Posted on 07/09/2002 8:35:39 PM PDT by FresnoDA
July 9, 2002
A police specialist says she linked 46 fibers from four locations in David Westerfield's motor home, in every way she could measure, to 19 blue fibers found in the sheet that was used to wrap the body of Danielle van Dam, recovered in East County.
The witness, Tanya DuLaney, criminalist with the San Diego Police Department, was called Tuesday as the defense presented its case because she offered new prosecution evidence.
DuLaney testified she recovered 46 fibers from four locations in the motor home that Westerfield took on a weekend trip the same weekend that the 7-year-old victim disappeared.
"I was specifically looking for types of fibers we had seen in the case; primarily I was looking for orange acrylic fibers and blue nylon fibers," DuLaney said. "And I found a number of blue nylon fibers on tape lifts from the various areas of the upholstery fabric in the motor home."
They match 19 blue fibers found in the sheet that was used to wrap the victim's body recovered in East County.
"In all the ways I measured and compared the fibers, the fibers from the motor home were the same as the fibers found on the sheet," DuLaney said.
DuLaney testified on June 24 that hairs found in the shower drain in Westerfield's motor home could be Danielle's. Other hairs were found in a lint ball in his trash, among his laundry, on pillow cases and in the motor home sink.
Under cross-examination, DuLaney said she did not use all the tests at her disposal on all the fibers. She said time constraints reduced the number of fibers she was able to examine using an infrared spectrometer.
She said her laboratory does not use a melting-point test on the fibers because it would destroy the evidence and thus not allow a retest at a later date.
Dulaney testified she examined and inspected all the 46 of the fibers, but only 14 of them under infrared light.
Feldman repeatedly sought to ask DuLaney about her "testing" of the fibers, only to be interrupted by prosecution objections to his "vague" questions.
DuLaney said the fibers ultimately may have shared a common source, but conceded there was a possibility they did not.
Jennifer Shen, another SDPD criminalist, went on to describe how she found orange acrylic fibers on a towel in Westerfield's SUV and the interior of the SUV that were similar to a fiber found on the victim's necklace.
Shen said she found 12 fibers in the SUV's interior: one on the front passenger seat; four on the rear passenger arm rest and seven on the back seat area.
She said two of the fibers were excluded as having a common source, but that a representative sample of the 12 was similar to fibers found in Westerfield's home and on the victim's body.
Officer Mark Tallman, a San Diego police officer, was sent to the Silver Strand around 9:25 a.m. on Feb. 5 to see if anyone there had seen David Westerfield or Danielle van Dam.
Westerfield is a 50-year-old twice-divorced design engineer who is accused of abducting the 7-year-old girl from her house, killing her and dumping her nude body off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Westerfield, who they believe is sexually attracted to young girls
Tallman was one of a number of witnesses called by the defense in an effort to contradict testimony of prosecution witnesses call in the case.
The officer's testimony could call into question the testimony of Donald Raymond, a volunteer at Silver Strand State Beach. Raymond testified June 13 that he saw Westerfield pull out his wallet on Feb. 2 during a dispute over whether he paid too much money to camp there. (Westerfield had told police he left the beach that afternoon after realizing he'd left his wallet back in Poway.)
The officer, the first to contact Raymond, testified that the man was initially unsure it was Westerfield.
Cross-examined by prosecutor Jeff Dusek, the officer (whose face was not shown on television for security reasons) said Raymond did provide information that led officers to witnesses who testified about seeing Westerfield's motor home parked at the Strand with the curtains drawn.
The officer also testified that he was told of only one camper overpaying that weekend for staying at the park.
Tallman was the first witness called to testify at the resumption of the trial, now in its 19th day.
The trial had been scheduled to resume with cross-examination today of a security guard who said she saw David Westerfield drive into Coronado Cays a day after Danielle disappeared.
On Monday, Heather Mack said Westerfield drove his motor home into the exclusive neighborhood in the afternoon or evening hours of Feb. 3.
Mack's testimony was delayed because she was late arriving
Westerfield smiled and waved at her as he drove past her security kiosk, but she never saw him again, Mack testified.
Such a recollection would provide Westerfield with corroboration of his statement to police that he spent the evening there, after being unable to arrive at Silver Strand State Park before its gates closed for the evening.
Mack, under cross-examination yesterday by Dusek, testified that she originally told a police officer that she ``vaguely remembered'' seeing Westerfield's RV.
Dusek began his session today by resuming his attack on Mack's credibilty, She testified that security guards need only pass a written test to qualify for employment. Mack passed such a test four years ago.
She was unable to provide Dusek with a precise time that Westerfield drove through. She also testified that, though it was the job of security guards to patrol the Cays and call authorities if motor homes parked illegally, she rarely contacted them.
"It depends if my supervisor tells me," she said.
Her account also conflicted with Westerfield's own statement to investigators. Mack testified yesterday she saw Westerfield drive up to the Cays entrance from the south, as if he were coming from Imperial Beach. Westerfield told police he entered the development while heading east from the Strand.
Mack's tardiness was not the only cause of a delay in trial proceedings on Tuesday.
The testimony of a San Diego police detective who took the witness stand was halted after a dispute arose over taped witness interviews.
Detective Frank Gerbac had just taken the stand when defense attorney Robert Boyce asked about an interview of Denise Kemal – a friend of Brenda van Dam – conducted the evening after Danielle van Dam was discovered missing.
Dusek objected, leading to a lengthy sidebar huddle between the attorneys and Superior Court Judge William Mudd.
After the jury was excused, Mudd said prosecution and defense copies of transcripts of four taped police interviews may or may not have inconsistencies. Attorneys were ordered to resolve them and call Gerbac to the stand later.
Another police officer, Michael Fisher Sr., testified briefly about a lengthy interview he did with Kemal, one of the visitors to the van Dam residence during the early morning hours before the victim was reported missing Feb. 2.
Defense attorneys appeared to call him primarily to show that Kemal wasn't initially truthful to investigators, telling them at first that she was certain that Damon van Dam did not come downstairs during her visit.
During her testimony, Kemal recalled Mr. van Dam did come downstairs.
On cross-examination by Dusek, the officer said Kemal appeared "unsure" about whether or not that occurred.
Another police employee was recalled by the defense. Jeffrey Graham Jr., the latent print examiner who confirmed for authorities that a palm print found inside Westerfield's motor home was the victim's, testified about a prints found in and arond the van Dam residence.
He told defense attorneys that he could find no prints matching the defendant's, including one found on drywall Danielle van Dam's bedroom door.
A woman who lived briefly with David Westerfield testified she saw the defendant's motor home left unlocked and parked by a neighborhood park, down the street from his home.
Christina Gonzales is the daughter of the defendant's ex-girlfriend who moved in around the fall of 2000, in an effort to escape an abusive relationship.
The work, the precise nature of which the witness was unable to recall, was performed on the motor home about two years ago, Gonzales testified. During the work, she and her mother would walk back and forth from Westerfield's residence, she testified under questioning by defense attorney Robert Boyce.
At least one child was playing in the park with a parent, she recalled.
Though the inference was that neighborhood children had access to the unlocked vehicle, Gonzales told Dusek under cross-examination that she never saw strange children inside the motor home.
She also did not dispute, under Dusek's questioning, that Westerfield's pattern for using the motor home consisted of leaving it parked in front of his home for a period of time before and after trips, in order to load and clean the vehicle.
"I don't know how long the whole process took," she said. "I would just take my belongings out, help clean up the refrigerator, that kind of thing."
Westerfield was not seen loading or unloading the vehicle outside his residence the night before Danielle van Dam disappeared.
She also testified, under more questioning by Dusek, that he normally took his trailer carrying assorted "sand toys," when embarking on desert trips. Westerfield did not take the vehicles during his rambling trip to Glamis on the weekend the victim disappeared.
She also testified that the only dog seen in his residence was a "little curly haired black dog," and that the defendant's son, Neal, was only a part-time residence of the household.
Judge Mudd told jurors that they may begin an expected week-long trial break as early as the conclusion of testimony on Wednesday.
Mudd that all available witnesses could be called by then.
"I'm completely confident that you'll be able to go to work on Thursday," he said.
The trial will not be held during the week of July 15 because of a previously planned vacation by the judge.
Mudd also urged the members of the panel to avoid any media coverage of the trial."
"Continue to avoid at all costs, synopsis shows, call-in programs, reading the articles," he said. "It's the only way we're going to be able to get a verdict from 12 individuals that hear and see the evidence in this coutroom."
Among defense witnesses yet to testify is insect expert David Faulkner.
Faulkner is expected to testify about how long the 7-year-old's body may have been left alongside Dehesa Road before a volunteer searcher found the remains among some trash Feb. 27. Defense attorney Steven Feldman has said Westerfield would have had no opportunity to dispose of the body because he was under constant police surveillance from Feb. 4 until his arrest Feb. 22.
|
| Defendant David Westerfield(L) consults defense attorney Steven Feldman during Westerfield's murder trial in San Diego July 9, 2002. Dozens of fibers taken from Westerfield's motorhome match those found on a sheet used to wrap the body of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam according to testimony by a San Diego police forensic scientist. Westerfield faces the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping van Dam from her Sabre Springs, California home and then murdering her last February. (Dan Trevan/Reuters) |
Did he perform "lap-dances" with strangers ? That would really bother me.
John Jamieson and Valpal1's comments
Combining your excellent posts...along w/some extra comments
Here's what I think the prosecution has proven "beyond a reasonable doubt":
1. What.. Homicide and kidnapping
2. Who - deceased victim Danielle Van Dam
3. When - Sometime between 2/1 and 2/17 (Exact date and time of death and date and time of dumping both unknown)
4. Where removed from her home-, and killed somewhere within the area between her home and body location on Dahesa Rd.
5. How - Exact cause of death unknown. More than likely suffocation, determined by elimination method Danielle van Dam is dead, her pajamas were removed and her nude body was illegally dumped off of Dehesa Road Person(s) who dumped her is also unknown, But a suspect was arrested and charged. Manner of death is also unknown, posion, drugs, stabbing, strangulation and bullet have been elminated. ME could not elimate suffocation. Young girls don't just die, she's seven, not seventy-seven. Accidental suffocation of seven year olds generally involve appliances like refridgerators or accidental asphyxation by caught clothing. Course, it's highly unusual for children to disrobe for hide-n-seek or for corpses to shed clothing that strangled them, so nudity in an accidental suffocation is a red flag to investigators and most manuals will tell you in such cases to look for pornoghaphy and autoerotic paraphanalia. Although that would also be highly unusual behavior in a seven year old as well.
There is ample proof that she had no organic desease or defect (natural causes). Claims that she could have died by her own acts of misadventure do not explain the location of the body. Claims that her nude body was placed there to cover up an accidental death that no one caused lack basic logic.
Either the minimal forensic evidence in DW's home and RV was left there through prior casual contact (cookie sale) and transference or it didn't. But it most certainly did not get there by Danielle wandering over and accidently suffocating in the nude while no one was around
6. Why - Criminal intent or to prevent discovery of other crime (felony murder).
7. Defendant --David Westerfield, neighbor of Danielle.
8. Known previous contact--Danielle van Dam was once in David Westerfield's home to sell him girl scout cookies. Brenda and DW had spoken in a bar and grill called "Dads" on 2 separate occasions.. Stipulated by both sides.
9.Known evidence --Danielle's dog hair, her hair and blood found in motorhome. Blood from both Danielle and David Westerfield on DW's jacket. DW had scratches on his arm and possibly legs. Fibers with common source.. found on or near Danielle's body and David Westerfields home. Child pornography, both legal and illegal found in DW's home office. Danielle was found nude, with her necklace on. Various fibers, hairs vegetative growth located on and around her body.
If I remember correctly when I posted the info of the cell phone #, you were one of the first people to respond.
I did not acknowledge any posts to me at that time because I did not want to be seen as biased. I have tried to only post when I have seen the testimony someone is questioning and I could help. I cannot remember posting an opinionated idea, until today.
My posts speak for themselves and so do your's. I told you last night in response to your mail, I don't want to be involved. I will however, be involved when I see you point fingers and make insinuations that are not there.
I may not be a debater, but I am a fighter.
He stated that Denise told him she did not recall DVD coming down at all that night after Dad's.
Paid defense attorneys are no better, unfortuneately. They have to worry about being "too agressive" in defending their clients, or the judge will just start screwing all of their clients, and their careers will be ruined.
California Real Estate, July 2002 = NASDAQ, January 2000.Source Freeper Mr.Jeeves commenting on FR thread "Gold gain points to market meltdown". reply 87It's going to come to a bad end - not a collapse, but a gradual grind down as qualified buyers begin to disappear and two income families try to handle those $5000/month mortgage payments on one income. Marin County has been just like Orange County, with a double digit rise in prices just this year, but just in the last month the starter home market here ($500-$700K...and I'm not kidding) has started to fray around the edges - more supply, less demand. As for the $1M and up homes, they have already come down 20% or more from their peak.
It won't be long now.
I agree with this part of your post.
Ok you lost me... where did I point a finger? If youwere the original poster of the phone cell warrant, my apologies because I DID forget who it was.
I thought I heard the question about that morning, but it would have been that afternoon when he returned to the neighborhood, briefly. This is the testimony that she may have told them about the "neighbor at the corner" while not saying his name. The transcripts should clear it up.
This got erased from my first reply or something... I also remember being the first one to say "GREAT FIND" or something like that. I hope we can work this out cuz I'm not sure what to make 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.