Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Child Killer Suspect) Was Found Innocent in 2000 Molestation Trial: (Any Impact On Van Dam Jury?)
ABC Channel 7 Los Angeles ^ | July 19, 2002 | ABC

Posted on 07/19/2002 2:05:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Man Arrested was Found Innocent in 2000 Molestation Trial

alt Lewis Davis the brother of the ex-girlfriend of Alejandro Avila in an exclusive interview with ABC7 Eyewitness News said that Avila had gone to the complex of Stanton townhomes where Samantha Runnion lived to visit his ex-girlfriend’s daughter. alt Lewis Davis the brother of the ex-girlfriend of Alejandro Avila in an exclusive interview with ABC7 Eyewitness News said that Avila had gone to the complex of Stanton townhomes where Samantha Runnion lived to visit his ex-girlfriend’s daughter.

 


alt
RIVERSIDE — The man arrested in the investigation of the kidnap-murder of little Samantha Runnion, has in the past been accused of molesting two girls under the age of 14. This was two years ago and at that time a Riverside County jury found Alejandro Avila innocent.

Deputy District Attorney Paul Dickerson says of the case two years ago: "I felt the guy was guilty and did everything I could to try and get him convicted."

alt
alt alt
alt Alejandro Avila The body of Samantha Runnion, who was kidnapped in Orange County Monday evening, was found in neighboring Riverside County on Tuesday.

Concerning today's arrest, the Riverside County prosecutor in the molestation trial of Avila two years ago says: "I feel horrible. You can't imagine how bad I feel about this ... I'm going to live with this for the rest my life."

Copyright © 2001 KABC-TV and the Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Last Updated: Jul 19, 2002

 



Despite grim headlines, experts say abductions of children by strangers are rare and getting rarer

By David Crary
ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 18, 2002

From San Diego, Salt Lake City and Stanton, Calif., the grim news reports suggest an epidemic of child abductions. Yet experts say kidnapping by strangers – the crime so dreaded by so many parents – has always been rare and is probably on the downswing.

"Any child that's missing is one too many," FBI spokeswoman Angela Bell said Thursday. "But the media publicity that these cases are getting is making it seem like a big jump, and that's just not the case."

The FBI has offered its help to local authorities working on the case of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion, who was seized outside her Stanton apartment building Monday, then sexually assaulted and murdered within 24 hours.

Her slaying follows the high-profile abductions of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart in Salt Lake City and 7-year-old Danielle van Dam in San Diego. Danielle's body was found and a neighbor is on trial; Elizabeth is still missing.

Most abductions are carried out by relatives of the child as part of a family dispute. In other cases, the perpetrators are acquaintances of the child, acting out of various motives.

Statistics indicate abductions of children by strangers are declining.

Bell said the FBI opened investigations in 93 such cases last year, compared with 134 in 1999. Some abductions by strangers do not result in FBI involvement, but the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates the total number of cases annually at 100 now, down from 200 to 300 in the 1980s.

"It's still a terrible problem," said Ernest Allen, the center's president. "But the good news is, these cases have been coming down. Cases like Samantha Runnion's, as outrageous as they are, are pretty rare."

Experts in the field say precise statistics on child abductions are elusive, in part because different jurisdictions define the crime differently.

"For a crime that gets as much public attention as it does, its pretty appalling that there are not better statistics," said David Finkelhor, a sociology professor who heads the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Center and has worked with the Justice Department to discern patterns in child abductions.

However, he agreed that the number of worst-case abductions, like the Samantha Runnion case, is probably declining.

"From the context of things – including a decline in sexual assault and abuse – I can't imagine there's been any increase," he said. "But you get a couple of these cases in proximity, which can happen at random, and all of a sudden it seems like an epidemic."

Finkelhor's research has found that the risk of abduction by a stranger is relatively low for preschoolers, and increases through elementary school to peak at age 15. Teen-age girls are considered most vulnerable.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has been trying to call attention to some missing children whose cases have not attracted as much publicity as the Van Dam, Smart and Runnion cases.

In those three cases, the victimized family is white. Allen said the news media may sometimes be less interested in missing minority children, especially if they are from urban areas where crime is assumed, rightly or wrongly, to be a constant problem.

As an example, Allen cited the case of Laura Ayala, a 13-year-old Hispanic girl from Houston who disappeared in March after buying a newspaper at a convenience store near her home. "Her shoes and the newspaper were found on sidewalk – that screams of foul play," Allen said.

But Allen also said the Van Dam and Smart cases generated intense coverage in part because the girls were seized from their bedrooms.

"If your child isn't safe in her own bed in her own home, where is she safe?" he said. "It sends a message of powerlessness and fear and 'Oh my God, they're everywhere. They're coming for my child.'"

The Runnion case had similar elements, Allen noted: Samantha was playing with a friend outside her apartment building and was dragged away by a man in a car.

"It's an outrageous case, and there's no question it's going to generate fear," Allen said. "What we're trying to do is send a message that you don't have to be paralyzed by fear, you don't need to lock your child in a room, but you do have to be cautious, you do need to know where your children are."

 

  


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: daniellevandam; davidwesterfield; samantha
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-308 next last
To: spectre
It's almost like a question I have had on my mind for months now. "Is it better to sentence an innocent man to death or let a guilty one go?

I'm surprised and shocked an american would even entertain the question.

61 posted on 07/19/2002 6:48:01 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #62 Removed by Moderator

To: FresnoDA
If the evidence is overwhelming against the man who murdered Samantha, let's say his dna under her nails, and her's under his skin, and other obvious evidence, then he is guilty.

The forensic profilers are out in full force and IF any of the DW Juror's are listening to them, which of course, they are...then they can determine if DW matches up with the definition of a "serial pedophile rapist/murderer". I just don't see it with DW...neither do alot of other people.

sw

63 posted on 07/19/2002 6:54:36 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
I'm surprised and shocked an american would even entertain the question.

If the freed guilty man's next victims are you and your family, would you be so sanguine? If he was a serial murderer who had stashed away enough anthrax to take out two million souls and intended to do just that as soon as he was acquitted, would you still be self-righteously smug about releasing him into your city?

Of course it is morally reprehensible to condemn an innocent man. On the other hand, there is no reason to cheer and applaud the acquittal of a sick, murdering madman either. I am shocked you would feel some sort of moral superiority on account of it.

It is a grave flaw of our system that sometimes requires us allow guilty men to go free. A necessary flaw it may be, but it is a grave flaw nonetheless. We ought to hate it, we ought to despise it, while admitting we are condemned to follow it. We ought never to feel comfortable or pleased with it.

64 posted on 07/19/2002 7:03:17 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Personaly, I think this will sink the defense. I think the jury will look at this man & OJ and take their outrage out on Westerfield. I pray that I am wrong.
65 posted on 07/19/2002 7:23:10 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
I knew there was something I liked about you.
66 posted on 07/19/2002 7:29:24 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: demsux
25 miles, maybe 30 tops
67 posted on 07/19/2002 7:31:47 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Two words caught my attention in an article about Samantha: nude and asphyxiation.

Thanks for the ping,Sir.

68 posted on 07/19/2002 7:37:29 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: demsux
More likely Danielle went out to play on Friday afternoon soon after getting home from school, and was grabbed from the park...or street or yard en route....

Which isn't to say necessarily that her father and/or DW might not have done something improper with her on other occasions.

69 posted on 07/19/2002 7:38:56 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Of course it is morally reprehensible to condemn an innocent man.

Sermon on the mount, Magna Carta, The Federalist, the Constitution ... Yes it is. I hope you have a point in there ?

On the other hand, there is no reason to cheer and applaud the acquittal of a sick, murdering madman either.

Cheer ? please give a cite where I was "cheering".

And if this fellow is a "sick, murdering madman" --I'm positive you have legal proof of it, right ?

I am shocked you would feel some sort of moral superiority on account of it.

It is not any "moral superiority" on my part, just a understanding of the allegiance I owe, and every american owes to common law principles, and a faithful understanding of the US Constitution.

70 posted on 07/19/2002 7:45:42 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: All
If Avila really does/did have a phone in Chula Vista, it would be very important, for it would tie him into San Diego city and county, and further, Chula Vista is on the border and would indicate some need to have a pied-a-terre right at the border itself for ease of access.

Temecula, where he worked, is 46 miles north of the Van Dam home, and Chula Vista is some 31 miles south of it.

71 posted on 07/19/2002 7:46:07 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: crystalk
I think the difference is Samatha had a witness who saw the car, gave a description of the man. With Danielle there was nothing, except what the LE dreamed up.

Some one asked the Sheriff about the 5 year old, and how she could remember what she did. He said as things go ahead, you are going to be more proud of her. He cannot say what else she told them yet.
72 posted on 07/19/2002 7:50:59 PM PDT by calawah98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
** (Child Killer Suspect) Was Found Innocent in 2000 Molestation Trial: (Any Impact On Van Dam Jury?) **

Fres...the title of this particular thread claims Avila was found innocent. I thought he was aquitted..which doesn't necessarily mean innocent. Am I figuring that correctly? THanks.

73 posted on 07/19/2002 8:01:03 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama
A "not guilty" verdict means that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It does not mean that the defendant is factually innocent, just that there was not enough evidence to satisfy the jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, a defendant can be found "not guilty" and still be factually guilty of the crime.

74 posted on 07/19/2002 10:05:12 PM PDT by cookiedough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: cookiedough
Thank you for that explanation.

Ya learn something new everyday, ya know? :o)

75 posted on 07/19/2002 10:07:59 PM PDT by homeschool mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Stiv
The fact that the Avila Jury acquitted him...freeing him to strike again.
I think it needs to be made known the reasons that the prior case against Samantha's killer failed. I belive I read he was acquitted due to lack of evidence. A known trait similar to DW's case.
76 posted on 07/20/2002 1:32:21 AM PDT by alexandria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
Isn't it strange that every TV program you turn on about the Westerfield trial talks about all the BLOOD found.

Isn't it strange that all that BLOOD really amounts to a small drop in the motorhome and a smear on Mr. Westerfields jacket.

Isn't it strange that neither of these spots was ever proven to BE BLOOD. The Tech used Hemostix which even they admitted on the stand was not a conclusive test for BLOOD. Serology tests are used to determine if something is human BLOOD. They did NOT DO THEM.

Isn't it strange that these stains did contain Danielle's DNA, but were not proven to be BLOOD.

Isn't it strange that there was exactly ONE spot in the motor home, not TWO, or THREE, OR NONE. Exactly ONE.

Isn't it strange that although the jacket contained 4 stains, exactly ONE had had Danielle's DNA in it. Not two, or three, or four, but exactly ONE.

Isn't it strange that these two stains matched Danielle's DNA perfectly, a 150 quadrillion to one chance. All 22 factors were perfect. Not just say, 18 matches for a 1 in a million match but, PERFECTION.

Isn't it strange that dry cleaning a jacket wouldn't damage atleast some of the factors producing a less than perfect match.

Isn't it possible that someone had a very small amount of Danielles DNA, but no BLOOD to smeak around. One drop for the motorhome and one smear for the jacket?

I wonder.

77 posted on 07/20/2002 2:01:39 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: alexandria
according to CNN coverage last nite, he was aquitted because the girls testimony was different. One girl said they were both there, the other one said she was by herself.
78 posted on 07/20/2002 2:09:04 AM PDT by calawah98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Was Feldman Avila's lawyer?
79 posted on 07/20/2002 2:17:16 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spectre
>>>Even if DW is acquited, we still won't know who killed Danielle,<<<

Yes we will. Just like we know who killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown. Get used to it.

80 posted on 07/20/2002 2:21:36 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 301-308 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson