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.

Detective Torgersen:

A: I WAS ASKED TO TRY TO LOCATE ITEMS FROM A DRYCLEANING RECEIPT TAKEN OUT OF A VEHICLE. AND SO I WENT UP THERE TRYING TO LOCATE THE DRYCLEANER'S.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHICH DRYCLEANER'S TO GO TO?

A: NO, I DID NOT AT FIRST.

Q: YOU HAD A RECEIPT FROM A DRYCLEANER'S?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I WENT TO THE AREA WHERE THE SABRE SPRINGS RESIDENCE WAS AND STARTED FANNING OUT THERE, GOING TO THE CLOSEST DRYCLEANER'S THAT I THOUGHT THE PERSON WOULD USE.

snip

A: ON TUESDAY I WENT TO FOUR DIFFERENT DRYCLEANER'S IN THE POWAY AREA CLOSEST TO THAT RESIDENCE.

Q: TUESDAY WOULD BE FEBRUARY 5TH.

A: FEBRUARY 5TH, YES.

Q: EVENTUALLY DID YOU FIND THE APPROPRIATE DRYCLEANER'S?

A: YES, I DID. ON FEBRUARY 6TH.

snip

A: THE CLERK TOLD ME THAT SHE KNEW MR. WESTERFIELD AND THAT SHE DID TAKE SOME ITEMS IN ON THE MORNING OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4TH.

Q: DID THEY SHOW YOU ANY OF THOSE ITEMS?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Can someone fill me in on the blood-stained jacket? Is is really the victims's blood? Was that allegation really substantiated, and how did the defense address the issue?

There's been a lot of debate and speculation about the jacket. I don't know all the details, but in general, I think:

- The stains were identified as being DNA that is consistent with the DNA that was taken from panties that were found in Danielle's bedroom.

- The DNA is (probably) also consistent with the DNA of Brenda and the boys.

- They appeared to be blood, but could have been something else. Drool, whatever.

- The jacket was supposedly "normally kept" in the motor home. Its precise location during the week(s) prior to being taken to the dry cleaners has never been specified.

- There are questions involving dry-cleaning receipts that show two jackets being brought in on two different dates. The one that was brought in on the receipt dated 1/26 was identified by the clerks as simply a "jacket". The one that was brought in on the receipt dated 2/4 was identified as a "sport jacket". The actual jacket in question is something like a windbreaker.

- The computer that generated the receipts was possibly / probably experiencing problems on 2/4. Times and sequence numbers were apparently among the fields that were affected. Were dates affected also? This is all very muddy. It could be helpful to either side, depending on how it is interpreted by the jury.

- The San Diego Police mis-handled the testing in a way that effectively prevented the defense from doing their own testing. They failed to take proper 35mm photographs of the stains before cutting them out, and then they did proceed to cut them out.

- The testing that was done was not the best, full-blown DNA testing that could -- and should -- have been done.

- There are questions regarding the chain of custody on the jacket. Speculation that the stains could have planted after the SDPD had already decided that DW was their man. This may seem far-fetched at first, but the SDPD has done such things in the past.

- The clerks did not note nor did they recall seeing any blood on the jacket at the time they took it in.

The list goes on. There are many people who think that how the jury interprets these stains versus the bug evidence will be critical to the outcome. I am not among those. I think the two approximately offset each other, so I go on to the other questions.

(Anyone: please feel free to correct me on any of this.)

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