Prosecutor: Westerfield Guilty 'Beyond Possible Doubt'(Many Still Find Van Dam's Culpable)

Court TV ^ | August 7, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[Jrabbit]

Are you making this up? Danielle was known for running off? Biggest kept secret of the whole trial....

[The Other Harry]

"hypotetical"

Yeah, well... At this hour I do make my share of typos. I make them at all hours.

But, hypothetical or not, it might explain why the dog didn't create a stir when she left the house.

That could be. That is a problem, and I have no better resolution to it. Still, that's guessing. I don't think DW should be convicted on guesswork.

The defense contends that because the dog didn't bark, Westerfield didn't enter the house. But, the dog was downstairs when the father found the open door, and he carried the dog back upstairs and closed the dog in the bedroom with him.

There's another thing. That whole thing about the open door doesn't sit well with me. It sounds like a lie.

[FresnoDA]

Danielle Van Dam, and Standards
Brian S. Wise
February 25, 2002

  Danielle van Dam was seven when she disappeared on February the first, apparently now her body has been found, burned, in some desert brush about twenty-five miles East of San Diego. All that is immediately available as means of identification is a plastic necklace, the one featured so prominently in the missing child fliers distributed throughout San Diego, and an earring. Days will pass before a positive medical identification can be made, but there is no reasonable doubt the body found is that of Danielle van Dam.

  Consider now David Westerfield, the neighbor who – based upon discoveries of blood evidence and child pornography – was arrested for van Dam’s abduction and death. Consider him only because a clear majority of those who can form coherent opinions have done so, deciding that if Westerfield is guilty of this thing (and he is), he should be put to death. Far be it from me to disagree with the popular sentiment; one cannot be an iconoclast on all things, because sooner or later the public will get something right.

  What piques curiosity is the popular treatments to be levied against David Westerfield as opposed to the varied treatments thus far levied against five time child killer Andrea Yates. It’s impossible to believe we will ever see Katie Couric pimping the Westerfield defense fund on Today, or in depth news magazine reports on the psychological sadness of pedophilia, or family members and friends coming forward to stand up for and explain away his ghastly fetish, or television’s more misguided talking heads concocting impassioned pleas explaining why David Westerfield simply cannot be held accountable for his actions. All of that seems right, as a man of that sort shouldn’t ever be defended, except at trial (if we must).

  All of this aside, let’s speculate for a moment. Let’s say it suddenly came out Westerfield was depressed, that he had tried to kill himself twice in the last year, that he believed he was possessed by Satan, that his lover knew he was physically attracted to prepubescent girls but took no steps to help him as a service to the community, that his doctor knew as well but took him off of psychotherapeutic drugs, instead advising him to “think happy thoughts,” and he would heal in time. Were it all true, would anyone (in their own right mind) dare come forward and say Daniel Westerfield’s mental condition suggests his life should be spared because he had no concept of his behavior, that he shouldn’t die because of the horrors suffered by Danielle van Dam? Of course not; and why?

  The answer is difficult, more difficult, perhaps, than most of us are willing to admit. It’s because when a man (maybe rapes) and kills a small girl, there cannot be an acceptable excuse, no matter his problems or weaknesses. We have generally been conditioned to believe the modern man wants young girls, all of whom are uncaged animals because they will do whatever they must to have young girls, all of whom are all potential pedophiles and murders because they take what they want without consideration, as uncivilized barbarians. For a man to kill a female of any age is a testosterone laden strike against the very existence of feminity, but par for the course, so off with his head, as means of delivering a message.

  When the murderer happens to be a woman (and more often in these times, it is), in particular the mother of her victims, there is literally no end to the excuse making; the theatrical speeches on the frailty of her mind and condition, the huffing and puffing over the changes a woman goes through when having children, how no man can possibly understand the physical and emotional implications of new motherhood. In other words, David Westerfield is to be strung high … Andrea Yates is to be understood.

  What frustrates conservatives is the definitive lack of a consistent moral standard of justice among our people. Justice is a plainly stated love of the innocent; how, if we are to defend innocence, can it be rightly said someone who sets into motion the apparatus which destroys three thousand human beings in the Tragedies should be hunted and wiped out, but the Palestinian who shoots the husband of a woman in labor shouldn’t? Or that someone who sets off a bomb and kills one hundred and sixty-eight in Oklahoma City should be put to death, but someone who shoots and kills the clerk at 7-11 shouldn’t? Or that the man who wipes out a seven-year-old girl should burn eternally, but the woman who drowns her five children (aged seven and under) should be lent compassion?

  Man should possess a standard of justice and adhere to it regardless of the emotional strings strummed or the criminal’s coincidences to the common man. Base that standard upon the belief those lives marred by the decisions and actions of another should be afforded a proper revenge; that “an eye for an eye” was always followed by “and a life for a life,” we have just selectively forgotten. If David Westerfield should die – and if what we suspect about him is true, he should die, immediately – so should Andrea Yates, and anyone who follows them.

[Freedom2specul8]

Just popped in for a quick read. Won't see ya till next week.

I am just not seeing the humor tonight fres. This lack of humor on my part, must have something to do with hearing about the following: "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 "

God please bless our children.
Please protect them from harm...
Please allow us to see evil for what it is.--Amen


Pain, hurt and anguish comes from evil, not God...

G'nite

[fatima]

Thanks ,that was even better brat as JR gives us all freedom to post as we all help him.Or maybe you are a take and run and not help this forum poster.

[cyncooper]

I do hope the City and taxpayers of San Diego understand Dusuck's premise. That DW committed this crime because he had viewed the child porn videos. Therefore, over the next several months, all jurors, trial watchers, LE officers, prosecution staff, defense attorneys will be subject to serious consideration/investigation should another child go missing in the San Diego area. After all, just watching those videos will lead you to murder. They have now all seen them, they too are suspect.

Westerfield sought out these images. This is what he wanted.

Dusek's premise is not that viewing them as a juror or in a law enforcement capacity disposes one to develop the same inclinations as Westerfield.

[CyberAnt]

Why does the open door bother you? Are you thinking it was the mom or dad (or one of the guests) and they just used the door as a way to divert attention from themselves, by indicating that someone else entered the house?

And ... I sense you are leaning toward a non guilty - hmmmm?

I'm leaning the other way. The reason I am is because of the blood on his jacket, and the girl's fingerprints all over his motorhome - especially in his bedroom; as well as her hair which was found in his drain - pulled out by the roots. That doesn't sound good to me because several people pointed out that the motorhome was kept locked - and it was also noted that Danielle was not tall enough to open the door; so, had it been unlocked, she still would not have been able to get in by herself.

[fatima]

And we all hold each other's hands.

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me - why would I do that??

I heard the mother tell this information in an interview. This was very, very early after the girl was missing. I doubt most of the outside media ever heard that information. But ... I heard it right from the mother's mouth.

If you don't believe me, well ... there's nothing I can do about that.

[fatima]

To go where ?

[Jrabbit]

Oh, Brenda said it? The media didn't report it? I see. Well, since Bren is a proven liar, looks like she did it again. The kids were watched most carefully at all times, according to Brenda.(except when she left Danielle in the dressing room at Mervyns, alone).

[nycgal]

You're right, Jrabbit. I went thru the prelim transcripts and BVD repeatedly denied that Danielle ran off and had to be brought back home. Feldman was trying to get her to admit it but she wouldn't.

[Greg Weston]

It sounds like you and other DW apoligists might want to give a "pass" on child killing because you don't like the dead kids parents lifestyle. Very, very troubling if true. This isn't even a remotely close case to call. Slam dunk mountain of evidence against him guilty.

[theirjustdue]

"I am just not seeing the humor tonight fres. This lack of humor on my part, must have something to do with hearing about the following: "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."

Kim, IMO, this is a great example of the high drama hyperbole, that the majority of Dusek's closing argument consisted of. It's sad indeed, to see a prosecutor resort to such cheap theatrics to win a capital case and condemn a man to death based on such ridicules antics.

Why do I say ridicules? Please put your emotions aside for a moment and think what Dusek was implying and then tell me how 4 foot tall, Danielle's head, could possibly have been pounding against the headboard, if a six foot plus, DW had been raping her. If it's physically possible, at all, maybe you can explain it, but it certainly defies my imagination. JMO

[Greg Weston]

Why wouldn't he or any thinking human being not believe the DNA, blood, hair, fibers, fingerprints etc?

[Greg Weston]

>>>If it's physically possible, at all, maybe you can explain it,<<<

Maybe you can explain how you think it's not possible first.

[Greg Weston]

I think that is a African Wild dog. Not a jackel.

[theirjustdue]

"Maybe you can explain how you think it's not possible first."

Well, do the math Greg. Six foot plus and four foot. Either DW would have to be a contortionist, or his head would have been sticking more than two feet through the headboard.

You may have a different opinion, but neither scenario seems very likely, IMO.

[PFKEY]

Greg I'm posting this to you just to bolster your opinion of DW guilt and expectation that the jury will return a guilty verdict.

I have just completed reading the days previous thread and followed the judges instruction to the jury and the prosecutions contentions about not having to prove how certain aspects of the crime was committed.

My take from what the judge's instructions were to the jury relating to if you find defendant guilty of kidnapping then you also have to find defendant guilty of murder. Or conversely if you find not guilty of kidnapping then you have to find not guilty on murder.

I also recall reading that the judge stated in some form or fashion that the finger print in the RV was sufficient proof of kidnapping.

So, I do think the jury could easily come to a guilty verdict on both kidnapping and murder based solely on the fingerprint and blood/DNA in the RV.

[theirjustdue]

"I think that is a African Wild dog. Not a jackel."

I believe it is too, so on that we can agree.