Westerfield attorney's begin defense
Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Westerfield attorney's begin defense
|
|
|
July 2, 2002 A recovery dog behaved normally during an inspection of the motor home of murder defendant David Westerfield, a police investigator testified at the outset of the defendant's case this afternoon. Prosecutors rested their case Tuesday morning against the man accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, but the judge said there is an unspecified witness the prosecution may call before the trial ends. Attorneys for Westerfield began calling defense witnesses this afternoon. Dog's behavior recounted "The dog went around the motor home with Mr. Frazee in close attendance," the officer said. "The dog examined each of the lower equipment bays on the motor home, again with Mr. Frazee in close attendance and that is all I can recall of my observing." Frazee has previously testified that his dog "alerted" to the possible scent of a cadaver on the motor home. Under cross examination by prosector Jeff Dusek, the investigator testified that he had no formal training in dog handling. Neighbors testify No witnesses have recalled seeing the defendant do that on the weekend in Febuary that the victim, Danielle van Dam, disappeared. Westerfield parked his motor home around the corner from his home as television news crews invaded the neighborhood to report on the well-publized search for the child Feb. 2, and returned without it on Feb. 4, after embarking on a rambling journey around San Diego and Imperial counties. Software enginer Mark Roehr, who lives across the street from Westerfield, testified that he and his wife Janet have socialized with Westerfield over the last four years. Roehr said the defendant would park his motor home in front of his home for a period of time ranging anywhere from a day to several days. Roehr agreed under questioning from Boyce, that Sabre Springs was a family neighborhood where a range of school-age children could be seen walking its streets. Roehr said he found Westerfield's motor home unlocked at one time. Prosecutors have presented forensice evidence that blood and hair from the victim was found in the motor home. The Roehrs returned to the Sabre Springs neighborhood around 3:30 p.m. on Feb. 2 after a day of house-hunting to learn of Danielle's disappearance, according to the testimony. Westerfield appeared moments later in his motor home. Roehr said his neighbor was unable to get to his home because of the presence of the news media, and because authorities had taped off certain parts of the neighborhood. "He pulled up on Briar Leafe toward Mountain Pass road then gave me a sign like 'what's going on?' " Roehr said. "Rather than try to explain through the window of the motor home, I just pointed him down the street toward Mountain Pass to find a place to park." Under cross examination from Dusek, Roehr said that it had been several months since Westerfield had brought his motor home into the neighborhood. He also said that he had never seen school-age children in the motor home. The couple had been in the neighborhood around 10:30 a.m. the morning of the girl's disappearance, but at the time had noticed nothing unusual, Roehr said, under the prosecutor's questioning. Westerfield was not seen in the neighborhood then, Roehr said. Roehr also said he never checked the motor home's door daily to see if it was locked. "Did it appear that when the motor home would be brought into the neighborhood it was in preparation for a trip?" asked Dusek. "Typically, yes," Roehr said. "Why do you say that?" "Because I know that's what he does. He comes in, he cleans the windows, gets it ready -- because it's stored some place where it gets dirty. He gets it prepared." The prosecutor noted that it appeared to be "a ritual" when Westerfield was planning for a trip." On most occasions, Roehr said, Westerfield would be accompanied by his son, or a girlfriend. 'Helpful and friendly' Under questioning from Dusek, she testified that she had never been in the upstairs part of Westerfield's home, or his office. She too recalled seeing Westerfield's motor home arrive on that Saturday afternoon, but admitted to Dusek that it wasn't typical to see him in the motor home alone. Typically, she said, someone drove with him in a car to assist in picking up and dropping off the motor home from storage. "Did he have anyone with him this day," said Dusek. "No," she replied. Focus on hose: Prosecutors have made much of a garden hose being left out in front of the defendant's home on the weekend the victim disappeared and he left on the trip in his motor home. "Was it unsual for Mr. Westerfield to leave his hose unraveled on the front lawn?" asked Boyce. "I don't think so," Hung said. "You've seen it like that before." "Yes I have." Hung also verified that the motor home had been left in the neighborhood and that children were also seen in the vicinity. Another defense witness shared little more with the jury than his name and title before being dismissed. Boyce asked Richard Maler, a San Diego police robbery detective, if he had interviewed Keith Stone on Feb 2. Stone, a construction project manager, was with Brenda van Dam and two of her friends the night before the victim vanished. The interview took place at a police substation. But once Boyce asked Maler if Stone had told him where he had been that night, prosecutor Dusek raised an objection that led to a lengthy sidebar discussion between the judge and attorneys. When it ended, the witness was excused without a public explanation. The day's final witness was police detective Johnny Keene, who recounted the times he contacted Westerfield on Monday Feb. 4, upon his return to the neighborhood. His first contact was around 9:30 that morning he said, under questioning from defense attorney Steven Feldman, and lasted until around noon. There was a period of time when Westerfield accompanied them to an inspection of the motorhome on Skyridge Road. The defense attorney appeared irritated when Dusek produced a photograph that showed Keene and other authorities looking through Westerfield's garage, with the defendant present. The photograph, taken sometime between 10:30 a.m. and 11 a.m., was apparently introduced by Dusek to show the investigator was wearing gloves when he was going through the garage. It appeared to be the first time Westerfield's defense attorney had seen the rather sizeable photograph. "We see a man inside of his house," Feldman said, holding up the photograph for jurors to see. "Who's that?" After Keene identified him as a police sergeant, Feldman noted the man was standing in the area of the washer-dryer. "Do you see any sweat on Mr. Westerfield's armpits," the defense attorney said. "Not in that photo." Previously, authorities have testified Westerfield was sweating profusely when they contacted him, though the weather was relatively cool. After the jury was excused for the day, Feldman complained that he had not been previously provided a copy of the photo. Prosecutors rested their case Westerfield is accused of sneaking into the van Dam's Sabre Springs house on Feb. 2 and abducting Danielle, then killing her and dumping her body off rural Dehesa Road near El Cajon. Today was the 15th day of testimony in the case and the 17th overall day of court activity since the trial began on June 4. Judge William Mudd told jurors before the start of a noon lunch break that an additional prosecution witness had not been able to develop his or her testimony due to the speed with which the trial began and that prosecutors might call that witness "if and when that witness becomes relevant." Dog evidenceLawyers spent much of Tuesday morning revisiting the testimony of a dog handler who said his dog "alerted" to the possible scent of a cadaver on Westerfield's motor home in a police impound yard on Feb. 6.Canine handler Jim Frazee initially testified on Wednesday, June 26. Testimony didn't resume until today because jurors toured the motor home Wednesday afternoon and lawyers for both sides met with the judge to discuss witnesses and related legal issues on Thursday and Monday. There is usually no court activity on Fridays. Though his dog, Cielo, sat down, looked at him and barked after sniffing a storage compartment, Frazee admitted he wasn't sure the dog had had a valid reaction until he learned on Feb. 22 that Westerfield had been arrested and a blood stain had been found in the vehicle. The dog didn't give an "alert" after it was allowed to sniff a shovel and lawn chair stored in the compartment and failed to react after a second trip around the motor home, Frazee said. "'I didn' t know what to make of what Cielo did and left the scene wondering,'" Frazee said, reading from a Feb. 22 e-mail he had sent to friends about the incident. Both Cielo and Frazee's other search-and-rescue dog, Hopi, had failed to react during a previous inspection of the motor home at its storage area on Feb. 4. A defense attorney for Westerfield asked Frazee if he knew he had the nickname "180-Frank." "You have that because when you and your dog search in one direction, everyone goes in the other direction," Robert Boyce said. "I've never heard that," Frazee replied. Another dog handler, Rosemary Redditt, testified Tuesday morning that she saw Cielo's behavior at the motor home on Feb. 6 and had no question that the dog had actually given an alert. Other developmentsAnimal DNA analyst Joy Halverson testified that dog hairs found on Westerfield's laundry and in his motor home could have come from the van Dam family dog, Layla.Westerfield's lead defense attorney, Steven Feldman, questioned Halverson's credentials and methods, noting that her interpretation of the DNA evidence changed between her first report, a follow-up report and a presentation in the courtroom. There won't be any court activity on Thursday, due to the Independence Day holiday, or on Friday. Mudd told jurors he might have to change his rule against court activity on Fridays and hold a session on Friday, July 12. Mudd has said he plans to take July 15-19 off for his wedding anniversary.
|
There are several options here:
(1)Go back and invest a little time reading previous threads where this has been discussed over and over, explained in intricated detail, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is something called courtesy of trying to understand what has been discussed so you don't force others to re-educate every person that comes to the thread.
I would be happy to take time to explain all the instances (fingerprints, hairs, fibers,etc) where police testified in court that they did not bother to identify this item or that, or id prints, or even take prints from certain items.
Problem is that I know you have been on these threads lurking and replying, so you have read this information just like the rest of us.
That you have read it and choose to play dumb and ignore it means that me telling you would do no good, so I choose not to waste my time
If you are serious about learning, go back and read the threads. There are links, or we can direct you.
THis is my favorite qoute:
"I understand your problem.
I'll be glad to help you out.
Which way did you come in?"
.jpg)
There should be no quarter given to those who abuse and defile the trust placed in them by an innocent child. Child molesters are heinous creatures, destroyers of the future who themselves deserve to be dispatched in the most hideous way possible. Whoever murdered Danielle Van Dam (right), whoever dumped her soft little body into dirty scrub brush by the side of the road to be mauled and desecrated by the fangs of wild animals, deserves to die an equally painful and inglorious death. And, Danielle’s parents, Damon and Brenda Van Dam, deserve our heartfelt sympathy for their disastrous loss of their little girl in such a horrid manner.
However, disquieting revelations have been floating around this case since Danielle disappeared on February 1st, 2002. First disclosed by radio talk-show host Rick Roberts, these rumors have been linked to an unnamed San Diego Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). The rumors alleged that the Van Dam’s were “swingers”, who had a special room set up in their garage - with inside locks - where eager participants had orgies replete with drinking and pot smoking.
The Van Dam’s, on their appearances on Larry King Live and America’s Most Wanted, seemed evasive, dodging questions about their personal lifestyle. They also almost immediately hired a PR firm, whose spokesman likewise deflected this line of questioning without denying it outright.
Thursday, in court hearings, both Brenda and Damon Van Dam seemed to verify some of these allegations. At the very least, the Van Dam behavior and home life can be said to have been highly unusual.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Brenda Van Dam (left) gave some staggering testimony. Among the stunners were the revelation that she had left 7-year old Danielle alone, trying on clothes, in Mervyn’s, while she hunted down her 5 and 10-year old sons who were “at other stores” in the same mall. Then, Brenda admitted that she had noticed her neighbor, David Westerfield (right), the accused killer, at a Poway bar, “Dad’s”, the previous Friday, January 25th. Van Dam, who was with two friends, Barbara and Denise, admitted under questioning by the defense attorney, that the three women had been dancing together, suggestively, with Barbara even attempting to fondle Brenda’s breasts.
According to testimony, the following week, Brenda Van Dam, Danielle and her brother went over to Westerfield’s house in order to sell him some Girl Scout cookies. Westerfield asked Van Dam why she hadn’t introduced him to her friends, who, he allegedly said, “looked really fun“. She also testified that Westerfield had told her that he often had “adult BBQ’s”, at which, according to Van Dam, he said, “He would provide the salad, but everyone had to bring their own meat.“ Van Dam testified that she told Westerfield to meet her and her friends at Dad’s the following Friday, and she would then introduce him to her friends.
On February 1st, the day Danielle would disappear, the following events transpired, according to Van Dam’s testimony. Brenda returned with the kids at approximately 5:30, then went out to pick up pizza for dinner, leaving the children alone in the house. After dinner, her two girlfriends, Denise and Barbara, came over and stayed about 15 minutes. The three women each had a beer, then they and Brenda’s husband Damon, met in the garage, where they smoked part of a joint (marijuana cigarette).
At approximately 8:30 p.m., the three women went to “Dad’s” where they met up with Westerfield. Westerfield bought them all drinks (Brenda testified that she had three cranberry-vodkas, one shot of tequila and one Red Bull). Westerfield says he danced with Van Dam, she initially denied it, but testified under oath that she “couldn’t recall.” She did admit to “slow dancing” with an older man, and testified that Denise and Barbara were “sexual dancing” with each other and with other women in the bar.
Van Dam also testified that the girlfriends met up with two men named “Rich and Keith.” Rich was alleged to be the pot connection, in later testimony given by Damon Van Dam. Supposedly, Keith was very interested in Barbara, and confided to Brenda that he had “popped a “V”, apparently referring to a Viagra pill. He allegedly asked Brenda to facilitate a tryst between the two.
At 2:00 a.m., when closing time was announced, the three women got in Brenda’s truck (allegedly taking hits from the same joint they had smoked earlier) and the two men drove in another vehicle to the Van Dam home. Damon, who was allegedly asleep in his underwear in his own bed, was awakened by Barbara, who climbed on top of the bed. Damon admits to “kissing” Barbara, and “rubbing her back”.
Brenda Van Dam came upstairs about 15 minutes later, and informed the couple that they were being “rude” and that they should join the rest of the ensemble downstairs. Yet, after pizza, the remaining guests allegedly left. The Van Dam’s assert that they went to bed at approximately 2:30 a.m. They did not consider checking on their children then, and did not realize that Danielle was missing until approximately 9:30 a.m. the next morning.
Danielle’s naked and decomposed body was found by volunteer searchers on February 27th.
Whether her parent’s lifestyle had anything to do with her death is debatable. Surely, the Van Dams love their children, aged 10, 7 (Danielle) and 5. Yet the Van Dams appear to have engaged in a lot of activities which could be directly and indirectly injurious to their family. There aren’t too many families, for example, where the mother leaves her young children alone while she runs out to pick up dinner. There aren’t too many devoted mothers who routinely spend Friday nights dirty-dancing at the local bar. Wise parents who exercise sound oversight do not partake in the heavy drinking and pot smoking which appear to have occurred on a regular basis in the Van Dam household.
And, most parents simply do not invite a group of drunken, pot-addled barflys over to their home at 2 o’clock in the morning, while their innocent children sleep only a few rooms away. One wonders whether either Damon or Brenda’s “friend” Barbara, ever considered what the children would think should they awaken and find their father with a woman who wasn‘t their mother rolling around on their parent’s bed.
Many dark theories abound as to what might actually have transpired between the Van Dams and David Westerfield. According to the defense attorney, witnesses have offered to come forward to testify that, not only DID Brenda Van Dam dance with Westerfield, but she did so exclusively and in a suggestive manner. Nevertheless, Westerfield may indeed be solely responsible for the murder of Danielle, and if he is found guilty than he should fry.
However, the Van Dam’s do appear to have fostered, at the very minimum, a home environment where the least suitable people would often be around their most precious assets. Their little girl, unfortunately, was the one who paid the price. ***
lol
I agree. In fact I understand that it is NOT incumbent on the prosecution to lay down every step of the crime ... how he got her from point A to point B ... but rather that he had the means and the motive. And the DNA.
Don't be silly. Point me to any article ... ANY PROOF AT ALL that no time was spent on any other person or persons. Your answer was vague in the extreme. Proof.
The prosecution has already provided this to the jury. The defense LAWYER can provide this to the jury. It is a matter of record.
As others theorized earlier, I believe that they rushed to take this to trial before the fiber, dna, etc. results came back, very sure that they would prove his guilt. Unfortunately for the prosecution things have not worked out as they expected so they're stuck looking like liars. I can only hope that the jury remembers or has taken notes during the opening statement. Whether they did or not, I'm sure Feldman will be only too happy to refresh their memory. That's why DW is paying him the really big bucks :-)
Two things. 1. The jury has been instructed to presume innocence until all the evidence is in. 2. If the jury is really watching the same evidence we're watching, they'll have questions. Probably many, perhaps all, of the same ones we have. In a sense, the jury is the general public, just a small sample of us.
Well, cool. It's just that they are held to a different standard than we are. I'm sick and tired of the Westerfield fans pretending that we can't judge someone that we TRULY believe is a child molester.
Most attorneys say that a circumstantial case is stronger. An eyewitness can be impeached by their eyesite, their motivation and their ability to see in certain conditions. Circumstantial cases are very much okay.
As we speak, Michael Skakel (the Kennedy cousin) is sitting in jail on a circumstantial case 27 years old ... and NO DNA evidence.
Ludicrous. There has, however, been a concerted effort to silence those of us who still have questions about the evidence, or lack of it.
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.
