"But the Jury better be 150% sure DW did it, and having to impose the Death Penalty will cause them to examine every spec of evidence with a microscope, so to speak."
Which brings up the phrase, "reasonable doubt." In death penalty cases, I believe it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Amore, could you weigh in on this?
If so, you can read the transcripts and find plenty of cause for reasonable doubt--but let me add that if they have something irrefutable, such as DNA under her fingernails, that will likely trump these others.
One bit of reasonable doubt is any evidence found in the motor home. Even without my "Brenda and DW affair" theory, it appears Danielle could have entered the motor home:
Page 145 March 11th:Christina Hoeffs
18 Q. You wouldn't be there watching him the entire
19 time that the motorhome was there say for this two day
20 period before he left on his trip, though, would you?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You would just occasionally see the motorhome,
23 various items, and perhaps Mr. Westerfield?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And would you see the motorhome door open or
26 closed during this period of time?
27 A. Both.
28 Q. Both open and closed?
146
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. But you wouldn't see Mr. Westerfield going in and
3 out; is that correct?
4 A. Again, I cannot say that I've ever seen him step
5 foot into the motorhome or step foot out of. I couldn't
6 positively say that I had seen that. I may have. I can't
7 positively say I have.
If Mrs. Kravitz couldn't see Mr. Westerfield entering or departing the motor home, she would not have seen neighborhood children entering or leaving either--and the doors were often open.
Then there's the issue of sexual molestation. With the evidence revealed at the hearing, it cannot be proven:
Page 104 March 11th. Dr. Brian Blackbourne/Feldman
1 Q. Well, one of the things that you're trained to
2 do, and certainly there were lots of law enforcement that
3 were interested, as was the community, was to look to
4 determine whether or not there was any evidence of
5 sexual abuse; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And I think you told us on direct examination
8 that you had swabbed an area or some areas for later
9 forensic evaluation by law enforcement; is that correct,
10 sir?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. With regard to the areas that you swabbed, could
13 you please tell me what were those areas?
14 A. The rectum and another tubular structure which
15 either was a vagina or the bladder. Probably the bladder.
16 Q. And those swabs, did you look at them
17 microscopically?
18 A. No. I transferred those over to the criminalist
19 from the San Diego Police Department.
20 Q. And who was that?
21 A. Savage and Dulaney.
22 Q. In the ordinary course of business, would that be
23 something that you, sir, as a forensic pathologist just
24 would look at?
25 A. We normally make one set of slides for ourselves,
26 and then give one set of slides to the law enforcement.
27 Q. In this case you did not do that?
28 A. I did not do that.
105
1 Q. Why?
2 A. Because the tissue was so deteriorated we just
3 gave them all to the police.
4 Q. So all the tissue was --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Because in your view there wasn't really anything
7 that could -- inferences couldn't be drawn from what was
8 there because it was too deteriorated?
9 A. Yes.
Interesting. Q. Because in your view there wasn't really anything that could -- inferences couldn't be drawn from what was there because it was too deteriorated? A. Yes.
I would expect the defense, then, to challenge the "cause of death" conclusion. To us, it might seem more cut and dried, but in truth, they didn't have enough of the wee one left to even arrive at a verifiable cause of death. Even the cause of death is based on circumstantial evidence.
Then there's the much-vaunted porn issue. No child porn was actually found on his computer:
Q MR. ARMSTRONG TOLD YOU THAT HE FOUND NO
21 IMAGES DEPICTING CHILDREN ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTS?
22 A HE FOUND THAT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY WERE
23 PREPUBESCENT PHOTOS OR DIGITAL IMAGES, WHICH
24 APPARENTLY IS WHAT HE GOES BY. HE SPENT ABOUT AN
25 HOUR-AND-A-HALF LOOKING THROUGH THE PHOTOS.
26 Q HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG HE SPENT?
27 A I WAS IN THE OFFICE WITH HIM.
28 Q BUT DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T WORK
282
1 WITH HIM?
2 A HE REQUESTED TO COME IN AND LOOK AT THE
3 IMAGES. HE SAID HE HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO LOOK AT IT
4 BY LIEUTENANT COLLINS. SO WE ALLOWED HIM TO EXAMINE
5 THE COMPUTER.
6 Q THIS WAS ALL 67-, 68,000 IMAGES FROM THESE
7 COMPUTERS; IS THAT RIGHT?
8 A THAT IS CORRECT.
9 Q AND SO YOU DISAGREE WITH MR. ARMSTRONG'S
10 CONCLUSIONS; IS THAT RIGHT?
11 A NOT AT ALL
So. A HE FOUND THAT HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THEY WEREPREPUBESCENT PHOTOS OR DIGITAL IMAGES, WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHAT HE GOES BY. HE SPENT ABOUT AN HOUR-AND-A-HALF LOOKING THROUGH THE PHOTOS. That's going to give reasonable doubt about the pedophile issue. Also expect to see witnesses talking about DW's interest in adult females, including some people who complained about being ogled by him on some of his camping trips. And remember Brenda's testimony that he wanted to be introduced to her friends (who happened to be adult females).
In re-reading the transcripts, I'm convinced that unless they've got DW's skin under Danielle's fingernails, this death penalty is going to be a hard sell.
Dittoes!