Posted on 12/12/2002 8:19:20 AM PST by Jaded
When a person goes in search of enlightenment, it's usually good advice to avoid an Internet chat room. And yet it was a random posting on the Internet that led to a key piece of evidence in the David Westerfield case.
At a luncheon in Mission Valley yesterday, prosecutors Jeff Dusek and George "Woody" Clarke told a number of anecdotes – some of them funny, others poignant and revealing – about what happened behind the scenes in the most publicized criminal trial in San Diego County history.
The luncheon was organized by the San Diego Crime Commission and about 100 people attended.
The lawyers talked about their late-night strategy sessions, about the emotional toll of the case on their spouses, about moments of inspiration that came from the strangest of places.
They also took some shots at the media coverage – especially the media's treatment of the parents of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam – and revealed some previously undisclosed statements they said were made by Westerfield. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 3 for kidnapping and killing the Sabre Springs second-grader. A jury has recommended the death penalty.
It was Dusek who told the story about the Internet.
During the trial, he said, the lawyers were surfing a Web site where most of the postings were from people convinced of Westerfield's innocence. Several of the postings dealt with the subject of the blond hairs found in Westerfield's motor home.
Prosecutors said the hair proved that Westerfield kidnapped the girl. Westerfield's lawyers said their client often kept the motor home unlocked in the neighborhood and that the girl might have snuck inside at some point to play.
On the chat room, the discussion turned to speculation about whether the prosecution had bothered to find out the date of Danielle's last haircut. The consensus in the chat room was that of course they had.
Actually, they hadn't. They'd never thought to do so.
It turned out that Danielle's last haircut had been five days before her disappearance. After the haircut, her hair was eight inches long – the exact length of the hairs found in the motor home, which hadn't been parked in the neighborhood for several months.
Dusek also revealed the story behind the alleged scratch marks on Westerfield's arm. Pictures of the scratch marks were used as evidence at the preliminary hearing in March – but the jury at Westerfield's trial never heard about them.
The reason: An expert analyzed the marks after the preliminary hearing and couldn't conclusively match them to Danielle's fingers.
"Woody and I are still convinced it's scratch marks," Dusek told the audience. "What else could it be? But we didn't have proof."
Dusek said parts of the trial were particularly draining on his wife, who broke into tears after listening to a media commentator who suggested that the defense's opening statements were more effective that the prosecution's.
He also criticized the media for overhyping the testimony about the van Dams' spouse-swapping and the couple's use of marijuana on the night their daughter vanished.
Discussing what he called the media's vilification of the van Dams, Dusek cited an incident where the couple was lambasted on talk radio for wearing Danielle buttons on their lapels during their testimony at the preliminary hearing.
Noting that the couple immediately removed the buttons from their lapels after leaving the witness stand, one radio reporter suggested that the couple had been making a phony display of their grief to influence the judge.
In reality, the only reason they removed the buttons was because both prosecutors wanted to have them as mementos, Dusek said.
"They walk out of that courtroom without their badges and they get blistered on the radio that night," he said.
Dusek also revealed some statements he said Westerfield made at various points during the trial.
At the start of the trial, just after the prosecution had finished its opening statements, Westerfield was being led down a hallway when he turned to a bailiff and said, "They may as well send me to (San) Quentin right now."
During the penalty phase of the case, when Westerfield's lawyers called friends and family members to the witness stand in an effort to save their client's life, Westerfield looked at his lawyers with a confused expression on his face when one woman approached the stand.
"Who's that?" he asked.
"It's your aunt," his lawyers informed him.
Yesterday, neither Steven Feldman nor Robert Boyce, Westerfield's two main lawyers, returned phone calls seeking comment.
At one point during the presentation, a questioner asked Dusek what he thought about Feldman, whose hyperactive theatrics became well-known to everyone who followed the case.
He called Feldman "a very good attorney." Citing ethics guidelines, Dusek wouldn't comment on a report in the Union-Tribune that Westerfield's lawyers had been trying in February to broker a plea whereby their client would reveal the location of the girl's body in exchange for a life sentence rather than the death penalty.
"He promised a vigorous defense," Dusek said of Feldman. "He did not say his guy was innocent."
Celebrating the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ, overwhelms the year's events and somehow pushes aside lesser concerns.
Yes, the daily back and forth will return, but for a few days we pause and focus keenly on the most important thing that ever happened to and for mankind.
Thank you, Jesus, and Happy Birthday.
God Bless us everyone and especially you and you and you and you.............
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
You are assuming that both DNA's were left at a similar or same time. There is no reason to assume such a thing. DW's DNA could be from a much older stain that had undergone several cleanings as well as exposure to air and light for a much longer period of time thus more degraded.
The fact that Danielle's DNA was undegraded indicates it was more recently left. The differing states of the two DNA is really a non starter red herring.
Cops investigating Westerfield were unbiased, prosecutors argue
December 26, 2002
SAN DIEGO – No detective had it in for convicted child killer David Westerfield while investigating 7-year-old Danielle van Dam's death, prosecutors contend in arguing for death and against life without parole.
And a special circumstance of murder during kidnapping, which the jury found true and which makes the 50-year-old self-employed engineer eligible for the death penalty, also was warranted, according to the prosecution.
"Absolutely no evidence was presented to explain away the amount and variety of hair, fibers, blood and fingerprints found in the defendant's home, SUV and motor home," prosecutors wrote in response to a defense motion for the judge to override the jury's death recommendation.
"The testimony and physical evidence amply supported both the guilty verdict and penalty decision," prosecutors state. "Frankly, any other decision would have been unexplainable. The jury's decision was right and appropriate. It must not be reduced."
Westerfield, found guilty on Nov. 22, is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 3 by Superior Court Judge William Mudd.
Last week, Westerfield's attorneys argued in written briefs that those investigating the second-grader's slaying violated the defendant's "due process" rights as guaranteed under the Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments to the Constitution.
They also asked Mudd to strike the special circumstance of murder during a kidnapping, arguing that the child could have died at home.
Westerfield's attorneys questioned the San Diego Police Department's handling of the case.
The defense claims there was a pattern of detective misconduct – enough to grant a motion to spare his life – while searching Westerfield's home and car, as well as during interrogations.
The prosecution claims the detectives had no particular bias against Westerfield, and that some of the detectives the defense cites as violating his constitutional rights never testified against him.
Citing case law, prosecutors argue the defense is basically attempting to retry the case.
===========================================================
The defense claims there was a pattern of detective misconduct –
Well, yes there was. However the same rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to the Left Coast. Where have we heard that before?
Hope everyone had a great Christmas!! with out too much snow
May God's blessing shine upon all of my friends and worthy opponents on the DW threads.
I sincerely wish everyone on these threads a healthy, happy New Year...God Bless, and protect us all.
sw
Well, here the Santa Catalina mountains had snow visible from the valley. I count that as a white Christmas, as if you can see snow, even from a distance, why shouldn't it count? LOL
As to the article, well, I agree with this:
"Absolutely no evidence was presented to explain away the amount and variety of hair, fibers, blood and fingerprints found in the defendant's home, SUV and motor home," prosecutors wrote in response to a defense motion...
And there is the real problem. When the defense goes fishing in the "civil rights violations" pond, its because they have no defense and are throwing a Hail Mary Pass to the Liberal Appellate Courts hoping to spring their clients on a legal technicality rather than with truth.
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.