Posted on 06/13/2002 4:28:33 PM PDT by FresnoDA
A series of calls from Westerfield's cell phone in early February appeared to mirror his rambling motor home trip to the beaches of southern San Diego County and the Imperial Valley deserts, Verizon Wireless representative Greg Sheets testified.
Westerfield is charged with kidnapping and murdering Danielle. He could face the death penalty if he's convicted.
The prosecution also called a series of witnesses who were at Silver Strand State Beach on Saturday, Feb. 2. Westerfield said he drove his motor home to Silver Strand that morning.
Beverly Jean Askey of El Cajon testified that her family was already at the beach when a motor home that she later learned was Westerfield's pulled into a nearby space sometime before 10 a.m. It was a nice, sunny day she said, yet no one came out of the vehicle.
"He just pulled up, he pulled the front window closed and I never saw anyone again," Askey said.
Two other campers said they saw Westerfield's motor home and noticed that it appeared closed up.
Earlier, Angela Elkus, a resident of the Sabre Springs neighborhood where the van Dams and Westerfield lived, answered questions about the motor home. She said she had seen children playing around the vehicle three or four times when it was parked on the street, but she said they were mostly older children. She also talked about a visit to the van Dam home after Danielle disappeared.
Elkus said she had never been to the home before, but she brought food over for the family on the Sunday after the little girl disappeared. She said that the family's dog appeared "scared, shy, confused and perfectly still" when she came in the house, and it did not bark, she said. Legal analysts say prosecutors want to convince the jury that a stranger could have come into the house and taken Danielle without the dog barking.
I made it general, in case we like it so much we move on to other cases. I would appreciate it if anyone who has personal email addresses for any of our missing members would email them so we can all get back together. : )
Where are the lines between investigating a crime and interrogating a suspect?
When does a bystander become a witness, become a potential suspect, and what changes in dealing with that person are required to kick in at those steps?
Anybody?
The poster stated in #91: The ramps belonged to the tt driver.
The driver clearly stated that DW took off without his property,(meaning the ramps were NOT the tow guy's) no matter the composition of said property. Another article refers to DW's property that he left behind as "levelers". I am going to review the testimony, but I think those terms were used interchangeably.
Bottom line is the judge tries to determine what the police were thinking/intending at the time of the interview. In every jurisdiction there is a long line of cases which outline when the police have crossed the line from witness/investigation to suspect. I have never practiced in California so I can not help in this case.
Most of it is as we've been discussing here: 'similar' fibers, mitochondrial matches, etc.
But he said that they did not have Danielle's blood in a vial, or her hair to compare at the early stages of the investigation.
I seem to recall last September that calls went out for family members to bring along toothbrushes, hairbrushes, razor blades, etc. for investigators to get DNA so that they could identify bodies and parts as they worked at WTC.
Dusek seems disingenuous on this issue. You mean to tell me that Danielle didn't have a toothbrush or hairbrush to provide samples? They did get samples from her underwear. So wouldn't they have the necessary tools to do complete studies to determine if that is Danielle's blood?
BTW, wouldn't vaginal secretions, that is, vaginitis, in a seven-year-old be a primary red flag for sexual abuse?
One last thing. I'll stay here, no hard feelings, guys. I have great loyalty to JimRob since '97, and thank him for providing this forum. Yeah, things got sticky there for a while, but FR is more important, in my view, than one discussion about a court case. I hope to see some of you come back and help out whoever's left here, sometime.
I just think that perhaps even Jim would be happier with us discussing this elsewhere. And I am too fond of some of the people leaving to just let them go....
refer to:
Private Lives-Public Trial:Are Sexual ?'s Relevant In The Van Dam Trial? (TRIAL THREAD-BARB WATCH)
Posted by let freedom sing to let freedom sing; FresnoDA On News/Activism Jun 12 9:14 PM #580 of 1,136
I found what I was looking for:
BVD Testimony June 6 Morning 1
Q DID YOU GUYS DISCUSS ANYTHING ELSE WHILE YOU WERE THERE IN THE KITCHEN AREA? A YES, WE DID. Q HE MADE A COMMENT TO ME. HE ASKED ME -- WELL, WHEN I -- HE ASKED ME WHY I DIDN'T INTRODUCE HIM TO MY FRIENDS. Q WHAT DID YOU TELL HIM? A I SAID I DON'T EVEN KNOW YOUR NAME; HOW COULD I HAVE INTRODUCED YOU TO THEM. AND HE SAID, WELL, HI, I'M DAVID WESTERFIELD. AND HE GAVE ME TWO OF HIS BUSINESS CARDS. Q DID YOU TAKE THE CARDS? A YES, I DID. Q DID YOU SHAKE HANDS? A I DON'T RECALL. Q WHAT HAPPENED THEN? A AND THEN HE SAID WHY DON'T YOU WRITE YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND'S NAME DOWN ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER. AND HE SAID I HAVE PARTIES. Q ALL RIGHT. A I HAVE BARBECUES WHERE THE KIDS COME AND PEOPLE BRING THEIR OWN FOOD TO COOK. AND I ALSO HAVE -- HE HAS FAMILY PARTIES AND I HAVE ADULT PARTIES. Q WHAT DID YOU SAY? A I FINISHED WRITING MY NAME DOWN AND GAVE IT TO HIM. Q WHY DID YOU DO THAT? A I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF WRITING IT DOWN. I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE RIPPING IT UP AND TAKING IT AWAY AND BEING RUDE. HE REFERRED TO THE ADULT PARTIES AS BARBECUES ALSO.
I have a question: maybe Miz taped the trial-- that part-- AND HE SAID I HAVE PARTIES. Q ALL RIGHT. A I HAVE BARBECUES WHERE THE KIDS COME AND PEOPLE BRING THEIR OWN FOOD TO COOK. AND I ALSO HAVE -- HE HAS FAMILY PARTIES AND I HAVE ADULT PARTIES
-- I don't remember that he/I shift and there is a small problem with the he/I shift-- no one clarifed that, but I understood BvD to mean she always meant DW. The BvD admission of BvD adult parties came later with the cross-exam.
This really bugs me since LE, the media, and everyone else made 'hay' with the "we" shift at the 'turn-about'.
I think we're going to hear that DW gets stuck yet again (site choice #2 foiled?).
I missed that. I do remember lurking on a bunch of threads that disappeared this spring, but I blamed that on the gag order which restricted so many substantive discussions because of lack of useful information.
Seems like there's so much info now, we're lucky just to get it recorded (Thank you, Rheo!) let along have time for discussions to spiral down into arguments.
I'm all for folks being nonoffensive, especially to hosts, but I do understand that some people really enjoy and think well by going after a topic, and occasionally one another :) tooth and nail.
Again, my best to the new forum. Hope that Feldman's folks check it out and that there are many 'Perry Mason Moments.' :-)
In the Elian case, the boy refugee was denied due process, whereas the murdering dictator Castro's case to have the boy returned was stampeded by all levels of the Federal government and his Uncle Lazio's family was excoriated by the liberal media.
In the Westerfield case, it seemed that the man was being denied due process and being railroded by the San Diego DA's office and a vicious slandering press.
In both cases there seems to be a cadre/club of associates engaged in cultic or immoral circle that is fueling and fanning the miscarriage of justice. In Elian's case it seems to be a commie/santerian/Cuban business seeking alliance of cadres. In Westerfield's it seems to be an alliance of a DA seeking re-election and his politic allies with a wide-ranging bu media-allied group of swappers and swingers -- and just maybe, maybe, maybe black magic practitioners.
In both cases there are a number of very relevant Bill of Rights issues that are highly important. In both cases morality plays a big hand -- should we be moral or libertine in our laws?
All in all, it is a page turner and a draw. Hard to discuss boring, dry material, even if it is important. A constitutional discussion using cases like this as a framework are gifts to public learning.
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.