Posted on 07/15/2002 6:55:50 AM PDT by MizSterious
By Alex Roth
STAFF WRITER
July 14, 2002
A week ago, Janet Roehr, a neighbor of David Westerfield's, testified at his murder trial about some of his routines, including his occasional habit of parking his motor home in front of his house.
Her testimony lasted 15 to 20 minutes, but what she said wasn't as important as what she did: She smiled at Westerfield.
Roehr was among a parade of defense witnesses who consider themselves friends of Westerfield's and who seem to like him, even as he stands accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old neighbor Danielle van Dam, who disappeared from her bedroom in Sabre Springs in February.
At various times during the trial, those witnesses have grinned at Westerfield, winked at him and laughed in his direction. One witness gave the 50-year-old design engineer the thumbs-up sign while leaving the courtroom.
Whatever else Westerfield's attorneys have accomplished so far, they have succeeded to some degree in humanizing their client. Legal experts said the importance of this achievement shouldn't be underestimated in a case in which the jury must decide not only guilt or innocence but also, potentially, whether he deserves the death penalty if convicted.
"They give the picture of Westerfield being a pretty normal middle-aged, middle-class guy," said San Diego defense lawyer Robert Grimes, who has been following the case. "It makes the jury wonder: Could this person really have done this horrible crime?"
During the guilt phase of a trial, rules of evidence place limits on character evidence ? that is, testimony about a defendant's personality. Nonetheless, a jury can get some feel for a defendant by sizing up his friends and evaluating how much those people stick up for him.
Several neighbors, some camping buddies and a female friend Westerfield hung out with at a Poway bar have testified. In large part, they were "people who seem like nice, ordinary citizens," said San Diego lawyer Mike Still, a former prosecutor.
One of the defense's most powerful witnesses was Westerfield's former girlfriend Susan L., who cried while acknowledging she still cares about Westerfield but hadn't seen him since shortly before his February arrest. She dated Westerfield for about three years after his divorce from his second wife. (Her last name is not being published to guard the identity of her daughter, who also testified.)
Her affection for Westerfield seemed genuine, although she admitted on cross-examination that he changed when he drank alcohol, that he once became "forceful" when drunk, and that he once waited outside her house.
In some ways she was a terrific witness for both the defense and the prosecution. For the defense, she made the point that Westerfield is a man who can attract a woman who seems sweet and normal. For the prosecution, she illustrated that Westerfield might have a dark side that goes beyond his alleged habit of collecting child pornography.
In addition to showing the jury that Westerfield has friends who care about him, his legal team has succeeded in raising questions about some of the prosecution's theories in the case, some legal experts say.
For instance:
Prosecutors say Westerfield engaged in suspicious behavior by embarking on a meandering, two-day journey in his motor home on the weekend Danielle disappeared. He went from Coronado to the Imperial County desert and back again, traveling back roads and getting stuck in the sand twice along the way, he said.
But several defense witnesses testified that within the esoteric subculture of San Diego County motor-home enthusiasts, Westerfield's behavior wasn't necessarily that weird. It's not uncommon to drive back roads as a way of taking in the scenery and avoiding high winds on Interstate 8, they said.
Prosecutors noted that Westerfield, who is compulsively neat and organized, took off that weekend without putting away his garden hose, which was uncoiled on the lawn. This shows he was in a hurry, they say.
But Westerfield's former girlfriend said it wasn't unusual for him to toss down the hose in the front yard before leaving on a motor-home trip. She also said the motor home got stuck in the sand during several camping trips she took with him.
Prosecutors called a volunteer who testified that his cadaver-sniffing dog reacted to a side compartment of Westerfield's motor home during a search at a police impound lot.
Under questioning by the defense, he revealed that he never told police about his dog's behavior and that he was much less definitive about his dog's reaction in an e-mail he sent to the dog's breeder several weeks later.
Prosecutors say child pornography found on computer disks in Westerfield's office prove he has a sexual affinity for young girls.
But a computer expert hired for the defense suggested that at least some of the pornographic images might have been downloaded by Westerfield's 18-year-old son.
Meanwhile, the prosecution ? which has succeeded in presenting a powerful body of forensic evidence linking fibers, blood and hair from the girl to Westerfield's house, motor home and sport utility vehicle ? stumbled once or twice in the past week.
Prosecutor Jeff Dusek leaned on several defense witnesses in a way that might cost him some credibility with the jury, legal observers say. And he may have come across as unnecessarily mean-spirited when confronting witnesses whose testimony conflicted with the prosecution's theory of the case.
"Prosecutors wear the white hat," said Still, the former prosecutor. "Don't beat up on witnesses you don't need to beat up on."
But Dusek had his stellar moments, too. His questioning of the defense's star witnesses ? insect expert David Faulkner ? was one of the most effective, and important, cross-examinations of the entire trial.
On direct examination, Faulkner, an entomologist with the Museum of Natural History, said flies on the girl's body indicated it was dumped at a time when Westerfield was already under 24-hour police surveillance.
But on cross-examination by Dusek, Faulkner appeared to contradict himself, admitting that strange weather patterns in February ? as well as the imprecision of the science ? made it impossible to know precisely how early the flies had infested the girl's body.
At the start of the trial, lead defense attorney Steven Feldman promised that the insect expert's testimony would exonerate Westerfield.
"Science is going to come to Mr. Westerfield's rescue," Feldman told the jury.
But by the time Faulkner left the witness stand, many of the jurors had stopped taking notes. They will be the final arbiters of whether Faulkner's testimony was relevant, and whether it made any sense at all.
In case you missed this from late last night, here's my congratulations to you on the civil tone you always take in debate..........NOT. I'd like you to take particular note of the posts cited, and I'd like it if you could identify the first post by me in which someone was personally attacked, and the post to which I was responding in that post. Then, you might look at the second such instance. And the third. And the fourth. I think even your addled brain might be able to discern a pattern.
It might also be a helpful exercise for you to identify your first post to me, and describe the civility and reasonableness of that post. You could add a comment on whether I had posted anything similar to you at that point, or had even sent ANY message to you at that point.
Then, your assignment for 10 days from now is to explain, in 100 words or less, how it is that a jury of 12 people can unanimously convict a man of murder, when Jeemesy and you and the Baron and the majority of the inmates in the asylum are so SURE that he is innocent. Surely, ONE JUROR should be able to see the truth, right? While you're at it, please join with Jeemesy in convincing Feldman to present evidence that it wasn't really blood on the jacket. That is one of those theories that disqualifies a person from being entitled to consideration as someone worthy of discourse.
Finally, you can post a list of all the statements by me you have continually characterized as "lies". For example, the confession. I think we'll find some statements that simply summarize evidence in a light you don't like. For example, upset vs. angry. Please, what a stretch. Or equivalent of a confession vs. explosive as a confession. Another stretch. Lies? Or reasonable interpretations of the evidence? Let's ask the jury.
So, without further adieu, I repeat------
Ucan--
I'm sorry, I can't echo the sentiment. You are the master of ceremonies in a convention of lunatics, and your main concern is that people with common sense don't call a spade a spade when the lunatics talk in tongues. Please don't patronize me, by praising my change in tone, as though I came in here with a bad attitude and you guys civilized me.
In truth, this continues to be a collection of people that is a disgrace to Free Republic. That so many here could come up with whack-job theories over every piece of incriminating evidence, and heap hate and lies upon the poor dead girl's parents, continues to disgust me. I would expect it on a Democratic forum in which the "Free Johnny Lindh" crowd congregates. But here? I guess there is a larger lunatic fringe on the right than I knew existed, and I am a dyed in the wool, Reagan Republican.
Let's set the record straight on a few things: I did not come here and attack people. I came here, posted some fun stuff for the amusement of those who care to read it, stuff that I guarantee you and the others I have read here could not duplicate, because there is not a cell of wit in any of your DNA. And I was attacked from the outset. Let's check the record:
There was a song posted by FDA that I saw. I posted the poem in post 43. I posted another on the spot piece of poetry in response to FDA in 60. I responded to another post in no. 68, with a long, substantive post that explained why the odds of Westerfield being innocent are miniscule. Agree or disagree, but it was substantive and it was not combative.
What followed were nasty, personal attacks, in posts 69, 73 and 97, that preceded any response by me of any kind to those attacks or those posters. By the time it got to your post in no. 177, I was being called a liar, and being commanded to get into long explanations of trial evidence that I didn't really care to get into, on pain of continuing to be harassed for not responding to people whose opinions I could already tell I didn't respect.
If you're really bored, go back and read up. You'll see that your buddies started on a gang-up, that it got worse, not better, that you jumped in with invective at a very early stage--when I had not deigned to even address you--and that my replies were mild compared to what was said to me. When spoken to normally by the Wester fans here, even though I might have disagreed with their views, I responded with substantive posts.
The only SaveDave Team Member who did not attack me, in spite of our different views, was FDA, and I maintained a good rapport with him. FDA, I appreciate your sense of humor and your ability to discuss the topic without degenerating into personal attacks. I wish you would lay off the Van Dams, though--guess what, they didn't do it, and you are increasing their pain.
Most of the rest of you Wester supporters-- bvw, spectre, jamieson, et al., are, I continue to believe, an unusual and unattractive bunch. In my view, this is the worst collection of people posting on one thread in the history of FR (and that's saying a lot).
Make sure to give him my regards. Feldman contact info
Were you at MIT with the unabomber? He had a real impressive resume, too, but his theories on global ecosystems seem a little whacky, as did his methods of expressing them. But, I'm sure he's an aberration among MIT engineers, right?
"[W]hen a hypothesis proposes a variable's value, several different lines of evidence may be considered; the different evidence must be arbitrated. The result of this arbitration consists of a single best estimate of the variable value and of a measure of that estimate's plausibility. The plausibility measure reflects the degree of agreement among the lines of evidence."
Despite what you say, you continue to make personal attacks.
You refuse to answer direct questions. You have lost all credibility, some are wondering if you are posting from the confines of a mental hospital.
Many were trying to be helpful by trying to explain the real facts, and what happened in court, with evidence and testimony. Since you know everything, we must all be wrong. The transcripts must be wrong, the live testimony we heard with our own ears must be wrong. Only you are right and know it all. Maybe some were harsh on you because of your smartalec/knowitall/namecalling attitude. When every one else tells you you are wrong, maybe it is you.
I am not trying to tell you that you don't have a right to an opinion on DW's guilt.
But when you got on this thread you could have read all the posts and seen what people's opinions were. You could have asked for proof. You could have listened and maybe learned something. You could have told us your side, given proof of what you tried to tell us, showed us where this proof that goes beyond a reasonable doubt is. We would have listened to that.
BUT NO, you know it all. You posted a poem, and somebody didn't like it. IT BROKE YOUR WITTLE EGO, you big crybaby.
See, funny thing is, you are the one guilty of the behavior you have accused everyone else of having.
If you don't like the opinions of people on this thread, get off and stay off. IF DW is found guilty, why don't you come back then and tell us 'I TOLD YOU SO'..
I wish you luck with your life, peace and happiness.
We are all on another thread, come on over.
We are discussing the similarities in the Danielle and the recent abduction/death of Samantha. Very chilling similarities.
You have the debating style of a preschooler. "Wittle ego"? LOL. Actually, no one criticized my poem, in fact it got high praise from both sides. That was just a one-hour creation for fun. Would that you could compose anything with an iota of cleverness. Having read your stuff for far more posts than it deserves, I can say that it is clear that you're not a very good writer. Not that that's a big deal. Lot's of smart people don't write very well. But, problem is, your posts show that you're not a very good thinker, either, as evidenced by the arguments that keep flying over your head as though they were never made.
Let me tell you something...until you answer the questions I posed to you in the last post I sent you, I'm not going to waste my time dealing with you. The questions were straightforward and objective--I asked you to identify the posts that support your hypothesis. You refuse to do so, because, of course, you know that the truth is other than as you state. I insulted no one (except Westerfield), and was insulted by you and your gang. All the comments I directed at someone were in response to rude or attacking comments from those people, including this post. That is an objective fact, that can be gleaned from the posts.
The record does speak for itself. My efforts to engage in discussion of this case without being insulted, distorted and attacked have gone for naught. If only there was an ignore feature on this forum, then I could live happily checking for informational posts, and scrolling past trolls such as you. As it is, I'll just have to hold my nose and skim past the drivel. But don't think you can chase me away by ganging up. You are on unofficial ignore.
Thanks for trying to help me with the "real facts", but, I've seen your version of the facts, and it doesn't comport with reality. Planted blood, cop conspiracies, father murderers, and a LOVE, an absolute worship, of a guy named Westerfield.
Like a typical liberal (Ann Coulter just wrote a book about your technique), you distort what is said, in the hope that the big lie, told often enough, gains acceptance. No one ever said the transcripts are wrong, the testimony is wrong. Tell me where that is said. I answered your dumb question on the source for the confession, even though anyone following the case would know where that info comes from. I even explained to you why the motions you posted links to, like a good boy earning brownie points from teacher, were not pertinent to the issues that were being discussed at the time. None of it registered.....how could it?
I will bet you $100....that you are unsuccessful in whatever it is that you do, and that you are a bitter, unhappy person. If I lose that bet, you can come here with Jamieson to visit, and collect. I don't think I'll lose, though.
I know it wasn't the midwest, so you're wrong about that. If I was on the Save Dave team, I'd be jumping all over you for "lying" about where the unabomber went to school.
Sure seemed like there might be a connection. Which years were you in Boston, John?
Uhmm, were I the prosecutor, maybe I could. I don't know what tests were performed. Unless there's been testimony on it, it's not public record. When the DNA lady testified that the blood on Westerfield's jacket and the carpet was the dead child's, did either side ask whether a serology test was done?
If not, then I guess we don't know. But here's what we do know...pay attention now....
[whisper] Feldman knows.
Yes, he gets a copy of every forensic test that was performed. If a serology test was not performed, and if he thinks it will make a difference, then you can damn well bet he would have raised a stink with the DNA lady. The line of questioning would have been easy...
"Is there a test to determine whether a spot is blood?"
"Was that test performed on spot no. 42A?"
"Isn't it true that, in the absence of the serology test, you don't know whether the DNA in that spot no. 42A is DNA from saliva, from vaginal discharge, or from blood?"
"So you can't tell us that there was blood on the jacket, can you? Just that there was DNA consistent with Danielle?"
Then, he could bring in experts who would testify that Danielle DNA could have been gleaned from her panties or her house, sent to a lab to be (what's the term?) "increased" by PCR, and then sent to the police evidence lab, there to be planted on the jacket and carpet sample. He could even call the police and grill them on their handling of the samples, the way OJ's lawyers did to those detectives.
Of course, since Feldman is not insane, and doesn't want to get laughed at by the defense bar, not to mention get hit with a malpractice case, he is not going to present that theory. But hey, I could be wrong.
Since he hasn't done that, and he's a pretty smart guy, it seems likely that the whole issue is a non-starter, dreamed up by guys on the internet with entirely too much time and not enough brain cells.
Oh, I be able to figger out what all dem words iz a-meanin, boss John. Ah didn't hafta look up dern near any of 'em.
I thought you might recognize it, because it sounds like the method that I used in calculating that the odds of Westerfield being innocent (before the orange fibers, dog dna and SUV blu-gray fibers were added to the mix) are 1 in 5000, even if I give the evidence a favorable interpretation.
It's also a method described by D. Throop in "Model-Based Diagnosis Of Complex, Continuous Mechanisms" (1991). Throop Article At first, I wasn't going to pay it any heed, since I read that post about odds and coincidences being irrelevant, but then....
I noticed that the article cited an eminent NASA scientist in the body of the work. Yes, right there it was..." NASA's LOX expert system (context) - Jamieson, Scarl et al. - 1984". So, I knew I was onto something when I "were calculifyin' them there numbers".
The human species is a funny one. Sometimes, we simply can't help relying on our emotion instead of our reasoning, notwithstanding all that we have learned over the centuries. I remember a rocket scientist named Von Braun. He and lots of smart, educated scientists became emotionally attached to their hero, an Austrian upstart, and worked feverishly for his cause, using slave labor. Probably said "sieg heil" 10 times a day. Move the same guy to Alabama, give him a job with NASA, and he seems like a normal, nice guy. Might even help us get to the moon. But in the right circumstances, those emotions just get in the way of any scientific reasoning.
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.