Damon Van Dam Testifies Tearfully, Fends Off Lifestyle Attack:Day 3 of Westerfield Trial

CourtTV ^ | June 6, 2002 | CourtTV

[FresnoDA]

DAY 3: Westerfield On Trial

[Politicalmom]

1)She could have been in the RV before.

2)Someone could be framing DW.

[Politicalmom]

Also, skin flakes, hair, and clothing fibers SHOULD have rubbed off in the process of carrying a child out of the house.

[Politicalmom]

From what I understand, ANYTHING is fair game if the prosecution opens the topic themselves, and any questioning to impeach the testimony is allowed. I could be wrong, but if that is the case, every lie DVD utters opens the door to more "lifestyle" issues.

[Freedom2specul8]

Do you believe the jury is going to believe the idea that people who admitted having extra-marital sex,they have no evidence.. are more likely to kidnapp and murder a child vs a person who has evidence against him?

[FresnoDA]

Seems that The Damon has had a manicure...and, as mentioned before, has he ever been photographed in a short sleeve shirt?  Maybe hiding tatoos??

[MissAmericanPie]

Kim is going to ping Amore, I assume he/she is a lawyer or a legal aide and can shed some light on wheather admitting the parents lifestyle into evidence is appropriate, or if the Judge could/should have ruled it immaterial.

When all is said and done, the defendent has the victims blood and hair on him and in his vechicle and a history of child pornography. To muddy those facts with the parents lifestyle seems a lame thing to admit into evidence and an attempt to sensationalize to me, but I'm not a legal expert.

[bvw]

No pinky ring, at least.

[Voss]

Been lurking with a few questions. Don't know if I remember my forensic psych. correctly, but I thought that pedophiles usually aren't interested in/able to relate to adults in a sexual way, yet DW has had at least two long-term relationships. Also, if DW IS a pedophile, it seems very unusual that he would start acting out at age 50, that he had never lost control and acted on his impulses previously. And if he HAD acted on them previously, you'd hope at least one past victim would come forward after the news of DW's arrest.

What's the story with DW's son? He had the same access to motor home, computer, etc. as DW. (And his younger age makes him a more likely candidate for "pedophile who hasn't been found out yet.") How carefully was he investigated before he was ruled out as a suspect by LE? DW's behaviour (and route of travel) became erratic after he picked up and started loading his RV. Is it possible that he discovered evidence or a body left by his son (or someone else) in the RV and panicked?

I'm not saying I think DW is innocent--I just don't think he's guilty yet.

[bvw]

The process you describe is called rail-roading, or presumption of guilt. It occurs in law in some meaner places than ours.

[Jaded]

Their DNA in her home is expected, her DNA in their cars can be explained away.

[rwt60]

One would assume that the more people in the house, the more suspects there are. When Damon finds a door open at 3:00 am, he thinks, "no big deal." He knows that people come and go from his house all the time. The defense wants to raise reasonable doubt about Westerfield. Anyone in the house could have been responsible for the murder.

[Freedom2specul8]

A while back, I posted some info about molestors and compared them with pedophiles. Molestors/murderers don't have to be a pedophile.. and as far as I know, the prosecution did not call DW a pedophile.

[MizSterious]

How can they have evidence if they didn't bother to look for it in the first place? They didn't, you know. They'd cleared everyone but Westerfield before Monday. Breakneck speed. 184 houses in the neighborhood, 13 registered sex offenders, the "pizza" party goers, the parents, and oh, yes, all those barflies at Dad's who were invited back to the "pizza" party. The San Diego PD must have literally thousands of investigators who were devoted entirely to this case to have really investigated and cleared all of those people.

Or, they just went with Brenda's tip--go get the single guy with deep pockets (OJ type lawsuit on her mind, no doubt) who (as she knew) was out of town. Which seems more logical?

Remember this from a past thread--three different statements pointing to the police receiving a tip from Brenda van Dam: first--

Officer: During the course of our investigation, the resident here, his name came up, as someone who had contact with the family. We've talked to him. He is cooperating with us. He's talked to us yesterday, he's talking to us today. We had some things we wanted to check in his house. He allowed us to go into his home and we are doing some things to process the scene and possibly eliminate him as a suspect." Source

Second, there was an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune the same day, where another officer says something quite similar:

"This is a process of elimination," said Dave Cohen, a spokesman for the San Diego Police Department. "We have gotten some information and we wanted to take a little closer look at his vehicle and his residence." Source

And from one of the motions the defense filed:

"Detective Alldredge's affadavit was relied on to establish probable cause for search warrants 2783D and 27818 to search Mr. Westerfield's home. 27813 for Mr. Westerfields clothes. In his affadavit, Alldredge misrepresented statements by Brenda Van Dam that were relied on to supply probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. Because the affadavits were sealed, documents may only disclose the specifics of the misrepresentations in camera."

So, from this, it appears Brenda said something, but that Alldredge might have altered it or exaggerated it. Bottom line, it looks like someone did point the police in a certain direction.

[Amore]

Good point on the hair. And I agree that if he was supposedly hiding in the closet for hours, there should be something. But unless it's actually inconsistent with the prosecutions' evidence, I still hold to the theory that he was in and out quickly. As I said, I read true crime books, I watch the true crimes shows, fascinated by forensics. But I'm really not interested by my thoughts or indeed any layman's thoughts on this issue.

While I personally am not inclined to conclude that a lack of evidence = innocence, this is something I would definitely like to hear from an expert. Now, whether I will is another thing. It's hard to prove a negative. I don't think the state would present such an expert. OTOH, maybe the defense has an expert who will say no evidence = innocence, and both sides could get into the issue there. But if neither side presents an expert, I'm going with my common sense which tells ME that it would be quite possible (not saying likely, just possible) that he can get in and out without leaving any DNA. (And don't anybody give me any BURP arguments either, I'm talking about possibilities on this evidence, not the burden of proof as it regards the entire trial.)

[FresnoDA]

How carefully was he investigated before he was ruled out as a suspect by LE?

Probably just as carefully as the SDPD ruled out the Van Damned within 12 hours....

Ruled out Barb and Denise and Rich and Keith...

Ruled out any other recent house guests to the VD compound....

SARCASM/FULL ON!!

[nycgal]

Thanks, Kim

[alisasny]

Their lifestyle choice does not suggest pedophilia incest and infanticide. And pot does not cause one to be violent.

Their lifestyle choice suggests consensual swinging with other adults and a bit of drinking and pot smoking to loosen inhibitions.

[MissAmericanPie]

To weigh the evidence and assign guilt is not rail roading. All this talk of swinging, etc. takes the trial on a ride around the park to a dead end. To say it isn't sensationalizing is naive. I disagree that it be promoted as important evidence that someone else could have committed the crime.

The blood and hair is on this man and in his motor home, he cannot account for where he was and if he was alone, he has child porn in his possession. I don't know what possible evidence could trump those facts.

[alisasny]

If DW is innocent he knows what the DNA evidence is and will testify. If the DNA evidence is substantal he will not testify and I will likely conclude him guilty as will the jury.

[MizSterious]

Maybe you don't know a lot about swingers. We've done quite a lot of research on them because of this case, and it's been a real eye-opener. Many of them introduce their children to "the lifestyle." The club that the VDs belonged to also had a "schoolgirl night" where all the women dressed up like little girls. That certainly indicates an interest in little girls by the men, at least.