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

Skip to comments.

Jurors To Hear Recorded Westerfield Tapes: Mudd Still Wrestling With Media! (VERDICT WATCH-Aug.14th)
Union Trib ^ | August 14, 2002 | San Diego Staff

Posted on 08/13/2002 10:12:33 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Jurors ask to hear recorded Westerfield interview

Judge Mudd lashes out at talk radio 'idiots,'
bars KFMB radio producer from courtroom

SIGNONSANDIEGO STAFF
and WIRE SERVICES

August 13, 2002A San Diego jury spent a brief second day deliberating August 9, 2002 in the trial of David Westerfield, man accused of kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, before breaking for the weekend without reaching a verdict in the closely watched case. Judge William D. Mudd goes over the jury verdict form with jurors before sending them into deliberations in the trial at the San Diego courthouse on August 8.  (Dan Trevan/San Diego Herald Tribune via Reuters)

The fourth day of deliberations in the David Westerfield trial has ended with no conclusion by the jury. The jury will resume deliberations Wednesday morning at the San Diego County Courthouse. Earleir today, jurors asked to hear Westerfield's only recorded explanation of what he was doing the weekend 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was kidnapped.

Superior Court Judge William Mudd said he was granting a request from the jury for a tape recording and transcript of the taped interview Westerfield gave to police interrogation specialist Paul Redden on Feb. 4, two days after Danielle's disappearance.

During the interview, Westerfield makes a reference to "we" as he describes his meandering trip through San Diego and Imperial counties on Feb. 2 and Feb. 3.

"The little place we, we were at was just a little small turnoff-type place," Westerfield said.

Westerfield, 50, could face the death penalty if convicted of murder, kidnapping and a special circumstance allegation that the killing of Danielle van Dam occurred during the commission of kidnapping.

He is also accused of the misdemeanor possession of child pornography.

Jurors are in their fourth day of deliberations.

Mudd's disclosure came during a 10 a.m. open hearing on a request from KFMB-AM 760 to let River Stillwood, an assistant radio producer for talk show host Rick Roberts, back into the courtroom to cover the trial.

"She's out and will remain out and will not be permitted in for any live proceedings... because she is the representative of an individual who takes great glee and delight shoving it in this court's face," Mudd said.

Mudd ejected Stillwood from the courtroom on Thursday after asking her to tell him who told Roberts about the details of a Wednesday exchange between Mudd and the attorneys in the case during a sealed hearing.

Stillwood told Mudd that she didn't know who gave Roberts the information. On the air, Roberts later said he had received a call from a source in the courthouse.

The court is conducting an internal investigation, but cannot compel Roberts and Stillwood to name their source, Mudd said.

Stillwood can still sit in the pressroom and watch the video feed of any court activity, Mudd said.

KFMB was welcome to send someone else to sit in the courtroom, so long as the person was representing the radio station and not Roberts, he said.

KFMB's attorney Joann Rezzo argued that the disclosure did not violate the defendant's right to a fair trial. She also argued that Stillwood didn't give him "the source of the leak" because she didn't know who it was.

Before Mudd made his ruling, he invited comments from prosecutor Jeff Dusek, who managed only a wry remark.

"My inclination is to comment, but on advice of counsel, I I will submit," Dusek said, gesturing to his fellow prosecutor, Woody Clarke.

Defense attorney Robert Boyce told Mudd he was concerned about the integrity of proceedings. "They broadcast it, they knew what they were doing," Boyce said.

He called it "just another effort to sensationalize these proceedings."

Mudd told the media attorneys he welcomed the opportunity to make a "full and complete record" of his decision to eject Stillwood.

In his comments, Mudd made it clear he was still angry with KFMB television's decision to include a high school yearbook photo of Neal Westerfield during a telecast of the son of the defendant's testimony. Mudd had ordered that no television or print images of the adult, who is now 19, be transmitted.

The judge's inclination was to ban both the station's radio and TV representatives from the trial.

"Frankly, they seem to be the two networks in this community that just don't seem to get it," he said.

However, after his wife advised him to "sleep in it, " he gave the matter "serious thought," Mudd said.

He quoted a line from a Supreme Court decision in 1976 involving a press restraint issue in Nebraska.

" The extraordinary protections afforded by the First Amendment carry with them something in the nature of a fiduciary duty to exercise the protected rights responsibly--a duty widely acknowledged but not always observed by editors and publishers," Mudd said. "It is not asking too much to suggest that those who exercise First Amendment rights in newspapers or broadcasting enterprises direct some effort to protect the rights of an accused to a fair trial by unbiased jurors. "

Mudd said he was troubled by the host's decision to broadcast the information, knowing it was from a closed hearing.

The judge wasn't impressed by the host's justification that the general public was already aware of the issue, and that Stillwood was ignorant of the source.

He said the host wasn't conducting a search for the truth, but a grab for ratings. He also took the opportunity to lash out at "idiots from LA talk stations," who broadcast an afternoon program from a media compound outside the County courthouse. He said the members of the talk station were "acting like teen-agers" in front of the courthouse.

The judge acknowledged he could not control such behavior but could control his own courtroom.

The judge said officials from KFMB must be taking "great glee in shoving it in this court's face."

Fred D'Ambrosi, news director for KFMB-TV and Radio, said his television station showed only a high school yearbook photo of Westerfield's son.

"We didn't shoot him in court, which was the judge's order," D'Ambrosi said.

Regarding River Stillwood, D'Ambrosi said the issue was important because of the First Amendment and a free press. He added that he was not in charge of the Rick Roberts program.

"We're just trying to report the news and uphold the First Amendment," D'Ambrosi said. "If (Mudd) can ban River Stillwood, he can ban anybody." The news director suggested that the judge was angry because he didn't like the story that was reported.

D'Ambrosi said he had never spoken to Mudd, and called his reading of the situation "totally inaccurate."

Mudd said he had done a 180-degree turnaround on the issue of allowing cameras and reporters in the courtroom since deciding to allow Court TV to cover the trial live.


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 981-991 next last
To: dread78645
Of course not. Just a wannbe.
121 posted on 08/14/2002 9:35:21 AM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots; Congressman Billybob
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20020625-9999_1m25hair.html

Hair similar to Danielle van Dam's was found on sheets in David Westerfield's bedroom, and authorities found fibers in his motor home that appear to match fibers from the girl's bedroom carpet, a criminalist testified yesterday.

Also, hairs similar to the van Dams' family dog were found in Westerfield's house, his motor home and on a comforter he dropped off at a dry cleaner, criminalist Tanya DuLaney said.

DuLaney, who works in the San Diego Police Department crime lab, testified on a day when prosecutors used charts and blow-up photos in an attempt to show that traces of the 7-year-old girl were scattered throughout Westerfield's domain




can also be confirmed in transcripts.
122 posted on 08/14/2002 9:36:01 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Jaded; spectre; UCANSEE2; countess; Krodg; BARLF; kayti; Politicalmom; I. Ben Hurt; JudyB1938; ...
Forgive me if this has already been posted...and sorry for being late (computer problems!)

For the Ping List and anyone who wants to join in:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~p>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lord, grant these twelve jurors great wisdom to understand all the testimony they have heard over the past two months, and the clarity of mind to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Give them strength to endure, and fill them with a sense of honor and integrity, and the desire to do what is right.

May You shine the light of truth into the darkness of their confusion, that the jurors will discern honesty from those who bear false witness against their neighbor.

Although You say, "Vengeance is Mine," may You see fit to allow justice for Danielle here on this earth, that her death may not lead to the death of other innocents.

We pray that truth will prevail, and that the sword of justice will weigh heavily on those who would use it falsely to bring glory to themselves.

May Your will be done, in Jesus name.

Amen.

Pray for strength and guidance for all of the friends and families involved in this ordeal.

123 posted on 08/14/2002 9:36:12 AM PDT by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: alisasny
Nancy Grace doesn't GET to state things for the "record", and yes, she did say that. Of couse, the judge called them cartoons, but what would he know??
124 posted on 08/14/2002 9:36:15 AM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
the other possibility is he was smart enough to wear gloves, hat etc ..before entering the house.

And for the 3 hour hide in the closet he'll need one of these.

125 posted on 08/14/2002 9:36:42 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: spectre; connectthedots
These "usually sensible" people on this forum who are taking us on.. should be asking themselves WHY so many of the rest of the "usually sensible" people are questioning DW's guilt?

Agreed.

I'd like to add that just because an individual has shown himself/herself to be strong in a particular area does not mean every opinion of said individual has merit.

In fact, that is foolish. That is why people get by on a reputation rather than actual quality sometimes.

ANY person who chooses to spout off, with presumptuous authority, about that which he clearly knows little, makes a very poor error in judgment. That tells me a whole lot.

126 posted on 08/14/2002 9:40:25 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA; Admin Moderator
Dear AM, Would you explain to us why these threads are being moved to chat? What is the benefit and what category was it under before?

Thanks!
Kim
127 posted on 08/14/2002 9:41:22 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alisasny
You may have noticed I addressed the porn issue last. I don't think the porn evidence proves anything and I think the prosecution included it primarily in order to appeal to the emotions of the jury. I think it borders on being so prejudicial it might be the basis for the reversal of any conviction in the appellate courts.

After this number of days, I think the jury is split into two primary groups. One group which believes that the fiber/hair/DNA evidence is conclusive (even though the prosecutor never seemed to be able to establish when it was deposited) and another group that basically will hold to the believe that the dogs and the bugs don't lie, and that there is no evidence of DW having been in the VD home. If he was never in the VD home, he didn't commit the crimes.

I am leaning towards a hung jury, which would give the prosecution an opportunity to retry DW at a later date if they can develope the evidence further. The DA will look at the evidence and decide not to retry him immediately, which will force the court to release DW without bail. Maybe then the prosecutor will start looking at other suspects; especially Damon or someone Damon may have 'loaned' Danielle to. I am not convinced Danielle was in the house when she was abducted.
128 posted on 08/14/2002 9:42:54 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Ditto
129 posted on 08/14/2002 9:43:41 AM PDT by Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom
I just heard Nancy's guest say that DW preferred slender women w/small breasts. NOT TRUE!! That is NOT what he said. His preference in women is slender & large breasted

I had to turn the tv OFF!

130 posted on 08/14/2002 9:44:07 AM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: All
Please confirm the info in 122 with the transcripts as it is not accurate...case in point:

Also, hairs similar to the van Dams' family dog were found in Westerfield's house, his motor home and on a comforter he dropped off at a dry cleaner, criminalist Tanya DuLaney said.

The "layla" hairs that were sent to Veterinary Genetics came back non reportable....were not matched to ANY dog, let alone Layla.

Hairs and fibers that Ms. Dulaney opines are Danielle's..turn out not to be when tested.

131 posted on 08/14/2002 9:44:58 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Many people have responded to you on this thread with the actual facts of this case. I wholeheartedly agree with them so I won't repeat what they said.

I would like to add though, the judge would NOT let the defense "rake the detectives over the coals." He tied their hands and wouldn't allow them to even hint that the LE or VD's and Company were involved in any way. You really need to read the transcripts. I think you might be surprised.

On one issue I might tend to agree, because the jury didn't hear all the facts in the case, they very well may come back with a guilty verdict.
132 posted on 08/14/2002 9:45:33 AM PDT by the-gooroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
#93....I saw it.

If I didn't know for sure (& actually I don't)....you sound so like Nancy Grace.

Nancy, is it you?

133 posted on 08/14/2002 9:52:01 AM PDT by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Kim quoting inaccurate media information???

Say it ain't so!!!
134 posted on 08/14/2002 9:53:36 AM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: All
Folks, I do believe Congressman Billybob is our "chain
yanker" for today. What'dya think?
135 posted on 08/14/2002 9:54:04 AM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Dear AM, Would you explain to us why these threads are being moved to chat? What is the benefit and what category was it under before?

Better yet – where is “chat” if I wanted to search and find this thread??

136 posted on 08/14/2002 9:55:17 AM PDT by Duan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Duan
general interest
137 posted on 08/14/2002 9:56:03 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Firecracker
138 posted on 08/14/2002 9:56:14 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Wel, I guess I lost. :)
139 posted on 08/14/2002 9:56:19 AM PDT by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Rheo; Congressman Billybob
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020624-9999-am2.html

21 Q. DID YOU FIND ANY HAIRS IN THAT LINT?22 A. YES, I DID.23 Q. DESCRIBE THEM PLEASE.24 A. I FOUND THREE HUMAN HAIRS THAT ARE BLOND AND I ALSO25 FOUND 18 DOG HAIRS.
-------
28 Q. DID THE 18 ANIMAL HAIRS APPEAR TO BE SIMILAR TO ONE59691 ANOTHER?2 A. YES, THEY DID.
-------
10 FROM THE HALLWAY OF THE MOTOR HOME OF MR. WESTERFIELD.11 Q. DID YOU EXAMINE THAT CARPET SECTION LABELED NO. 74?12 A. YES, I DID.13 Q. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING IN IT?14 A. YES, I DID.15 Q. WHAT?16 A. I FOUND ONE BLOND HUMAN HAIR, TWO DOG HAIRS AND17 THREE LIGHT COLORED CARPET FIBERS.




(Blonde hairs, dog hairs, fibers etc. found in various locations)




FBI

5 Q. DID YOU PACKAGE THAT ITEM AND PREPARE IT FOR6 SHIPMENT TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION?7 A. YES, I DID.8 Q. WHY?9 A. THE COMPARISON OF HAIRS IS NOT AN INDIVIDUALIZING10 TECHNIQUE, BUT THE ADDITION OF D. N. A. ANALYSIS CAN POINT MORE11 CLOSELY TO AN INDIVIDUAL. SO THE MICROSCOPIC COMPARISON OF12 HAIRS IS TYPICALLY AUGMENTED WITH A D. N. A. ANALYSIS NOW.13 Q. IS THAT WHY THAT PARTICULAR HAIR WAS PACKAGED AND14 TO BE SENT TO THE F. B. I.?15 A. YES, IT WAS.




12 A. THAT MEANS THAT TWO OR MORE PEOPLE CAN HAVE HAIR13 THAT YOU CAN'T DISTINGUISH BASED ON THE MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION14 OF THE HAIR.15 Q. HOW DOES D. N. A. PLAY A ROLE IN THAT?16 A. D. N. A. CAN PLAY A ROLE IN THAT IF IT CAN BE17 ANALYZED EITHER WITH NUCLEAR D. N. A. IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE

-----

so my question would be: Who did the dna testing
140 posted on 08/14/2002 9:56:34 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 981-991 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