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

KGTV ^ | August 13, 2002 | KGTV

[Rheo]

"The longer I sit here and think about it...we are right. " You're right Knut! And we're all good looking and modest too! LOL

Well, if this doesn't bear repeating!!:-)

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Consarnit Rheo... you beat me to it!

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Consarnit Rheo... you beat me to it!

[small_l_libertarian]

There are only a couple of reasons I can think of that they would want to hear the tape, as opposed to reading the transcript.

1. They want to assess, like you said, his demeanor. His manner, tone of voice, etc.

2. They don't trust the transcript(?). (Don't necessarily believe that one myself, but it's a logical reason.)

That's about all I can think of. Any other ideas as to why they might want the tape?

[Rheo]

Does that mean I beat you twice??

[dread78645]

I wonder, was the DNA from her body ever compared to the DNA from the underwear

Yes. And it matched.

[UCANSEE2]

was it urine stains or vaginal excretion?

The latter. It's a tell-tale sign of sexual abuse. It was used as a DNA source, which urine would not provide.

Sorry, Steve, this was not the case. URINE in itself may not contain DNA, but the crotch of the underwear would contain skin flakes, sweat, urine, all kinds of material which would provide a source for DNA.

The LE that took the sample said it was a stain.

It was not identified as VAGINAL DISCHARGE except in the terminology that urine is discharged from the vaginal area in general.

If you go back and read the testimony, you will find that the same was taken because the LE could tell the panties had recently been worn. NOT BECAUSE of ANY PARTICULAR STAIN.

NOW, having said that, is it possible that the stain could have been a vaginal discharge? That Danielle could have been a victim of sexual abuse? YES,YES.

BUT IT WAS NOT STATED IN TESTIMONY, and we are trying to stick to the TRUTH.

[Rheo]

To hear the route and the "we"

On a side note...while traveling to ND last month...by myself for the first time in 15 years...I found myself saying "We" a few times...hmmm.

[KnutCase]

You may have misinterpreted my post #425. That would be my way of saying to the police, "I'm not talking. Get outta here...NOW!"

[UCANSEE2]

which urine would not provide.

Wrong about this too. We found information stating that DNA can be garnered from URINE.

[UCANSEE2]

. This child was not first abused the night in question. Thanks to those who responded about the panty dna. Someday the truth will come out. 344 posted on 8/13/02 12:00 PM Pacific by alisasny

I agree about the 'truth'. However, the panty DNA did not prove what you are saying. See my post above.

I am not saying she wasn't abused, but the TRUTH is that the dirty area in the panties was not ID'd as vaginal secretion, especially a kind resulting from abuse.

[angelgirl]

Can someone tell me how David Westerfield became the suspect in the very beginning? What made them suspect him? Is it possible at this point that the VD's can be tried as suspects once David is hopefully acquitted?

[small_l_libertarian]

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes here. I was going on the assumption that they already know about the route and the "we." What, exactly do you mean? For example, do they want to see if the "we" sounds suspicious to them, or like an innocent slip of the tongue?

[You know what? Now that I typed that out, it sounds very reasonable to me, too. Is that what you meant?]

[the Deejay]

And you would be right, as well as within your rights,
not talking to the police. I am constantly amazed at
just how many people go ahead and talk to LE without
an attorney. And not telling LE "Get outta here.....
NOW!"

[VRWC_minion]

Found guilty on any Friday.

[demsux]

Not sue if it's a maiden name or not...looked through deeds on San Diego County website...there was one trust deed where her name changes from/to gonzalez.

[Jaded]

Sometime with in the first 14 hours Brenda VanDam said something to LE. This was misrepresented/embellished in the affidavits in order to obtain search warrants.

And in the last set of affidavits that were released SDPD requested the affidavits be sealed NOT Feldman. As we have seen representations made by David Westerfield have largely proven to be true. Representations/leaks made by LE largely HAVE NOT.

[Rheo]

That is what I meant.....they may want to hear the context in which the "we"s" were used or if he tried to cover it up or if it is an innocent slip.(I can attest that it happens)

I hope they also ask for Brenda's testimony where she states..I wish THEY had taken something else besides Danielle.

[VRWC_minion]

If I knew I was totally innocent of a crime and the police requested an "interview

Call an attorney before even nodding your head. Anything more is dangerous.

[dogbyte12]

Can someone tell me how David Westerfield became the suspect in the very beginning?

I believe it was because he was spotted hosing down his RV the very next day. Police suspected he could be trying to destroy evidence that way. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.