Danielle van Dam - Case Timeline prior to trial of David Westerfield. Feb 2 - May 30, 2002

Crime and Punishment ^ | May 30, 2002 | Bill Bickel

[Lurking Libertarian]

Unless, of course, he is not talking about his client's photos, which was my original point.

I undersyand. We're both just speculating until the evidence comes in, but I think, if it were not his client's photos, he would have said something to that effect.

[Jaded]

I don't think that's what Feldman is doing. Too big a chance it could back-fire. He's not an idiot nor is he the B-Team. If it is from another source than DW or VD, that's a different story. I still think this will be a shocker.

I don't know the discovery rules. I know that prosecution has to turn over what they have. But does defense have to turn over what they have, other than names of witnesses?

[Jaded]

Think that would depend on who's photographs they are and who they are of. If it's part of the defense strategy proving David did not commit this crime, why bother telling before hand and risking the DA trying to take them or get them tossed. The DA has gone to great lengths to paint a picture that has some really fuzzy spots, where you have to imagine the whole canvas while not being able to see it. Well at least some don't see it. Not to worry the count down to autofocus has a date.

[Freedom2specul8]

So what you are saying is that even if the porn ISN'T Westerfield's, it should still be used against him as a motive, just because he should have "monitored"?

No, but if he's innocent, and someone else put those on *his* computers.. his lack of control over his puter is what helped get him in this mess. So...if that's the case, I feel tremendously sorry for him....

[Jaded]

The point is what if it didn't come from his computer. What if the source is different.

[Freedom2specul8]

Unless they've changed, defense has to turn over whatever info he/she has too.. I'm pinging amore for help.. If the prosecution knows what the defense is talking about..it must not bother them too much. Of course, we all know what poker faces are.

[vacrn]

I don't think Feldman would want to *seat* a juror who would keel over at the site of "nasty".

A juror who may be shocked and appalled at really nasty porn, may resolve the *motive* issue in their own mind based on shock value. In other words, they may think that DW is more capable of committing this crime because of his porn preferences.

Therefore, IMO, Feldman would want jurors seated who think they can *handle* really nasty...

[Freedom2specul8]

The point is what if it didn't come from his computer. What if the source is different.

They said the 4 puters and palm pilot, or was it 3 puters and palm pilot were defendants, correct? What exactly do you mean? Planting evidence?

http://members.cox.net/jeneal/PrelimTranscripts/PVW312.txt

[Freedom2specul8]

Yeah, I dare say a preacher is probably not going to be selected for jury duty in this case....

[theirjustdue]

" I undersyand. We're both just speculating until the evidence comes in, but I think, if it were not his client's photos, he would have said something to that effect.

I've wondered why he didn't make it clear as well.

We are not aware of any prepubescent photos of DW's, that could be clearly identified as such by LE. At least none that could be identified as such, at the time of the PH. But, if some possibly do exist, Feldman may have been visually gauging the reaction of each potential juror for any outward hint of disgust, or any other subtle reaction that might, in his mind, make them a juror he would not like to see impaneled.

That's the only other possibility (besides those already discussed) that I can think of for his bringing it up.

[demsux]

maybe it wasn't ON HIS COMPUTER

[Freedom2specul8]

More reliable sources? TNF? LOL, {hugz} kizzez too. TNF!!! Hear they're sharpening the blade on the guillotine over there. Becareful when you play with sharp objects. LOL

LOL I never said anything about reliable. I said more takes..BIG difference. of course, ya'll reach for the stars...and well I'd rather reach for their creator. ;-D

[theirjustdue]

"Therefore, IMO, Feldman would want jurors seated who think they can *handle* really nasty...

I must have been typing my response to LL, #121, at the same time you were posting this.

Looks like we were thinking along the same lines.

[Freedom2specul8]

Feldman may have been visually gauging the reaction of each potential juror for any outward hint of disgust,

He said "He also warned them they would be forced to view pornography depicting "naked pre-pubescent girls"

If he lied to them right off the bat, he's in trouble.. So, yeah, this could be been said to guage their reaction..but he wouildn't have said it if he didn't mean it. If he didn't mean it, he could get out of it later by saying they changed their mind.. He's got to stay honest with the jury and not play with their minds..

[Freedom2specul8]

I think I just got what you meant!! You meant that it could be a videotape, or pictures, photos.. we all keep thinking images off the puter.. Got it.

[MizSterious]

Maybe the porn wasn't on anyone's computer. Just a thought. There are other ways of storing images, etc., such as videotapes, dvds, digital cameras...

[MizSterious]

I maintain that it could have also come from the van Dam computers--it's just as likely as Westerfield's, given their chosen "lifestyle."

[theirjustdue]

"maybe it wasn't ON HIS COMPUTER"

That's very possible too, ds. Although they had an awful lot of time to go through all of DW's belongings, but it still may be.

In any case, if they do have any such photos, it may get him convicted on the child porn charges, but it doesn't necessarily mean he killed Danielle. That, IMO, will take more evidence, than what we have thus far been made aware of.

[theirjustdue]

"If he lied to them right off the bat, he's in trouble.. So, yeah, this could be been said to guage their reaction..but he wouildn't have said it if he didn't mean it.

Who said he was lying Kim?

If that was his intent (and I say IF it was), it would then seem, he must know such photos exist.

[Freedom2specul8]

I maintain that it could have also come from the van Dam computers--it's just as likely as Westerfield's, given their chosen "lifestyle."

Well, why is *he* charged with child porn and not the vd's?