And ucan'tseejack or whatever that person's name is should realize they did not find Damon's DNA there--only the fact that Danielle was related to him. Sheesh.
Posted on 04/25/2002 9:15:24 AM PDT by FresnoDA
By J. Harry Jones
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 25, 2002
A San Diego Superior Court hearing has been scheduled for 9 a.m. today for David Westerfield, the Sabre Springs man accused of kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.
The attorneys involved in the case are prohibited from discussing it because of a gag order, but it is possible that prosecutors will announce whether they will seek the death penalty against the self-employed engineer.
His attorneys have insisted on Westerfield's right to a speedy trial, which is scheduled to begin May 17. He is being held in County Jail without bail.
After Westerfield's arrest Feb. 22, prosecutors filed special allegations in the case, accusing him of committing murder during a kidnapping, which gives them the option of seeking his execution if convicted.
District Attorney Paul Pfingst has a protocol on reaching a decision that usually takes several months; the case is reviewed by a panel of senior prosecutors. Defense attorneys also have the option of meeting with Pfingst.
It has been just over two months since the charges against Westerfield were brought, and because of the gag order it has not been possible to determine whether the panel made a recommendation or if Westerfield's attorneys met with Pfingst.
The district attorney makes the final decision. If he chooses not to seek the death penalty, Westerfield would face a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.
Danielle's family lived two doors from Westerfield. Her parents reported her missing Feb. 2, and police quickly focused on Westerfield as the prime suspect.
Prosecutors said DNA testing proved that blood found on some of Westerfield's clothing and in his motor home was Danielle's.
Volunteer searchers found the girl's body Feb. 27 east of El Cajon in a stand of oak trees just off Dehesa Road. The cause of death has not been determined because of decomposition of the body, officials said.
Show me in the testimony of the pre-lims it says that it's urine.
The reason I said it is unlikely to be urine is because from all I've read (no, it's not in the testimony), urine doesn't carry DNA. If you can show otherwise, please do.
I am interested in learning the truth. In order to do so, it helps to have 'facts'.
I accept what you say about a little girl not having a 'discharge' unless there is a cause, as I wouldn't know.
What I would like is you to show me where in testimony it states that this was something more than a yellowish stain, and where it states that this was caused by abuse.
I went back and re-read the section of the testimony you quoted in your reply, and it did not state anything past that point to indicate it was more than a yellowish stain. If you are referring to the question of whether this was a place on women's underwear where samples would be taken and evidence found of rape, etc., that is not proof that the yellowish stain was evidence of rape.
14 Q. Did you ultimately place an item number on that particular pair of underwear?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. What item number was that?
18 A. Item number 3.
19 Q. Did you examine the underwear in any way in the process of collecting it?
21 A. Visually examined it when I was collecting it, and when I was packaging it, you know, to final seal it at the lab, I did.
24 Q. Did you notice anything unusual in the area of the underwear?
26 A. There were stains in the crotch area.
27 Q. After obtaining that item, did you, in fact, place it in any type of container as part of the collection process?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. What was that?
4 A. A brown paper bag.
5 Q. Did you label the bag appropriately?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Including with the item number?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. And where it was seized from?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, that particular search -- first of all, the underwear, I assume, was one of other items that were seized, as well?
14 A. That's correct.
From Annette Peer:
15 Q. Were you also provided any other evidence to act as a known sample or a type of known sample?
17 A. Yes, I was.
18 Q. What was that?
19 A. A pair of underpants.
20 Q. With regard to the underwear, where were those underwear from?
22 A. They were collected from the victim's bedroom.
23 Q. Did you also -- or were you able to develop genetic profiles from the known samples of Brenda and Damon Van Dam, as well as the underwear?
26 A. Yes, I was.
27 Q. In particular, just with regard to the underwear, the underwear, obviously, is an article of clothing. How did you obtain a DNA profile from that underwear?
2 A. I went to an area on the underwear which would commonly be a collection point for biological material. In particular, on this there was a yellowish stain that was observed on the inside crotch area of the underwear. It would be a natural area where drainage would occur from a vaginal area.
8 Q. Is that a source of genetic, that is biological material, that you have obtained or others have obtained from like samples in the past?
11 A. Yes, it is.
12 Q. Is that a fairly common source, for example, in sexual assault cases, for example?
14 MR. FELDMAN: Objection. Relevance.
15 THE COURT: Overruled.
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
My point was that in the initial MITBlood DNA, the droplets matched the maternal side of the family. (This would be Brenda and/or her off-spring). So they "found" this stain, and obviously matched it to the DNA from Damon/and or Brenda.
I didn't know the stains could be matched from the Paternal side of the family?
I am still puzzled as to "why" they would do a DNA on the stains only to find out that the stains were "indeed" urine stains, and nothing else and THEN go and introduce said non evidence into the trial? Keep in mind, they already had the MITDNA from the drops of blood which identified the blood being "related" to Brenda's side of the family. NOW, they throw Damon's name into it...from the yellowish stain on her underwear. It made me wonder...
You are also correct that I am suspect that the stains weren't caused from "something else", i.e., an infection or worse. We'll have to wait for the trial and see where the prosecution is going with this. Nothing wrong with asking questions, and I'll keep asking them.
sw
If you are gathering DNA evidence for the police, and you have a missing girl, What would you pick for a source of DNA? Let's say you happen to find a pair of underwear with yellowish stains on them. This would indicate that they had not been washed yet and COULD contain DNA evidence. Whether the yellowish stain is urine or not doesn't matter. The fact that they are NOT WASHED is what counts, as microscopic flakes of skin and other fluids would be on the crotch of the underwear, specifically in the area where the yellowish stain is. (mainly due to the force of gravity and the positioning to an opening of the human body.)
Again, the DNA may not come from the URINE itself, but from skin flakes around the area where the urine spots were. THE MAIN CONCEPT was they knew this was an UNWASHED piece of UNDERGARMENT that had the highest possible POTENTIAL for FRESH DNA.
sw
Miz, you need to calm down. Here you go, half-reading what someone stated, and reading into it what you want to. And just when we were starting to have an intelligent conversation about the facts.
I was relating back to OTHERS saying that the Underwear had stains that were semen or signs of sexual abuse. I was arguing that THEY WERE NO SUCH SIGNS. I said that IF THEY WERE , Then DAMON should be worried, because the testimony in the PH trial so far had only listed HIM, Brenda and Danielle as inclusive in the positive DNA tests.
If you don't believe me, go back and read my original post on this again. Or just keep jumping around like a chicken with it's head cut off, I don't care.
I think they brought it up for several purposes, the main one being to reveal how and where they got the DNA for comparing to the stains, and eventually, to Danielle's body. Intentionally or not, however, the media and the trial watchers jumped on the DNA from the panties and immediately assumed it was Westerfield's DNA there--one newspaper even reported that Westerfield's DNA had been found in her panties. Yet, as the transcripts clearly show, that was not the case.
I agree with you 100 % on this.
Ok. Let me try this again. I won't drag out the big letters yet, but I'll confess this is very difficult to explain when someone refuses to read what's actually written.
In none of my posts have I stated as fact that there is anything more in the testimony than what is printed there. I have, on the other hand asked questions about how and why the stains might have gotten there, and what it might mean in regards to the case. I actually said that in one of my posts, but obviously you require that I say it again. Next time, I'll get out the big letters, or let Fresno do it in screaming HTML.
Start with the major discovery in a drawer full of underwear, that this ONE particular stained pair was the one she wore that evening? Amazing. How'd they know that?
Next, the mere mention that Damon's DNA was connected to the yellow-stain sends up Red Flags. He was the last one to see her alive.
Finally, if it was "nothing", then why introduce it at the trial? The presumption it was connected to David Westerfield WAS there...and "over-ruled"..
sw
Had there been evidence of DNA other than Danielle's or maternal/paternal DNA linkage, I am pretty sure this would have been presented, even if they just established that foreign DNA was found. They wouldn't have to stipulate whose during the PH, unless it was necessary due to lack of other evidence, in order to grant a trial.
And ucan'tseejack or whatever that person's name is should realize they did not find Damon's DNA there--only the fact that Danielle was related to him. Sheesh.
sw
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.