No Decision From Westerfield Jury: Deliberations Continue Tuesday, August 13, 2002

I'll put a nickel on next Monday, August 19th - 3pm Pacific time.

That is information I wish Feldman had looked up and brought out. If I could find it, surely someone with a research and investigation team could.

Thanks for the ping to your #23 ----I see the closing arguments didn't change a few folks opinions--or it at least didn't pull all the pieces together for them.

If the jury actually did assume innocent until proven guilty, and if they conclude that feldman didn't present enough info to create doubt..and they decide DW's guilty, will you think they came to the right conclusion? Or will you believe that they messed up?

Will try to catch up throughout the next couple of days. Gots lotsa stuff to do...

That's a great article.

I would never have guessed a year, but I know even my untrained little black spaniel mix can follow a day-old rabbit trial.

It's remarkable how much misinformation gets into the everyday media.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/703322/posts?q=1&&page=51

""My role was to examine the items for the presence of blood," Soriano told Deputy District Attorney George Clarke. "I noted stains on the jacket."

Three stains tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, the criminalist testified. They were on the front right middle, the front right shoulder and the neck portion of the jacket, he said. "

You can go to his testimony/transcripts to confirm..The victim's blood and the defendant's blood was found on the jacket.

I take it you were impressed with Dusek's closing?

Hmmm. It's interesting that now that affidavits are being unsealed, we're finding out that LE lied their butts off to create a case out of whole cloth. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

If you get a chance do read the information in post #45 and go to the link too.

It's on the UT site, you know where.

Can either of you direct me to the article or comments made about the dogs not detecting a scent where the body was actually located? Do you remember what that was about?

Remember, nearly every member of that jury has small children.

That struck me also. I don't think that's going to be helpful to DW. A few single or divorced males around his age wouldn't have been unreasonable, but the prosecution seemed able to prevent that from happening -- along with a lot of other things.

There was approximately 1 3/16" on the right shoulder of the jacket that was Danielle's.

The criminalist did not take pictures of the stain prior to cutting out and testing it.

There is no way for the criminialists to determine how long that may have been there.

The MH floor had 19 stains...1 tested as positive for blood....it was approximately 1/4"...no picture was taken prior to testing and cutting out.

The dogs did not hit on the MH and there is no way for them to determine how long it was there....MH had been in neighborhood since 11/00...unlocked.

If it's not in sworn testimony, I'd be inclined to disregard such an article. The press has put out an enormous amount of false information, some of it fed to them by the police, some of it because of their inability to do their jobs properly. I think I would trust the forensic experts quoted in the article I posted over something from the media, the SD LE, or some goof who wants his 15 minutes of fame.

Was unable to watch dusek's entire closing, was out of town for feldman's, and missed dusek's latter 1/2. Will read though transcripts over the next few days. Got lots to read...

I've posted info about dogs and the types of trained dogs available a while back...so I already have an idea about what dogs can and can't do.

". It's interesting that now that affidavits are being unsealed, we're finding out that LE lied their butts off to create a case out of whole cloth. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. --jaded"

Would you save me the search and point me to the article or documents that confirm your allegation?

I agree. Someone mentioned it last week..so I wanted to read where or what the source was, and what dogs were used etc., before giving it any credibility.

Update on the informal verdict pool:

Very nicely done!

Now, while we're waiting, I think we should get into quibbling about the rules of this little contest.

For example, what exactly is meant by the jury "coming in"? How is that time determined?

Also, what exactly does the winner win? (My suggestion here would be that the winner gets to send a $100 contribution to Free Republic.)

I'm *sure* there's more we can come up to quibble over.

Geez, Kim, ever thought of reading the thread? It's one of the lead articles on the thread.

My take on this is that Danielle was in the motorhome up to a year prior to her abduction, leaving behind a few hairs and one blood spot. Blood spots cannot be dated, but now we know those dogs would have found her scent in there had she been in the motorhome that weekend. It should have been quite strong. Vacuuming would not have removed the scent--the article clearly states that the dogs still found scent even after objects had been moved. Nope, she was not in there that weekend, period.

Here's another variable-can whatever object(I want to say it was a T-shirt)that the dog handlers used to key the dogs be tied to Danielle VanDam and ONLY Danielle VanDam? What I'm thinking is that the two VanDam boys could also have been in that motor home at some point. If whatever scent marker used was contaminated by other members of the VanDam family,and if it's true that residual scent can last up to a year,then the City of San Diego might just have spent an unholy amount of money to be able to say that,"We're pretty sure that someone from the VanDam household has been in the motorhome within the past year."

The only prize is braggin' rights. I would say "verdict is in" when the judge is notified that they've reached a verdict, not when they actually file into the courtroom. And some of us have very vague timeframes anyway--I said "Wednesday" for instance, no time at all. Anyone who is that close gets the "I told you so" rights, and deserves them. Maybe we should only let people who have it pegged more closely get to use the "neener neener neeners"? It's all for fun. If anyone wants to send a contribution to Free Republic, they are quite welcome, whether they win or not.

Since I just got back online and since I just finished reading freepmails and am looking through past pings, NO, I haven't had time to read the current thread, but thank you for your eloquent way of directing me to the "source". Sheesh.

If my prize is giving $100 to FR, I want out.

Search warrant affidavits released today describe David Westerfield admitting to police that he dropped off bedding and other items at a Poway dry cleaners two days after Danielle van Dam disappeared.

The warrants and affidavits had been sealed since shortly after the 7-year-old's mother discovered her missing from her bed the morning of Feb. 2. Last week, the 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the documents unsealed.

In one affidavit, San Diego police Detective Terry Torgersen said Westerfield told detectives he submitted items for cleaning at Twin Peaks Cleaners the morning of Feb. 4.

Remaining question:

Why did Detective Torgersen testify he spent days searching for the possible dry cleaners when he had been told by DW already?

Seems the sininster dry cleaning trip had been disclosed to LEO by DW, not kept secret.

No Decision From Westerfield Jury

Jury Could Take At Least A Week, Experts Say