Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prosecutor: Westerfield Guilty 'Beyond Possible Doubt'(Many Still Find Van Dam's Culpable)
Court TV ^ | August 7, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

Posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Prosecutor: Westerfield guilty 'beyond possible doubt'

Photo
Lead prosecutor Jeff Dusek traced the fingerprint, blood and fiber evidence linking defendant David Westerfield to a murdered girl.

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."

 

Westerfield listened to the prosecutor's closing argument Tuesday.

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.

 
Comprehensive case coverage


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,141-1,144 next last
To: I. Ben Hurt; All
Take special notice, the Prosecution doesn't seem to be bothered they aren't sequestered. Wonder why? LOL!!!
821 posted on 08/07/2002 5:15:06 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: small_l_libertarian; the Deejay
DJ wins the prize for the most probably answer.

small1 wins the prize for the most hilarious answer.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU BOTH !!!!!!!!!!!!

822 posted on 08/07/2002 5:15:52 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
So you think it will be a hung jury,got to watch most of it today.
823 posted on 08/07/2002 5:16:09 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: I. Ben Hurt
"Judge Mudd STILL refuses to Sequester the Jury, even tho they have sent him NOTES saying they are under pressure..."

Major issue for appeal right there. Feldman has been BEGGING for a sequestered jury since the prelim. All he
got was a gag order. Now, that did a lot of good, didn't
it? (The judge just forgot to gag all viewers & reporters.)

824 posted on 08/07/2002 5:17:33 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Well, THANK YOU! LOL
825 posted on 08/07/2002 5:18:43 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Did it ever occur to you, that if DW KNEW there were these tiny drops of blood on say his jacket and comforter, all he had to do was cut HOLES in the area of the specks...flush down the toilet, or heck, set fire to the fibers in an ashtray and POOF..all gone?

The DA didn't seem to have a problem cutting holes in his jacket, did they?

sw

826 posted on 08/07/2002 5:19:21 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
If it comes to a retrial, I'm sure that jury will be sequestered.

BUT, it will be a little too late for that!

Just imagine, the search for jurors who didn't watch CTV or any other TV station. Or listen on the radio, or read about it in a newspaper.

Have to go to Afhganistan to get jurors.

827 posted on 08/07/2002 5:20:06 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: Karson
I think your "GLOSSARY" has gotten to be a bit much. Maybe it's time to lose it?

Just curious. It is because of the length? Does it slow down your loading of the thread?

Or do you have a different objection?

828 posted on 08/07/2002 5:21:15 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Well it felt swcattered to me..but it was not for me
829 posted on 08/07/2002 5:22:05 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 791 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Oooooh! You know what I just noticed? (If someone has already mentioned this, sorry in advance - delayed brain engagement on my part.) Feldman dared the jury to look at the porn today. He wasn't scared of it at all - if it were truly child porn, would he tell the jury to, "Go ahead - turn to any page. Look at it. Pick any page you want." Just dismissed the prosecution's theory of motive with a wave of his hand. Interesting - sounds to me like he's fairly confident he'll win on reasonable doubt.
830 posted on 08/07/2002 5:22:41 PM PDT by small_l_libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Freepmail call!
831 posted on 08/07/2002 5:22:48 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: All
BITS and PIECES

BArbara Crumb had seen Danielle riding her bike in the neighborhood unsupervised. She had also seen mh in neighborhood unattended.

Neighbor saw DAW drain MH at 9:15 am (when he was supposed to have a kidnapped child inside it?). Many neighbors say MH is frequently in neighborhood. Sometimes doors open. Next door neighbor Miss Heftz (sp) said MH doors were open. Blinds were shut. Light was on. That's unusual? What took her so long to report it to police?

832 posted on 08/07/2002 5:23:23 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If the jury had been sequestered I would agree..but the kidnapping and murder of the other little girl..colors the water.....A hung jury maybe..acquittal doubt it
833 posted on 08/07/2002 5:24:20 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: small_l_libertarian
No one had mentioned that. But you're right, he *did* highly stress to the jury to *look* at it, all of it.
834 posted on 08/07/2002 5:24:28 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: small_l_libertarian
I swear, that comment of yours has GOT to be the CLASSIC quote of the WHOLE TRIAL!! So true!

sw

835 posted on 08/07/2002 5:24:56 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: agarrett
>>>then dancing with the mother, was either proven or stipulated by both sides.<<<

Brenda denied it. Westerfield never mentioned it in his statement to the cops either.

To me Blood, DNA, fingerprints, hair, dog hair, fibers, desert trip, clean up = "Ton". Of course you can disagree.

836 posted on 08/07/2002 5:26:07 PM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: spectre; UCANSEE2
thankyouverramuch. thankyou.
837 posted on 08/07/2002 5:26:45 PM PDT by small_l_libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Gosh Greg! we REALLY missed you
838 posted on 08/07/2002 5:28:17 PM PDT by CAPPSMADNESS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: CAPPSMADNESS
"Gosh Greg! we REALLY missed you"

Like a sore thumb.


839 posted on 08/07/2002 5:29:25 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
You're not whistling Dixie there. Let's see, the vdams, LE, DA for starters. I will be "glued" to any and all SD websites to follow it, too.

Dw would have no case against the DA. Possibly against those whose affidavits that were used to get the indictment. Anything said in court cannot be the basis for a libel/defamation action. However the republishing of statements made in court can be the basis for a defamation/libel action if it not a 'fair' reporting of the testimony. In this case, DW would have a tough time prevailing in such an action. This is why prosecutors rarely talk to the press about the accused, other than to simply state that so-andso has been charged and pretty much leave the rest for the courtroom.

840 posted on 08/07/2002 5:30:04 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,141-1,144 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson