous post on this subject: If this is considered child porn, then she has to be charged with accessory to murder along with DW. How interesting.

[Rheo]

I see you got several answers on the beanbag DNA..double checked for you...it was Derek as major contributor....Danielle could not be excluded as minor contributor on some and unknown minor contributor on some.

[small_l_libertarian]

Yeah, obviously. So I guess that means you've seen the porn?

Actually, the basis for my arguments is the testimony from the trial. Guess I can assume the basis for your arguments comes from your imagination.

[Rheo]

that is a media account so grain of salt.

Sounds like they wanted to work on motive first.

[mommya]

I forget - did the jury get to hear that it was Susan who took the photos? From her or from Feldman in the closing?

[bvw]

For every guess you make on what the jury is doing there are a dozen other equally likely guesses, you never know -- even though I indulged my own whimsy in this matter yesterday.

[mommya]

Off topic - are you here - are you seeing the news and this chlorine gas leak in Festus? A train car. Isn't that stuff deadly?