Defense has had no shortage of witnesses to make its case

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.

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.

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.

You asked for it, FresnoDA:

David Westerseuss

I am Sam.
Sam-I-Am.

That Sam-I-Am.
That Sam-I-Am.
I do not like that Sam-I-Am

“Did you kill Danielle Van Dam?”

“I did not kill her, Sam-I-Am”.

“Did you go in Brenda’s house,
thinking there would be no spouse”.

“I did not go in Brenda’s house,
Although I thought there was no spouse.
I did not kill Danielle Van Dam.
I did not kill her, Sam-I-Am.”

“Did you hurt her, make her bleed,
To satisfy your lusty greed?
Did she bleed upon the floor,
Did you take her home for more?
Did you take her to your bed,
Or were you drunk, just like you said?”

“I did not hurt her, make her bleed,
And did you know, her dad smoked weed?
Her mother sure is not my type.
I like them thinner, like them light.
I leered at Brenda and her pals,
But did you know, they’re slutty gals?
I did not take her ‘cross the street,
I did not bind her little feet,
The blinds were closed up tight, you see,
Because I like my privacy.
I was so drunk I can’t recall,
Ogling at the pool hall.
Arriving home in a fuzzy fog.
I never heard a barking dog.
And so I tell you, Sam-I-Am,
I never grabbed Danielle Van Dam.”

“They found her blood upon your coat!
What did you do, you evil goat?
They found her hairs inside your camper,
And some inside your laundry hamper.
Her fingerprints were found as well,
How’d they get there? Do please tell.
You dumped her at a hidden place,
Where your linens left a tiny trace.
You cleaned the camper up inside,
When asked about your trip, you lied.
You lied about your wallet, eh?
You lied about a sunny day.
You lied about who you would meet,
You lied about a gas receipt,
You lied about your ideal babe,
You sure don’t sound like Honest Abe,
You lied about bringing your trailer,
You folded up the bedding mailer,
You lied about the return trip,
And don’t forget, “we” heard a slip
You lied about a blown-out tire.
What made you such a flat out liar?
You lied about spending the night,
At the Cays, that’s just not right.
No to mention the dry cleaning run,
If it’s not you, then who’s the one?”

“I did not take her in the camper,
I think I saw that girl scamper,
Inside my motorhome one day,
Her parents never watched her play.
I know my story might sound weird,
But look how neat I trim my beard.
I can’t talk now, the 5th Amendment,
Prevents me, but I get contentment,
Knowing Feldman’s on the case,
He’ll speak for me, and in my place,
He’ll tell you, Mr. Sam-I-Am,
I did not kill Danielle Van Dam.”

“OK, tell us Feldman, if you can,
What’s your defense, do you have a plan?”

“He did not act strange at the bar,
He did not drive drunk in a car,
Everything they say is false,
We deny it, we deny it all.
That’s not his voice there on that tape.
If there’s no semen, there’s no rape.
He did not grab Danielle Van Dam.
He did not do it, Sam-I-Am.

She did not bleed, but if she did,
She was just a wild kid,
Roaming streets so free and wild,
Her parents could not control that child.
The camper was unlocked that day,
And that is where she went to play,
While there, we think she cut her head,
And got some blood upon the bed.
And on the floor, and David’s jacket.
A perfect story! Don’t attack it.
She lay there, little tired lass,
Upon awaking, touched the glass,
And dropped some hairs along the way.
That’s what happened, so I say.”

“What? Don’t buy it? Then how about this—
Damon and Barbara shared a kiss.
Yes, it’s true! That very night.
That means my client must be right.
Swingers must have been involved.
So, the case has now been solved.”

“Still not convinced? Try this one—
The porn was owned by David’s son.”

“Not enough? That’s just too bad.
Now you people have made me mad.
Each and every witness here,
Is lying. Yes, that’s very clear.
The ranger, and the camp host, too.
The lady who saw he had no shoes.
The desert campers, who saw him acting oddly,
The volunteers who found Danielle’s body,
The nosy neighbors hated his RV,
And so they framed him, can’t you see?
The cell phone guy, the Chevron lady,
The friends, especially that guy Brady.
The biggest liars of them all.
Are the Van Dams. Imagine the gall!
They smoked and drank and liked to swing.
So they deserve this “murder” thing.
It’s not about this poor dead child.
It’s all about the parent’s lifestyle.

You skeptics now have forced me to it.
OJ showed me how to do it.
Yell and scream and use theatrics.
Pound the podium and other antics.
Throw up smoke and blame the cops.
They screwed up all those damn blood drops.
Their labs are shoddy, their work is worse.
Their skills mean nothing in my universe.
Fingerprints! Bah. A superstitious art.
DNA? It plays no part.
They claim it’s 30 gazillion to one.
I say the relevance is none.

So, in conclusion, Sam-I-Am,
He did not kill Danielle Van Dam.”

“The jury verdict has been read.
Condemned to death, the jury said.
She lay in bed, fast asleep.
Inside her room, this man did creep.
He stole the girl from her home,
And went upon a weekend roam.
The horror cannot be expressed.
And then he dumped her.
Dead. Undressed.

Ten years later, Justice Day.
“Any final words to say?”

“Yes, I’ll tell you, Sam-I-Am.
I did kill Danielle Van Dam.”

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.