Posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Prosecutor: Westerfield guilty 'beyond possible doubt' |
||||||||
|
||||||||
SAN DIEGO Calling the murder of Danielle van Dam an "evil, evil crime" that shattered notions of suburban safety, a prosecutor urged jurors Tuesday to convict her neighbor, David Westerfield, of capital charges. Before a courtroom filled to capacity for closing arguments, prosecutor Jeff Dusek said the 50-year-old engineer snuck into the second-grader's bedroom last February, snatched her from her canopy bed, killed her and then "dumped this 7-year-old child naked in the dirt like trash for animals to devour." "He's guilty of these crimes. He's guilty of the ultimate evil. He's guilty to the core," Dusek told jurors at the end of a closing studded with drama despite its three-and-a-half-hour length. Dusek shouted and jabbed his finger at the defense table when he discussed Westerfield and the child pornography the prosecution says reveals a motive in the killing. But when he mentioned Danielle's death, his voice dropped to a whisper, forcing jurors to lean forward when he said, for example, of the moments before her killing, "This was not an easy time. This was not fast."
At one point, he slammed his hand again and again on the jury box rail to simulate, he said, Danielle's head striking Westerfield's headboard as he raped her. The image was too much for Brenda van Dam, Danielle's mother. She leapt up from her seat at the back of the courtroom and ran to the door in tears. Westerfield's lawyer, Steven Feldman, began his closing late Tuesday afternoon. He is to conclude Wednesday morning and then Dusek will have one final opportunity to convince the panel to convict Westerfield of felony murder, kidnapping and child pornography charges. The six women and six men who have heard evidence in the two-month long trial appeared to pay close attention to Dusek's summation, which focused on the forensic evidence connecting Westerfield to Danielle's disappearance and problems with his alibi for the weekend she vanished. A spot of her blood on a jacket Westerfield took to the dry cleaners, Dusek said, "in itself tells you he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone. But it doesn't stop there." He also listed fiber, fingerprint and hair evidence linking Westerfield to Danielle and said, "all of it comes back to his lap." Of two blond strands found in the defendant's recreational vehicle and genetically matched to Danielle, he said, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Proof beyond a possible doubt." Dusek pointed to an autopsy photo showing Danielle's badly decomposed remains and ticked off the fiber and hair evidence technicians gleaned from her body. "From Danielle herself, she helps to solve this case," he said. Westerfield gazed straight ahead, and in the back row of the courtroom, Brenda and Damon van Dam held hands and stared at the floor. A row in front of them and three seats to their right, Westerfield's sister, who was attending the trial for the first time and was in the company of her husband and son, stared at the image. Dusek also attacked Westerfield's claim that he spent the weekend Danielle vanished on a 560-mile solo road trip in his recreational vehicle. "He gives us a bogus story that just doesn't wash," said Dusek, referring to his account of driving from his home to the beach then to the desert then to another part of the desert before returning to the beach. He said Westerfield spent that weekend sexually assaulting Danielle and then after killing her, searching for a place to dump her body. The prosecutor listed other potential suspects, including the van Dams, their friends, Westerfield's teenage son and even "the bogeyman," but said each was investigated and cleared. He criticized what he said were defense attempts to implicate Westerfield's son, Neal, in the crime and said testimony about the van Dam's risque sex life, which included swinging, was irrelevant. "All the sex, the alcohol, who's doing this, who's doing that. That's got nothing to do with her kidnapping," Dusek said. With Westerfield's mug shot projected on the courtroom wall next to a passport photo of Danielle taken the day she vanished, Dusek said, "I think at times we've lost track of the other person. We've lost track of Danielle, what happened to her, what he did to her." The prosecutor downplayed bug evidence presented by the defense suggesting Westerfield was under surveillance when Danielle's body was dumped and therefore couldn't have been responsible. "Everyone's different, has a different estimation, approximation, some might even say guess," said Dusek. He added, "This is not an exact science. This is not DNA." The prosecutor told jurors repeatedly that he did not have to prove to them why Westerfield killed Danielle, only that he did, but he said he was certain jurors wanted to know, "Why would a regular, normal 50-year-old guy kidnap and kill a 7-year-old child?" There was no answer, he said, just another question. Pointing to print outs of some 85 images of child pornography found on computers and discs in Westerfield's home, Dusek said, "Why would a normal 50-year-old guy have pictures of young naked girls?" With some of the images of elementary-school aged girls, naked and exposing their genitals, flashing on the courtroom wall behind him, Dusek pointed at Westerfield and said, "These are his fantasies." Westerfield stared toward the empty witness stand, never looking at the photos. Dusek acknowledged that "if (Westerfield) is the guy, that destroys all our senses of protection." "That's the scariest part he was a normal guy down the street," said Dusek. Defense lawyer Feldman promised jurors the heart of his argument Wednesday, but in a little more than an hour before the panel, he seemed to be hoping for a hung jury. He presented jurors with a list of "Jury Responsibilities," several of which seemed aimed at encouraging any panelist for acquittal not to cave to pressure from other jurors. One "responsibility" read "All of you have the right to have your feelings respected." Just before court broke for the day, Feldman held up a blank piece of posterboard and said, "This is the only evidence they have of David Westerfield in the van Dam residence." He suggested the van Dam's swinging lifestyle endangered their children. "You don't know what pervert is coming in the door when you're in the bar, drunk, making invites," he said.
|
|
Wrote on envelope for payment his name, his vehicle license number, wrote time. Did what he was supposed to do, and suddenly it's sinister?
Going someplace to hide, to conceal and I'm going to the Strand?
I used to use and train people in computer graphics and using CG software.
At my new job, I got bored, so I wanted to use one of the drawing softwares.
Well, it had a couple of sample pictures, but I wanted to find some better pictures to use.
So, I used the search facility all PC's have and searched the entire network for pictures with the proper file extension.
Well, I found many.
Point is, if you know what file extensions are used (and kids know) for image files, it is easy to search for them.
I hope you'll forgive me if I ignore the debate over how much the evidence weighs. I'm really not sure how to calibrate that measurement, in any event (the only thing that comes to mind is the weight of the paper submitted in evidence, in which case the ton or more figure is certainly closer to the truth than the 1/2 gram)
However, if we look at what the evidence proves instead, we get a truly mixed picture. The evidence presented really is sufficient to prove contact between Westerfield and DVD. Of course, contact during the cookie sale, and then dancing with the mother, was either proven or stipulated by both sides.
There is also sufficient evidence to prove that she had been inside the motor home. This is a critical question, when was she there? The defense says she had gotten in at some time in the past - uncertain as to when. The opportunity did exist, if Danielle occasionally wandered away from her parents' control (one reason the prosecution does not want to admit this, even if it makes the kidnapping scenario easier). Also, the relative paucity of evidence of her being in the motor home adds some credence to this. Nevertheless, the defense did very little to counter this - they didn't put up any actual evidence of when she was there, or have experts testify that lack of scent/fingerprints/etc indicates passage of time. If the jury believes it to have been recent, they are likely to convict.
Finally, we have the blood/DNA evidence. I am placing this apart from simple contact, because that is how the prosecution is playing it. Now, I know my niece's consider skinned knees to be a vital fashion accessory, so I tend not to consider blood drops to be more than contact. If the prosecution wanted to prove this point, I think they would have needed to show a splatter pattern, which they failed to do because the police failed to follow procedure, and photographed it with a polaroid. Again, however, the defense offered little in the way of counter evidence or criticism on this. So, will the jury think the same way or not?
As far as I can tell, this is pretty much the sum total of evidence the prosecution has presented. They talk about how his habits differed on this trip from others, and they speculate a lot about what might have happened, but don't present anything concrete. Is that a "ton" of evidence? Personally, I don't think so.
Drew Garrett
These are the last words as written Feb. 1, 2002 in her personal silver metallic journal/diary. (Hidden behind some book shelves)
Honey, God picked you up in his strong, loving arms, wrapped them around your little body, and took you "HOME" to his house. May you always have blue sky, green grass and a shady place, and may you be filled with the glory of LOVE. Because His Perfect Love, casts out fear.
You NOW know the peace that surpasses all understanding, Danielle.
The guy goes inside and rests. I don't know what your personal life is like, but I sure remember getting dumped. You're all alone, misery, grief over the loss of your relationship. Emotionally, it's rational to a jury to think he goes inside and rests.
Another witness said he closed the windows, had long-sleeved shirt on, knew cell-phones didn't work. Said DAW was trying to dig his MH out of the dirt. (Fuzzy feed...please correct any hearing mistakes I'm making.)
I worked for a short time running a primary child abuse prevention program for the Marine Corps. Statements like that were considered immediate red flags. Safe from what? Or whom?
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.