Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA
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.
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.
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.
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?
So what?
Westerfield seemed normal, neighbors testify |
![]() |
||||||
|
|||||||
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. |
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.
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.
Because there's been a concerted effort in this forum to shut up people who feel that a child molester (Westerfield) has been caught.
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.
Boy, I couldn't agree with you more.
What proof do you have that no one else was checked out?
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.