Posted on 07/03/2002 6:41:25 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Janet Roehr, who lives across the street from Westerfield in Sabre Springs, said Westerfield typically left the 35-foot motorhome at his house overnight before leaving for a trip.
Roehr said she only saw the 1997 Southwind for a few minutes the afternoon after the girl was discovered to be missing from the neighborhood. She didn't see it again.
Her husband, Mark, testified he did not see the motorhome the day before.
The testimony likely did not help the defense case, which began directly after the midday lunch break. Three witnesses took the stand in the morning before the prosecution rested.
Janet Roehr said she saw the youngest child of Brenda and Damon van Dam chase a ball across the street just two weeks ago.
"Did you see the parents anywhere?" defense attorney Robert Boyce asked.
"No, I didn't," Roehr answered. She said that she had to leave her house and help the boy back across the street.
The van Dams testified earlier in the trial that they kept their children under tight rein, able to play alone along the sidewalk near their house but never across the street.
The defense has portrayed Sabre Springs as a family neighborhood filled with children.
Under cross-examination by Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek, both Roehrs said they never saw young children in the defendant's motorhome.
Westerfield, a 50-year-old self-employed design engineer, could be sentenced to death if convicted of kidnapping and murdering the second-grader, who lived down the street from his home.
He also faces misdemeanor possession of child pornography charges.
Westerfield's next-door neighbor, Paul Hung, testified that he saw the defendant's motorhome parked near Westerfield's home about 8:30 a.m. on Feb. 2, the day Danielle turned up missing.
"I saw the motorhome parked on the side (of the house)," Hung said. "No, I didn't see David that morning."
Hung testified that a half-hour later, the motorhome was gone.
That night, Westerfield was not around as searchers combed the area around the van Dam home, Hung testified.
Detective Johnny Keene was recalled to the stand and told Dusek that Westerfield was questioned the morning of Feb. 4 and again that afternoon and night.
In between, the defendant was free to do what he wanted, Keene testified.
Defense attorneys have alleged that Westerfield -- even though he wasn't under arrest -- couldn't leave and hadn't eaten when he spoke to authorities.
The final prosecution witness, Dr. Joy Halverson, of Quest-Gen Forensics in Davis, testified that the mitochondrial DNA found in four of five hair samples could have come from Layla, the van Dam family's dog.
Halverson said she found a complete match in two samples. She also said she found nothing to exclude the canine as a source for the hair.
Two samples with the full match came from Westerfield's motorhome, according to a chart prepared by the prosecution. One was in the hallway carpet, the other on a bathmat.
The evidence gave the prosecution another link between Westerfield and the slain youngster, who was found dead east of El Cajon on Feb. 27.
Last week, another DNA expert, Holly Ernst of UC Davis, said she was unable to get results from the samples that she could reproduce.
Halverson, though, said Layla's DNA sequence was found in 23 of 267 dogs in her database, or one in nearly 12.
Those numbers, though, are where she ran into trouble in cross-examination by defense attorney Steven Feldman.
Halverson admitted a mathematical error when she narrowed the field in her database from 358 dogs to 267. She said she filed an amended report. The chart shown to jurors gave a third set of numbers.
"Is it good science to make a mathematical error three times in the same data set?" Feldman asked.
Halverson called it human error.
Earlier, a volunteer dog handler testified that he sent an e-mail saying he "was bursting with pride" on the day Westerfield was arrested in connection with Danielle's disappearance.
Jim Frazee, who volunteers with the San Diego County Sheriff's Department, sent the e-mail to three friends on Feb. 22 -- 16 days after his dogs examined Westerfield's motorhome at an impound lot on Aero Drive.
Frazee testified last week that one of the dogs, Cielo, gave an alert signal at the door to an exterior storage compartment on the passenger side of the vehicle while searching for the child's remains.
Under cross-examination by Boyce today, Frazee said he did not mention the alert in a report he filed because police investigators asked for the results to remain confidential.
"On Feb. 6, you don't recall telling anyone what the dog found?" Boyce asked.
"I don't recall what I told them," Frazee said.
The defense concentrated on the fact that, with no other report filed, the only evidence of Cielo's alert came from the e-mail after the defendant's arrest.
Boyce quoted Frazee's e-mail, which he said stated: "I wasn't sure, but I thought Cielo was giving his cadaver alert. I thought he may have been doing this just to please me. Today, however, came word of the suspect's arrest and that they found blood in the motorhome."
Frazee said the arrest raised his confidence in Cielo's finding.
Frazee's supervisor, reserve sheriff's Lt. Rosemary Redditt, said she watched Cielo's search of the outside of the motorhome and had no trouble recognizing the dog's alert at the storage door.
Mistrial, maybe?
That is the side you have taken up.
I wonder if the defense improperly phrased the questions in order to elicit all these objections in order to make a point with the jury that the prosecution is being very deceptive and lying about almost everything. If the police are so incompetent that they could not even figure out that Neil was the person downloading the porn, how can the police be trusted to evaluate evidence in a case that is much more difficult to determine. The prosecutor would have been better off not making these objections, especially since they should have realized that the defense would eventually phrase the questions properly to get the answers they wanted. Obviously, the prosecution is now desperate.
According to Watkins, he was not asked to determine this..??..Helllooo!..suspect in interrogation..porn being surfed....dang, that dw is steathly outwitting us again!
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.
