Jury begins deliberations -Prosecutor says victim has pointed to her killer (keep it civil)

UNION-TRIBUNE signonsandiego.com ^ | August 9, 2002 | Alex Roth

[dread78645]

Jurors in the David Westerfield trial began deliberating yesterday after hearing a final statement from the lead prosecutor, who beamed a photo of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam onto the wall and urged the jury to focus on the physical evidence.

Finishing closing arguments in the two-month murder trial, prosecutor Jeff Dusek called a blood spot on Westerfield's jacket the "smoking gun." And Dusek imagined what Danielle might tell the jury if someone could bring her back to life "just for a moment" so she could answer the question, "Please tell us who did this to you."

"I've already told you," Dusek said the girl would tell the jury. "I've told you with my hair and where you found it. I've told you with the orange fiber that you found on my choker, and where you found it.

[gigi]

Plus she called it a sport jacket. I would think 12 years at a cleaners and you would know the difference between a sports jacket and a ski/winter jacket.
I was reading testimony today, and the people who testified about him being stuck in the desert said that he had light-weight clothes on.
One woman said he was wearing a light-weigth t-shirt and shorts.

[The Other Harry]

Profiling us...

I may be wrong here, but in following these threads for the past week or so (yes, I'm a Johnnie-come-lately), one of the things I've noticed is that those of us who are most in favor of acquittal usually seem to fall into one of two groups:

- Males whose ages and life situations are similar to DW's (this includes me)

- Females who are analytical and who are over about the age of 40

He does not seem to do so well with young people of either sex or with older married males.

If there is any truth to this, I think DW may actually stand a chance with the jury he's drawn.

Anyone else been thinking about this?

[small_l_libertarian]

RS - I just went back and re-read the whole thing. I agree - she never did say what the darned things looked like. Obviously a bad assumption on my part. Sorry.

[small_l_libertarian]

I'm 31 and a woman. I am a programmer, so may fit into your analytical mold. I'd like to think I'm young, though. :-)

[hoosiermama]

Analytical is the key.
If younger people have been TAUGHT to analize he has a chance. If all the jury knows is to react not chose to act, he doesn't.

SO who do you think will vote how in the jury? Why?

[John Jamieson]

I'm an older married male, but I agree with you on the younger more idealistic persons. It doesn't work across the board though, we've got many DW lynchers in our same age groups, and some have studied the case very well.

[gigi]

I've read some of the guys here express that they were single and careful around children. Frankly, even if your married you need to be careful It's the times we live in.

And since I'm 40, almost 41, Pretty good profiling!

Young people may me too lazy too think for themselves.

I have been surprised at how many people refuse to take a closer look at the defense's case. They seem to think that the cops are right and thats that! You would think, as conservatives we would at least be suspicious of the media spin.

[The Other Harry]

I'm 31 and a woman.

Well, unless they state it, I rarely ever know anyone's age. I guess by their ability to use English. ;)

[185JHP]

There have been serious posts here about Danielle being missing way before the night before the 911 call. There was a "somberness" reported at the House of Evil, that apparently spoiled the planned "fun",and someone (DvD?) told the the slutgangers "Get out, the party's over!"

[hoosiermama]

Hope spelling doesn't count. I can't spell schidt!

[small_l_libertarian]

Well, your method does often yield good clues. Just didn't want anyone to think that they were in the Geezer forum. :-)

[sunshine state]

Well, I'm (just!) under 40, but I like to think I'm analytical.

:)

[John Jamieson]

That was about the time Damon said to Brenda,"By the way the kid is missing". The cover story took the rest of the night, I guess.

[gigi]

Some people just can't see past the DNA. It's there, so he must be guilty. It's a dangerous thing if you don't question how it got there and when.

[John Jamieson]

And, exactly what it means.

[Jaded]

You're scaring me.

[hoosiermama]

I think Kayti's suggestion that she had a nose bleed, bled on side walk and he stepped in it, really opened my eyes. Particularly since they didn't determine if it was splatter, smear, drop or how old it was. Does anyone else find the polaroid picture suspect?

[185JHP]

I've read that a major problem with prosecuting the Ramseys is, you have to have a coherent theory of who did what, how, and when - you can't just say "Well, one of 'em did it, and the other one knows about it - get the juice!" Oddly that doesn't seem to have been a necessity with this SD bunch...

[John Jamieson]

Yes, and I even read things into the amount, pruity, size and shape of the stains. One Qtip of lab DNA would make a nice 1/4" spot, and wipe what's left on the jacket. One Qtip's worth of "evidence".

[gigi]

I do find the Polariod picture suspect. We know LE has better cameras for documenting evidence. Why they didn't use one in this case is beyond me.