Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 08/12/2002 10:16:25 PM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,101-1,104 next last
To: FresnoDA
Thank you for your continued pings while I was gone...
81 posted on 08/13/2002 8:02:18 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Krodg
Not to worry, ain't gonna happen. If someone wants to, fine. It's not a prize. The prize is bragging rights only. (Or, if someone wants to work it that way, another pool can always be started.)
82 posted on 08/13/2002 8:04:27 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
FReepmail
83 posted on 08/13/2002 8:08:22 AM PDT by Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
I will personally mail a jar of spicy brown German mustard to the winner!
84 posted on 08/13/2002 8:10:43 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow
Oh, YUM! But careful, there could be more than one winner, as I'm allowing more than one person per time slot. Most only have two though.

I'm surprised that so many have weighed in, personally. I expected maybe ten or so, tops.

85 posted on 08/13/2002 8:13:49 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Thnx Rheo,

Since I don't have a quote from Torgersen's transcripts...I don't understand either. I thought it was always known that DW admitted to going to that particular dry cleaner

Was he checking to see if dw had visited other dry cleaners as well? Did Torgersen actually deny DW's admission?

I can't stay this morning...will catch up when I can..
86 posted on 08/13/2002 8:14:48 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

Comment #87 Removed by Moderator

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~; All
Detective Torgersen:

A: I WAS ASKED TO TRY TO LOCATE ITEMS FROM A DRYCLEANING RECEIPT TAKEN OUT OF A VEHICLE. AND SO I WENT UP THERE TRYING TO LOCATE THE DRYCLEANER'S.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHICH DRYCLEANER'S TO GO TO?

A: NO, I DID NOT AT FIRST.

Q: YOU HAD A RECEIPT FROM A DRYCLEANER'S?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I WENT TO THE AREA WHERE THE SABRE SPRINGS RESIDENCE WAS AND STARTED FANNING OUT THERE, GOING TO THE CLOSEST DRYCLEANER'S THAT I THOUGHT THE PERSON WOULD USE.

snip

A: ON TUESDAY I WENT TO FOUR DIFFERENT DRYCLEANER'S IN THE POWAY AREA CLOSEST TO THAT RESIDENCE.

Q: TUESDAY WOULD BE FEBRUARY 5TH.

A: FEBRUARY 5TH, YES.

Q: EVENTUALLY DID YOU FIND THE APPROPRIATE DRYCLEANER'S?

A: YES, I DID. ON FEBRUARY 6TH.

snip

A: THE CLERK TOLD ME THAT SHE KNEW MR. WESTERFIELD AND THAT SHE DID TAKE SOME ITEMS IN ON THE MORNING OF MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4TH.

Q: DID THEY SHOW YOU ANY OF THOSE ITEMS?

A: YES, THEY DID.

88 posted on 08/13/2002 8:23:58 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
Can someone fill me in on the blood-stained jacket? Is is really the victims's blood? Was that allegation really substantiated, and how did the defense address the issue?

There's been a lot of debate and speculation about the jacket. I don't know all the details, but in general, I think:

- The stains were identified as being DNA that is consistent with the DNA that was taken from panties that were found in Danielle's bedroom.

- The DNA is (probably) also consistent with the DNA of Brenda and the boys.

- They appeared to be blood, but could have been something else. Drool, whatever.

- The jacket was supposedly "normally kept" in the motor home. Its precise location during the week(s) prior to being taken to the dry cleaners has never been specified.

- There are questions involving dry-cleaning receipts that show two jackets being brought in on two different dates. The one that was brought in on the receipt dated 1/26 was identified by the clerks as simply a "jacket". The one that was brought in on the receipt dated 2/4 was identified as a "sport jacket". The actual jacket in question is something like a windbreaker.

- The computer that generated the receipts was possibly / probably experiencing problems on 2/4. Times and sequence numbers were apparently among the fields that were affected. Were dates affected also? This is all very muddy. It could be helpful to either side, depending on how it is interpreted by the jury.

- The San Diego Police mis-handled the testing in a way that effectively prevented the defense from doing their own testing. They failed to take proper 35mm photographs of the stains before cutting them out, and then they did proceed to cut them out.

- The testing that was done was not the best, full-blown DNA testing that could -- and should -- have been done.

- There are questions regarding the chain of custody on the jacket. Speculation that the stains could have planted after the SDPD had already decided that DW was their man. This may seem far-fetched at first, but the SDPD has done such things in the past.

- The clerks did not note nor did they recall seeing any blood on the jacket at the time they took it in.

The list goes on. There are many people who think that how the jury interprets these stains versus the bug evidence will be critical to the outcome. I am not among those. I think the two approximately offset each other, so I go on to the other questions.

(Anyone: please feel free to correct me on any of this.)

89 posted on 08/13/2002 8:26:34 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
9 Q. BEFORE GOING THERE YOU HAD INFORMATION THAT DAVID WESTERFIELD HAD TOLD THE POLICE THAT HE WENT TO THE DRY CLEANERS?

12 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR SPECULATION, HEARSAY. 13 THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

90 posted on 08/13/2002 8:28:33 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
BY MR. BOYCE:

Q. YOU WERE PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION BEFORE GOING TO THE DRY CLEANERS, CORRECT?

A. YES.

Q. AND YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH THIS INFORMATION BEFORE GOING TO THE DRY CLEANERS ON FEBRUARY 6TH?

A. I WAS PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION THAT TWIN PEAKS CLEANERS COULD POSSIBLY BE THE ORIGIN OF THAT RECEIPT.

91 posted on 08/13/2002 8:31:13 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Brown mustard, grilled Bratwurst, a little Kraut...mmmmmmmmmmm! Just make sure you sleep near an open window...LOL

I'm not surprised at the number of "dibs" in the pool. THis is a very popular, highly displayed case. Despite all the media involvement, I truly hope justice is served one way or the other.
92 posted on 08/13/2002 8:32:07 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Diamond
... and how did the defense address the issue?

Feldman stayed well away from it. Other than calling into question the dates on the cleaning receipts, there was nothing he could directly do with it, so he didn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. His response to it was with the bug evidence. (My opinion, anyway.)

93 posted on 08/13/2002 8:32:33 AM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
I do not understand the objection -- speculation, hearsay?
94 posted on 08/13/2002 8:32:49 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
WOuldn't the receipt have the dry cleaner's address on it?
95 posted on 08/13/2002 8:34:01 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Q. AND IN RESPONSE TO SHOWING HER THE RECEIPT, MS. MILLS BROUGHT SOME DRY CLEANING OUT TO YOU; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. YES, EVENTUALLY.

Q. AND THE DRY CLEANING SHE BROUGHT OUT TO YOU IN RESPONSE TO SHOWING HER THE RECEIPT WAS A BLACK T-SHIRT, A BLACK PAIR OF PANTS AND A BLACK SWEATER STILL IN THE GARMENT BAG; IS THAT CORRECT?

A. THAT IS CORRECT.

Q. THAT'S THE DRY CLEANING THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT MR. WESTERFIELD GAVE TO HER THAT MORNING?

A. YES.

BZZZZ....wrong answer Ms.Mills....DW gave you the jacket and comforters.

96 posted on 08/13/2002 8:34:21 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Ms. Mills statement was corrected by her on 2/8...she did clarify the items she took in as being the jacket and comforter.
97 posted on 08/13/2002 8:37:07 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Yeesh! This case has been FUBAR'd from the get-go! I'm occicially changing my verdict prediction from "not guilty" to "hung jury".

So, is Dusuck's great legal strategy to simply confuse the h3ll out of the jurors?
98 posted on 08/13/2002 8:37:08 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Mornin all:

National news talking about another missing girl: Jessica Cortez, 5 years old from LA. Last seen Sunday PM, Echo Park. The sketch of the poss. perp. being shown reminds me of the father of Jahi Turner.
99 posted on 08/13/2002 8:37:34 AM PDT by juzcuz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow
A: THIS LOOKS LIKE THE PHOTOCOPY THAT I HAD. I HAD A PHOTOCOPY OF THE DRYCLEANING RECEIPT, AND THIS LOOKS SIMILAR TO IT.

Q: THIS APPEARS TO BE THE ORIGINAL?

A: YES, I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DOES IT INDICATE THE NAME OF THE DRYCLEANER'S THAT IT CAME FROM?

A: NO, IT DOES NOT.

100 posted on 08/13/2002 8:39:26 AM PDT by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,101-1,104 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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