Posted on 05/30/2002 12:18:18 PM PDT by FresnoDA
And therein lies the rub. Most of us would walk with you if there is more evidence than we have seen. If the parents were honest, that would certainly help things. Like I've said, I don't see it now, but prove he was in the room or at Dehesa with her, and we'll talk. And none of this we don't have evidence so connect the dots stuff.
Further, why did she not bring the kids with her to pick-up the pizza OR why didn't she stop at the Domino's on her way home from the mall (or where ever she claimed to have been with the kids)
Maybe picking up some dope? Didn't want kids along at the "dealers". Some of Feldman's questioning was honing in on when she got the dope (he kept asking...between Jan 25 and Feb 1???). She could not recall...
   |
| San Diego area police investigating the kidnapping of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam arrested 50-year-old neighbor David Westerfield on February 22, 2002. Westerfield, who had been questioned by police repeatedly in the three weeks since the second-grader disappeared, was taken into custody at his San Diego attorney's office in what appeared to be a pre-arranged surrender. (Reuters) |
( 05-31-2002 ) - Jury selection is now over and David Westerfield's murder trial is slated to start next Tuesday. Twelve jurors were seated Thursday, with six alternates selected this morning.
The jury selection concluded was with the seating of five women and a man as alternate jurors.
As with everything in this trail, the selection of the six alternate jurors moved along at a rapid pace. Their job is to sit in the courtroom and listen to the whole trial and standby in case any member of the jury panel cannot fulfill their duty.
Superior Court Judge William Mudd has scheduled opening statements for 10 a.m. Tuesday.
At least 10 jurors said they favor the death penalty where appropriate. Several have served on juries before.
The jury was selected in less than three days, despite speculation that it could take weeks.
Mudd ruled today that the victim's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, must stay out of the courtroom until they are called to testify. He also said he was adhering to a common rule to exclude witnesses from the courtroom until their testimony was complete.
More pretrial motions are scheduled to be heard Monday morning, including one behind closed doors.
Overflow media will be housed in a courtroom next door to Mudd's department. Ten seats have been set aside for reporters in the actual courtroom.
Before jury selection began, Mudd ruled that jurors will hear only limited information on the "swinging" lifestyle of Brenda and Damon van Dam.
The jury also will be allowed to view certain pornographic images, including photographs of naked children that investigators say they found on Westerfield's computer.
Jurors also will hear statements the defendant made to police the day he became a suspect.
Absolutely! Providing solid, irrefutable proof is especially critical, and demanded, IMO, in a capital case such as this. And as you say, the parents inconsistent and evasive testimony hasn't made believing the DA's scenario, up to this point, any easier to swallow.
Jury Selection Completed In Westerfield Trial: Proceedings begin next week.
Except the problem with your hope that Feldman is referring to the Van Dams is the above statement from Feldman was regarding evidence he was trying to suppress. If it was evidence implicating someone other than his client he would *want* it in.
Is it alright to portray Westerfield as a perverted, twisted, horney child molester, and use his taste for porno as a motive? Make a public display of his pictures and tapes and NOT introduce what the van Dams want to hide?
OTOH, we do have a double standard when it comes to the sainted van Dams, who seemed comfortable enough saying "they regret nothing", when in fact, they had a ravenous drug and swinging appetite, that most likely makes DW seem like a normal, single person.
Feldman WILL get his evidence in...then let the chips fall where they may.
I don't happen to think he is blowing smoke and he would not imply his own Client is guilty. JMHO.
sw
Do you think this will be turned into a movie? It is so ...out there.
Feldman wanted to suppress evidence of DW's alledged porno pictures, saying it has no bearing on the disappearance of the child and would inflame the jury.
The prosecution will attempt to introduce videos or photographs of Danielle in life. This is highly prejudicial evidence, and irrelevant..because their admission would violate Westerfields Constitutional rights to a fair trial free of inflammatory information.
Again, it will inflame the jury to see Danielle's happy face, followed by Westerfields alledged pornographic pictures.
They have to show it, because it's their ONLY motive for DW alledgedly going after Danielle.
The van Dams are the victims, so they will get a pass on their alledged transgressions, with the exception of THAT night.
It should work both ways. But life isn't fair, now is it.
sw
I wish I could see a photo of Danielle looking happy. In all the photos I've seen, she does not look like a happy child to me. That's one of many things that bothers me about this case.
MizSterious wrote: "Someone's blowing smoke here. On your profile page, you write:
I've been around since 1998 but had to get a new hat after I forgot my old password and couldn't retrieve it from JimRob via email. I had changed email addy's since then...ICAC.
Well, golly gee, wouldn't it be awfully difficult to post messages here a year before you were actually here? Now, I have to wonder if you're telling the truth about anything. Well, that's a little harsh. I believe you were telling the truth when you said you weren't here to contribute constructively to the collection of information about this case.
402 posted on 5/31/02 9:04 AM Eastern by MizSterious"
You are trying way to hard here to cause me grief.
I never said I posted articles at FR. Try reading more closely. There is a big internet out there and I've been on it since 1997. I have been making my contributions to the cause of crime against children since that year.
Please discontinue your smear campaign against me. I don't want or need your endorsement. I was ignoring your baiting until you again tried to belittle me.
ALSO, do not contact be by FreepMail again. Moderator take note please.
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.