Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?
Union Trib ^ | July 2, 2002 | Union Trib

Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-442 next last
To: luvbach1
Are you attorney's,don't answer if you don't want to.You both seem to know what he should do.
61 posted on 07/02/2002 7:31:15 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2; All
Hey, I forgot to give you this link earlier..it's kind of easier to navigate cuz it's on 3 pages instead of 1 big page without paragraph breaks. dusek's opening statement It's all lower case cuz I just changed the font...didn't like the way it read on uniontrib.
62 posted on 07/02/2002 7:32:31 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
The arrested him because he was cooperative.

I would love to know this and perhaps you can help.

If you ABSOLUTELY KNEW that Danielle was NEVER in Westerfield's motorhome what would you vote? Guilty or not guilty?

BTW, we will never know if she was or was not.

63 posted on 07/02/2002 7:32:35 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
. What does he need to testify about? What can he testify to?

He testifies to his innocence. He never saw the girl that day. She was never in his motor home to his knowledge. He went on a trip and got stuck. He drove around and came home. He did not kill her. What's the prosecution going to use as a counter? His fingerprints on her body? His DNA on her? Nothing.

If he does not sway the jury, they will convict him. It's just that close.

64 posted on 07/02/2002 7:32:41 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
I answered post 21 in my post 29.
65 posted on 07/02/2002 7:33:15 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
He testifies to his innocence. He never saw the girl that day. She was never in his motor home to his knowledge.

The defendant never has to testify in his own behalf. But most attorneys will tell you that it ever-so-little counts against them if they do not get up on the stand.

66 posted on 07/02/2002 7:35:35 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
Ha! And they say they haven't made up their minds yet!!!

If you can't see the results so far of the Prosecution's case, their lack of proving what DUSEK said he would prove in the opening statement,the witnesses so far that have admitted to changing their stories, The latest being the LE on today, that after being asked to actually READ his notes, changed his story, if you can't see that this leads to the possibility that the police arrested the wrong man, then you would appear to have a completely closed mind. You are apparently reacting to others saying you have already made up your mind. And you have, haven't you ? You haven't even allowed the defense to finish their case. You had this attitude before Prosecution finished, and I believe, before they started.

Most of us here waited to see if Prosecution had some proof that would convince us DW was the culprit. Had they, I know I, and suspect others, would have not had any problem with saying, "we were wrong, the guy is guilty".

If DEFENSE provides PROOF DW could not possibly have done this, WILL YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG?

67 posted on 07/02/2002 7:35:41 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
Only by the jury ... The general public is not held to the same standard.

So what?

68 posted on 07/02/2002 7:36:34 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: spectre

Westerfield seemed normal, neighbors testify

Photo
Mark Roehr described his neighbor, David Westerfield, as a normal, pleasant guy.

SAN DIEGO — After four weeks of testimony from prosecution witnesses, jurors began hearing David Westerfield's side of the story Tuesday.

Lawyers for the man accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam opened their case by calling several neighbors who disputed that Westerfield had behaved oddly last February when Danielle went missing. Perhaps more significantly, they described him as an outgoing guy with normal hobbies and relationships, not the strange pedophile portrayed by investigators.

Westerfield, a 50-year-old engineer who lived two doors from the van Dam family, faces the death penalty if convicted of Danielle's kidnapping and murder. She vanished from her bedroom the night of Feb. 1 and searchers found her naked body three weeks later by a roadside. Prosecutors allege he took Danielle on a long trip in his RV and at some point raped and killed her.

Prosecutors closed their case, which included strong DNA, fingerprint and fiber evidence linking Westerfield to the girl's disappearance, Tuesday morning. Judge William Mudd said that, depending on the outcome of a hearing, they may reopen their case later for one additional witness.

The testimony of Mark and Janet Roehr, a married couple who lived across the street from Westerfield, appeared to offer limited support for the defense's explanation of the strong forensic evidence presented by prosecutors.

Lawyer Steven Feldman has suggested Danielle may have once played in Westerfield's recreational vehicle and at that time deposited hair, blood and fingerprints. Her parents testified that such a scenario was impossible as they kept a tight reign on their children, and another witness said Westerfield had a high-tech security system on the vehicle.

But Mark Roehr told jurors Tuesday that on one occasion he walked right into his friend and neighbor's RV while it was parked on their street "without him unlocking the motor home."

Janet Roehr said Westerfield often left the door open as he packed and unpacked the vehicle. She also hinted that the van Dams may be less watchful parents than they claimed, saying that last month she saw the couple's youngest son, Dylen, 6, playing alone in his front yard. She said he chased the ball across the street, and she had to stop traffic to allow him to return safely.

Both Roehrs also contradicted other neighbors who testified for the prosecution that Westerfield normally took days to load his RV before a trip, unlike the quick packing job he did shortly after Danielle vanished.

"I've seen it pull up and in the same day take off," said Janet Roehr.

Westerfield's absence in the neighborhood the morning Danielle was discovered missing first caught investigators' attention and one detective previously testified that her suspicion was further heightened by an errant garden hose strewn across the neat lawn. But Janet Roehr and another neighbor, Paul Hung, said it was not unusual for Westerfield to leave the hose stretched out.

Police also concluded that Westerfield's account of a trip to the desert in his RV was odd since he hadn't taken his dune buggies, but Hung said he did not always take the off-road vehicles if his adult son, Neal, was not going.

Mark Roehr, as other residents of the Sabre Springs neighborhood have said, recalled seeing Westerfield briefly on their street a few hours after Danielle went missing. Roehr said Westerfield drove up the street in the RV, past scores of police cars and news vans.

"He kinda gave me a sign like, what's going on," said Roehr. After Westerfield parked the RV, he joined neighbors on a corner. "That's when I told him the little girl a couple of houses up the street was missing."

Prosecutor Jeff Dusek questioned each of the neighbors about how much they really knew about Westerfield's activities.

"Did you check the door on a daily basis to see if that door was locked or unlocked?" Dusek asked Mark Roehr, who conceded that he didn't.

He asked Hung, who lives next door to Westerfield, "How loud would someone have to scream in the Westerfield house for you to hear it?" Judge Mudd ruled the question argumentative and ordered Hung not to answer.

Dusek could do little to temper the portrait painted by Hung and the Roehrs. Hung said he and Westerfield frequently stood in their backyards talking over the fence and that his family had a standing invitation to use Westerfield's pool.

Janet Roehr said he was "friendly and very helpful." Mark Roehr said he visited Westerfield's home on dozens of occasions and had met his girlfriends, including one identified as Susan. She and Westerfield broke up shortly before Danielle vanished, and Roehr said Westerfield described breaking up with Susan as "tough."

All of his neighbors said they knew Westerfield's son and daughter, Lisa, who were frequent visitors at the house.


69 posted on 07/02/2002 7:38:12 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BunnySlippers
But most attorneys will tell you that it ever-so-little counts against them if they do not get up on the stand.

I'm sure the lawyer for the guy I sent up for life told his client that his silence would help him. It was the wrong advice. He allowed the evidence to convict him.

If I am innocent, I am running to the stand to testify.

70 posted on 07/02/2002 7:39:32 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: nycgal
Thanks.I didn't know that in an opening statement that they could say what they want and not prove it.It would really help if they could because I am lost to how this happened,got in and got out of the house.
71 posted on 07/02/2002 7:39:51 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1
If he does testify he will get the chair

I would agree with you in that our own worst enemy is OUR OWN MOUTH.

The Prosecution can cross examine and get you flustered and confused, and MAKE YOU LOOK GUILTY in fronty of a JURY, even when you aren't. That is why the law says you do not have to testify at your own trial.

72 posted on 07/02/2002 7:40:06 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
So what?

Because there's been a concerted effort in this forum to shut up people who feel that a child molester (Westerfield) has been caught.

73 posted on 07/02/2002 7:40:26 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: fatima
Humm,they are really sure they have their man,the DA and police to go out on the line like that,thank you for your answers.

No, they THOUGHT they had their man, they were pressured to find someone, arrest them, and make it stick.

They did so, now they are finding that the don't really have the goods.

74 posted on 07/02/2002 7:42:19 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
If I am innocent, I am running to the stand to testify.

Boy, I couldn't agree with you more.

75 posted on 07/02/2002 7:42:33 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
U really CAN C a lot! I'm sure the blood on his shirt and his carpet were from that nose bleed Danielle had the day she played house in the motor home. And I'm sure she was jumping on the bed while leaving her fingerprint. David's perspiration is merely a result of his concern and eagerness to help the police. And I'm sure the Van Dam's terrible influence is what lead him into an addiction of pornography. POOR DAVID! He was just trying to buy a few drinks on the second of Feb. and ... now he's in jail. All of those classy friends of his really attest to his upstanding character. And that child pornography ... I'll bet Damon planted it in his house. And the dry cleaner lady, I'll bet she wanted to frame him. He'd merely had a heavy night drinking and forgot to get dressed before he took his dry cleaning in ... and how coincidental that he needed to clean his bedding this particular day. The stars, the Van Dams, the police, the dog, the experts ... they're all out to get that sweet man whose just too guiless to know how to cover up alarming coincidences.
76 posted on 07/02/2002 7:42:56 PM PDT by fiddlesticks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
If you were on trial and you were innocent, you would testify. You would do anything to save your skin. We all would.
77 posted on 07/02/2002 7:43:05 PM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
No, they THOUGHT they had their man, they were pressured to find someone, arrest them, and make it stick.

What proof do you have that no one else was checked out?

78 posted on 07/02/2002 7:43:52 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: fiddlesticks
Bravo, Fiddlesticks!!!
79 posted on 07/02/2002 7:45:39 PM PDT by BunnySlippers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: gigi
You put your finger on it, or at least some of it. How did the girl's handprint get on the cabinet above the bed (the bed abutted the cabinets)? That means she was standing on the bed facing the cabinets, perhaps with her back toward her attacker. Further, how did her blood get in the motor home. How likely is it that she wandered in and bled? How did her blood get on his jacket? I don't think the defense can adequately explain these away. All the rest the defense will present (and has been presenting) to discredit the prosecution case will be no more than a smokescreen. In answer to other of your questions, I don't think the prosecution is certain of all the MO. It's likely he simply carried the girl out of the house the same way he entered it, stifling her cries.The house was asleep. I think he drove around with her, thus the prints and blood in the motor home. He also made that slip, saying we, when he should have said I, when describing his rambling journey.Nobody knows just when he did the dastardly deed but I don't think the case will hinge on that.
80 posted on 07/02/2002 7:45:45 PM PDT by luvbach1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 441-442 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson