Prosecutor outlines new physical evidence in Westerfield trial
Patty
By Alex Roth
San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 4, 2002
Opening one of the most scrutinized trials in San Diego County
history, a prosecutor disclosed new physical evidence Tuesday that he
says links David Westerfield to the kidnap and murder of his
7-year-old neighbor.
Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told jurors in opening statements that Danielle
van Dam's hair was found in a lint ball in the trash in Westerfield's
garage. He also said fibers from her bedroom were "similar" to fibers
found in the back of Westerfield's motor home. The prosecutor didn't
specify the type of fibers.
Defense attorney Steven Feldman said the prosecution's evidence would
prove his client's innocence.
Dusek also said fibers were found on a towel inside the bag in which
authorities placed Danielle's nude body after she was found dead in a
rural area off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27. Some of those
fibers – again, it was unclear what kind – matched fibers
found in a laundry room in Westerfield's house, the prosecutor said.
None of these details had been previously disclosed to the public in
the death-penalty case. Much of the evidence has been evaluated in
closed pre-trial hearings.
At a preliminary hearing in March, testimony revealed that Danielle's
blood and fingerprints were found inside Westerfield's motor home,
which the 50-year-old design engineer kept parked several miles from
his house.
Authorities also have evidence suggesting Westerfield – who
lived two doors away from the girl in Sabre Springs – had a
habit of spying on the van Dam's back yard through his bathroom
window, Dusek told the jury.
Police found binoculars in his house and discovered that a bathroom
window screen had been forced out in a manner that gave Westerfield a
view of the van Dam's backyard, "out where the kids play," the
prosecutor said.
Providing jurors with an hour-plus-long overview of the evidence in
the case, Dusek also warned them that they will be asked to look at
graphic pornographic computer images found on computer disks in
Westerfield's house.
These images were "organized, systemized and labeled," Dusek said.
"Not only of naked young girls, many of them nude, standing in sexual
poses, obviously under 18. He had young girls actually involved in the
sex act...He had animations, drawings if you will, of little girls in
pigtails, dressed like little girls, getting attacked by males."
These photos and other evidence provide the explanation for "what he
did to Danielle van Dam and what he did with her," Dusek told the jury
of six men, six women and six alternate jurors.
The prosecutor also pointed out what he said were several
inconsistencies in the alibi that Westerfield provided for his
whereabouts on the first weekend in February, when Danielle vanished
from her bedroom in the middle of the night.
Feldman, Westerfield's lead defense attorney, said the evidence would
vindicate his client.
"The science is going to come to Mr. Westerfield's rescue," Feldman
said in his opening statement. "It was impossible – impossible
– for David Westerfield to have dumped Danielle van Dam in that
location."
Several friends of the van Dams showed up in court with pictures of
Danielle affixed to pins on their lapels. After the jury left the
courtroom, the judge warned them not to wear the pins in his courtroom
again because it might influence the jury.
"This jury will not be intimidated nor will anyone else," the judge
said.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against Westerfield.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Every9man
>Prosecutor outlines new physical evidence in Westerfield trial
>By Alex Roth
>San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
>June 4, 2002
>
>Opening one of the most scrutinized trials in San Diego County
>history, a prosecutor disclosed new physical evidence Tuesday that he
>says links David Westerfield to the kidnap and murder of his
>7-year-old neighbor.
>
>Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told jurors in opening statements that Danielle
>van Dam's hair was found in a lint ball in the trash in Westerfield's
>garage. He also said fibers from her bedroom were "similar" to fibers
>found in the back of Westerfield's motor home. The prosecutor didn't
>specify the type of fibers.
The only way they could know for sure that it's Danielle's hair is if it were
pulled out by the roots.
Otherwise DNA tests done on the dead hair would only be accepted as evidence
under certain conditions but if they did have the roots I think there's been
enough time for an accurate ( as accurate as DNA tests go) DNA analysis.
>
>Defense attorney Steven Feldman said the prosecution's evidence would
>prove his client's innocence.
>
>Dusek also said fibers were found on a towel inside the bag in which
>authorities placed Danielle's nude body after she was found dead in a
>rural area off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27. Some of those
>fibers – again, it was unclear what kind – matched fibers
>found in a laundry room in Westerfield's house, the prosecutor said.
They're saying that Westerfield left a towel from his home where he allegedly
stashed the body? doesnt that sound a little far fetched?
>None of these details had been previously disclosed to the public in
>the death-penalty case. Much of the evidence has been evaluated in
>closed pre-trial hearings.
>
>At a preliminary hearing in March, testimony revealed that Danielle's
>blood and fingerprints were found inside Westerfield's motor home,
>which the 50-year-old design engineer kept parked several miles from
>his house.
>
>Authorities also have evidence suggesting Westerfield – who
>lived two doors away from the girl in Sabre Springs – had a
>habit of spying on the van Dam's back yard through his bathroom
>window, Dusek told the jury.
>
>Police found binoculars in his house and discovered that a bathroom
>window screen had been forced out in a manner that gave Westerfield a
>view of the van Dam's backyard, "out where the kids play," the
>prosecutor said.
I wonder if his library included Peterson's A Guide to North American Birds:)
>Providing jurors with an hour-plus-long overview of the evidence in
>the case, Dusek also warned them that they will be asked to look at
>graphic pornographic computer images found on computer disks in
>Westerfield's house.
Oh Goody:{ I'll bet the court house will be packed that day, I wonder if the
audience will get to see them. Didn't someone who posts here say she was going
to the trial?
>These images were "organized, systemized and labeled," Dusek said.
>"Not only of naked young girls, many of them nude, standing in sexual
>poses, obviously under 18. He had young girls actually involved in the
>sex act...
I'm curious to know how they figured out that these girls were under 18 as
opposed to an 18 year old dressed up to look underage.
He had animations, drawings if you will, of little girls in
>pigtails, dressed like little girls, getting attacked by males."
>
>These photos and other evidence provide the explanation for "what he
>did to Danielle van Dam and what he did with her," Dusek told the jury
>of six men, six women and six alternate jurors.
>
>The prosecutor also pointed out what he said were several
>inconsistencies in the alibi that Westerfield provided for his
>whereabouts on the first weekend in February, when Danielle vanished
>from her bedroom in the middle of the night.
Anyone remember what this might be? Most of it went out of my head already.
Barbara
Patty
KIMBERLY EPLER
North County Times
June 5, 2002
SAN DIEGO ---- Opening statements in the trial of accused child
murderer David Westerfield are set to begin today, followed by witness
testimony which may include the father of slain 7-year-old Danielle
van Dam.
The trial comes just four months after the Sabre Springs second-grader
vanished overnight from her pink and purple bedroom.
Westerfield, 50, has pleaded innocent to charges he kidnapped and
killed Danielle, who lived two houses down from the self-employed
engineer. The twice-divorced father of two faces the possibility of
the death penalty if a jury of six men and six women convicts him of
the charges.
Westerfield's attorneys have insisted on their client's right to a
speedy trial.
On Monday, Judge William Mudd ruled the prosecution can show jurors
three pictures of Danielle ---- one taken the day before her
disappearance to show her recent haircut, another showing her with
longer locks, and a third of Danielle with her two brothers.
Prosecutor Jeff Dusek said the photographs are important because the
images show the necklace Danielle often wore and the length of her
hair compared to her brothers. He said authorities found samples of
Danielle's hair ---- the longest being eight inches long ---- in the
sink and on the floor of Westerfield's motor home.
"She had recently gotten a haircut, I believe four or five days before
she disappeared," Dusek said, adding her mother, Brenda van Dam,
estimated four inches were taken off Danielle's hair, shortening the
length to 8 inches.
He also said more samples of Danielle's hair were found in a lint trap
tossed in the garbage, but did not clarify whether it was retrieved
from the van Dam home or Westerfield's residence.
Defense attorney Steven Feldman objected to the photographs, saying
the prosecution was trying to "engender sympathy" from the jury. He
said the defense was willing to agree to Danielle's hair length.
Danielle's nude body, still wearing the necklace seen in her missing
posters, was found under a tree in a rural area east of El Cajon
nearly four weeks after she was reported missing in early February.
The first witnesses in the trial will focus on the recovery of her
body, attorneys said.
The trial is expected to last about three months.
Bart Bailey
>
> He also said more samples of Danielle's hair were found in a lint trap
> tossed in the garbage, but did not clarify whether it was retrieved
> from the van Dam home or Westerfield's residence.
This wouldn't be some of the "explosive evidence"
that they supposedly found while rooting around at the Miramar landfill,
would it?
What was their official reason to be there, wasn't it Jahi related?
--
Bart
ponyduck
>>From: eartha...@yahoo.com (Patty)
>
>>Prosecutor outlines new physical evidence in Westerfield trial
>>By Alex Roth
>>San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
>>June 4, 2002
(snipped here & there)
>>Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told jurors in opening statements that Danielle
>>van Dam's hair was found in a lint ball in the trash in Westerfield's
>>garage. He also said fibers from her bedroom were "similar" to fibers
>>found in the back of Westerfield's motor home. The prosecutor didn't
>>specify the type of fibers.
>
>The only way they could know for sure that it's Danielle's hair is if it were
>pulled out by the roots.
>
>Otherwise DNA tests done on the dead hair would only be accepted as evidence
>under certain conditions but if they did have the roots I think there's been
>enough time for an accurate ( as accurate as DNA tests go) DNA analysis.
Even if it is Danielle's hair, it doesn't prove much really. She had
been in his house earlier that week selling Girl Scout cookies. Her
hair could have been left in his house at that time, and then vacuumed
up or whatever, and ended up in a lint ball. The "similar" fiber
evidence is pretty weak too.
>>Dusek also said fibers were found on a towel inside the bag in which
>>authorities placed Danielle's nude body after she was found dead in a
>>rural area off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27. Some of those
>>fibers – again, it was unclear what kind – matched fibers
>>found in a laundry room in Westerfield's house, the prosecutor said.
>
>They're saying that Westerfield left a towel from his home where he allegedly
>stashed the body? doesnt that sound a little far fetched?
I had to think about this a little. The way it was worded in the
article was a little strange, so it made me think--maybe they mean the
authorities had a bag in which to place Danielle's body, and the towel
was already in the bag, placed there by authorities in order to
(pardon the grossness) soak up any leaking fluids or some such. The
fibers, which were originally on Danielle's body, got transferred to
the towel in the bag. Seems kind of strange that the authorities
would place a towel in a body bag, but maybe they have special,
pristine & sterile towels that are made specifically for that purpose.
>>These images were "organized, systemized and labeled," Dusek said.
>>"Not only of naked young girls, many of them nude, standing in sexual
>>poses, obviously under 18. He had young girls actually involved in the
>>sex act...
>
>I'm curious to know how they figured out that these girls were under 18 as
>opposed to an 18 year old dressed up to look underage.
I would think the prosecution would have to absolutely prove the girls
in the pictures were under 18 by some sort of firm documentation if
there's any question at all. But maybe by "obviously" he means these
are pictures of *really* young girls, like 5 or 6-year-olds.
>>The prosecutor also pointed out what he said were several
>>inconsistencies in the alibi that Westerfield provided for his
>>whereabouts on the first weekend in February, when Danielle vanished
>>from her bedroom in the middle of the night.
>
>Anyone remember what this might be? Most of it went out of my head already.
I'm the same as you, Barbara. Even at the time, I never really got it
straight in my head exactly what Westerfield's activities were that
weekend. Is there any evidence to show he could have been near the
body dump site that weekend?
--pony
Nicole Dahl
the hair in the house could be from the visit. I would assume since he took
stuff to the dry cleaners, the hair in the dryer lint could be from the
visit as well (did you hear anything about laundry?). I'm trying to find
this forum I was reading, a lady had taken photo's with her daughter in a
simular trailer... I just wonder if her fingerprints were the *only*
fingerprints. I can see them being horseplay as well... The pictures were
provocative tho.
I dunno, this and the Levy case are both have parallels (not in any
conspiracy ways), but here they *HAVE* the suspect, almost to the point I
feel it was rushed, and I'm doubtful. In Levy... They *DONT* have the
suspect that if they did I would feel a little closure. Does that make
sense? Then I wonder if I'm not prejudiced against the parents for not
looking in on the children when there were some serious red flags. And the
DOG!! The dog woke him up at 1amish.. A 60 lb. dog... which in past articles
(yet to play out), is convienently put into a sons bedroom with the door
shut. It just doesn't mesh yet. Too much weird shit.
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3cfda64f....@news.wf.net...
ponyduck
wrote:
>I'm with you too. They really have remarkably little evidence. Some yes, but
>the hair in the house could be from the visit. I would assume since he took
>stuff to the dry cleaners, the hair in the dryer lint could be from the
>visit as well (did you hear anything about laundry?). I'm trying to find
>this forum I was reading, a lady had taken photo's with her daughter in a
>simular trailer... I just wonder if her fingerprints were the *only*
>fingerprints. I can see them being horseplay as well... The pictures were
>provocative tho.
>I dunno, this and the Levy case are both have parallels (not in any
>conspiracy ways), but here they *HAVE* the suspect, almost to the point I
>feel it was rushed, and I'm doubtful. In Levy... They *DONT* have the
>suspect that if they did I would feel a little closure. Does that make
>sense? Then I wonder if I'm not prejudiced against the parents for not
>looking in on the children when there were some serious red flags. And the
>DOG!! The dog woke him up at 1amish.. A 60 lb. dog... which in past articles
>(yet to play out), is convienently put into a sons bedroom with the door
>shut. It just doesn't mesh yet. Too much weird shit.
To me, the only really damaging evidence the prosecution has is
Danielle's fingerprints & blood in the motorhome, and blood on
Westerfield's jacket, which if true, is pretty darn incriminating.
Everything else seems fairly tenuous, however.
The main thing that hangs me up re: Westerfield being guilty, is that
I cannot imagine how he got into that house & snatched Danielle
without being detected. I can't imagine the guy even *contemplating*
such an attempt, much less pulling it off.
--pony
Nicole Dahl
1. We have an unknown possibly immenent arrival of mother.
2. Father with light on in house, upstairs (could have been tv).
3. Family is known to own a dog.
4. Probable alarm system.
5. You have never entered the house before.
6. Get lucky and find an open door with no sounds.
7. Stairwell is in full view of all house.
8. Have to carry/drag young girl past neighbors house.
And all that's not taking into account, where he goes with body/child, how
he get's it/her there, AND having the balls to wait till morning... and COME
BACK! It defies logic, and I'm hoping the trial get's me off of this icky
fence I'm sitting on. I'm such a child/victim advocate.
So far for evidence there is trace in house (hair) which I doubt is
important when she (another weirder then shit moment) let her two kids run
wild in the strangers/aquaintences house while selling girl scout cookies.
And his trailer. Hopefully, they can come up with either (defence) the sons
fingerprints in trailer, or (prosecution) some evidence showing how he got
from point A to point B, since point B was parked elsewhere until that
morning. Either would get me off the fence.
I'm not focusing on the child porn, because as it's a misdemenor, I expect
it's prosecution against defence to prove the age of 18. If that's in fact
true, they are probably developed. If it is child porn tho - 1st I gotta
wonder at the charge (it was charged a misdemenor before body was found -
and they did have a choice of what to charge), and I may not need the
smoking gun trail.
<ponyduck> wrote in message news:3cfdc15e....@news.wf.net...
ponyduck
wrote:
>> pony wrote:
>> To me, the only really damaging evidence the prosecution has is
>> Danielle's fingerprints & blood in the motorhome, and blood on
>> Westerfield's jacket, which if true, is pretty darn incriminating.
>> Everything else seems fairly tenuous, however.
>>
>> The main thing that hangs me up re: Westerfield being guilty, is that
>> I cannot imagine how he got into that house & snatched Danielle
>> without being detected. I can't imagine the guy even *contemplating*
>> such an attempt, much less pulling it off.
>>
>> --pony
>I know it.
The only way I can conceive of Westerfield going into the VanDam's
house to snatch Danielle, is if he left the club (forgot the name of
it) relatively early, and saw when he left that Mrs. VanDam & her
friends were well into partying, with no indication of leaving any
time soon. He gets home, and happens to see Mr. VanDam leaving the
house & jumping in his car to run a quick errand (and I swear I
remember reading something at one point about Mr. VanDam leaving the
house for a few minutes to run to the store or something. Or am I
making that up? Anyone else remember?) Anyway, Westerfield realizes
that at least for a few minutes, the coast is basically clear--Mom at
the club, Dad gone for whatever. So he takes this opportunity to
sneak in the house & take Danielle.
It's still a stretch, what with the brothers in the house, and the
neighbors and all--but still, it's the only way I can even envision
Westerfield getting up the nerve to even try such a thing.
As far as the fingerprints in the motorhome--is the defense allowed to
send in their own experts to try to find other fingerprints? What I'm
getting at is, what if there are fingerprints of several of the
neighborhood kids in the motorhome? Like Westerfield was maybe in the
habit of allowing the kids in it whenever he had it parked at his
house. Does LE have to provide the defense attorneys with
*everything* they find--or can they be selective about it?
I'm with you sitting on that fence.
--pony
Patty
> Authorities also have evidence suggesting Westerfield, who
> lived two doors away from the girl in Sabre Springs, had a
> habit of spying on the van Dam's back yard through his bathroom
> window, Dusek told the jury.
>
> Police found binoculars in his house and discovered that a bathroom
> window screen had been forced out in a manner that gave Westerfield a
> view of the van Dam's backyard, "out where the kids play," the
> prosecutor said.
>
That seems like a stretch. Were the binoculars in the bathroom
itself? Maybe he did it that Saturday morning.
Patty
Patty
> On Monday, Judge William Mudd ruled the prosecution can show jurors
> three pictures of Danielle ---- one taken the day before her
> disappearance to show her recent haircut, another showing her with
> longer locks, and a third of Danielle with her two brothers.
>
> Prosecutor Jeff Dusek said the photographs are important because the
> images show the necklace Danielle often wore and the length of her
> hair compared to her brothers. He said authorities found samples of
> Danielle's hair ---- the longest being eight inches long ---- in the
> sink and on the floor of Westerfield's motor home.
>
> "She had recently gotten a haircut, I believe four or five days before
> she disappeared," Dusek said, adding her mother, Brenda van Dam,
> estimated four inches were taken off Danielle's hair, shortening the
> length to 8 inches.
>
> He also said more samples of Danielle's hair were found in a lint trap
> tossed in the garbage, but did not clarify whether it was retrieved
> from the van Dam home or Westerfield's residence.
>
When was Danielle over Westerfield's house selling girl scout cookies?
Wasn't it four or five days earlier? So had she had her hair cut
already when she was in the home with her mother & brother? I'm sure
she must have had it cut afterwards is what they are saying. And why
did he throw the lint trap in his own garbage, seems like he would
have gotten rid of that elsewhere.
Patty
Patty
Excerpt from North County Times:
The prosecutor also hinted that Westerfield may have been watching
Danielle through his bathroom window. The screen and frame had been
pushed out to enable a person to see into the van Dams' back yard,
Dusek said.
He said police found several pairs of binoculars during a search of
Westerfield's home and a magazine advertisement showing a canopy bed
with a mosquito netting that closely matches Danielle's room.
==========
I hope the advertisement had been torn out and wasn't just in a
magazine. He couldn't have spied on her bedroom from his bathroom; if
he knew about her bedding, I'm wondering if he had talked to her alone
before. And the binoculars don't seem peculiar unless they were in
the bathroom. Lots of people have more than one pair of binoculars.
Patty
Every9man
>On 05 Jun 2002 04:33:07 GMT, ever...@aol.com (Every9man) wrote:
>
>>>From: eartha...@yahoo.com (Patty)
>>
>>>Prosecutor outlines new physical evidence in Westerfield trial
>>>By Alex Roth
>>>San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
>>>June 4, 2002
>(snipped here & there)
>
>>>Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told jurors in opening statements that Danielle
>>>van Dam's hair was found in a lint ball in the trash in Westerfield's
>>>garage. He also said fibers from her bedroom were "similar" to fibers
>>>found in the back of Westerfield's motor home. The prosecutor didn't
>>>specify the type of fibers.
>>
>>The only way they could know for sure that it's Danielle's hair is if it
>were
>>pulled out by the roots.
>>
>>Otherwise DNA tests done on the dead hair would only be accepted as evidence
>>under certain conditions but if they did have the roots I think there's
>been
>>enough time for an accurate ( as accurate as DNA tests go) DNA analysis.
>
>
>Even if it is Danielle's hair, it doesn't prove much really. She had
>been in his house earlier that week selling Girl Scout cookies. Her
>hair could have been left in his house at that time, and then vacuumed
>up or whatever, and ended up in a lint ball. The "similar" fiber
>evidence is pretty weak too.
the lint ball was in the dryer I think, but you're right, it could have gotten
on anything he washed and would up in the lint filter.
>>>Dusek also said fibers were found on a towel inside the bag in which
>>>authorities placed Danielle's nude body after she was found dead in a
>>>rural area off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27. Some of those
>>>fibers – again, it was unclear what kind – matched fibers
>>>found in a laundry room in Westerfield's house, the prosecutor said.
>>
>>They're saying that Westerfield left a towel from his home where he allegedly
>>stashed the body? doesnt that sound a little far fetched?
>
>I had to think about this a little. The way it was worded in the
>article was a little strange, so it made me think--maybe they mean the
>authorities had a bag in which to place Danielle's body, and the towel
>was already in the bag, placed there by authorities in order to
>(pardon the grossness) soak up any leaking fluids or some such. The
>fibers, which were originally on Danielle's body, got transferred to
>the towel in the bag. Seems kind of strange that the authorities
>would place a towel in a body bag, but maybe they have special,
>pristine & sterile towels that are made specifically for that purpose.
Hopefully someone who is following the trial will report back what the heck
they talking about with this one. Lord knows some people may already know. I
came in very late on the VanDam discussion and could have missed all kinds of
things.
>
>
>>>These images were "organized, systemized and labeled," Dusek said.
>>>"Not only of naked young girls, many of them nude, standing in sexual
>>>poses, obviously under 18. He had young girls actually involved in the
>>>sex act...
>>
>>I'm curious to know how they figured out that these girls were under 18
>as
>>opposed to an 18 year old dressed up to look underage.
>
>I would think the prosecution would have to absolutely prove the girls
>in the pictures were under 18 by some sort of firm documentation if
>there's any question at all. But maybe by "obviously" he means these
>are pictures of *really* young girls, like 5 or 6-year-olds.
I dont think so, he'd have to prove it if he wanted to prosecute him for
possession of child porn but he's only using it to illustrate his theory of
motive so I doubt the same restrictions apply.
And sure, if they're 5 or 6 and arent one of the little people.
>
>>>The prosecutor also pointed out what he said were several
>>>inconsistencies in the alibi that Westerfield provided for his
>>>whereabouts on the first weekend in February, when Danielle vanished
>>>from her bedroom in the middle of the night.
>>
>>Anyone remember what this might be? Most of it went out of my head already.
>
>
>I'm the same as you, Barbara. Even at the time, I never really got it
>straight in my head exactly what Westerfield's activities were that
>weekend. Is there any evidence to show he could have been near the
>body dump site that weekend?
>
>--pony
I'm sure it'll all get cleared up during the trial.
Or not:)
Barbara
>
>
>
>
>
John Hawkes
"Nicole Dahl" <nikk...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:ufrjunj...@corp.supernews.com...
> I know it.
> 1. We have an unknown possibly immenent arrival of mother.
> 2. Father with light on in house, upstairs (could have been tv).
> 3. Family is known to own a dog.
> 4. Probable alarm system.
> 5. You have never entered the house before.
> 6. Get lucky and find an open door with no sounds.
> 7. Stairwell is in full view of all house.
> 8. Have to carry/drag young girl past neighbors house.
Well, sure, a potentially risky series of events. But *SOMEONE* did
this crime, and likely did it this way. Are you suggesting than
Danielle walked downstairs and outside, and then was snatched by a
stranger?
Your "this is so improbable" list seems to me to be a lot like the O.J.
defenders who said, "But why didn't a neighbor overhear the killings?
O.J. couldn't have done this because someone would have heard." (First
of all, at least one neighbor did hear something.) Those killings *did*
occur. The tree did fall in the forest, whether or not someone was
there to hear it. Assuming that Danielle was snatched from her bedroom,
then *SOMEONE* entered the house, walked up the stairs, grabbed her, and
walked downstairs and outside with her.
--
John
Bart Bailey
> "Nicole Dahl" <nikk...@gci.net> wrote in message
> news:ufrjunj...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I know it.
> > 1. We have an unknown possibly immenent arrival of mother.
> > 2. Father with light on in house, upstairs (could have been tv).
> > 3. Family is known to own a dog.
> > 4. Probable alarm system.
> > 5. You have never entered the house before.
> > 6. Get lucky and find an open door with no sounds.
> > 7. Stairwell is in full view of all house.
> > 8. Have to carry/drag young girl past neighbors house.
>
> Well, sure, a potentially risky series of events. But *SOMEONE* did
> this crime, and likely did it this way. Are you suggesting than
> Danielle walked downstairs and outside, and then was snatched by a
> stranger?
I suggested something similar to that awhile back:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B121001
>
>
> Your "this is so improbable" list seems to me to be a lot like the O.J.
> defenders who said, "But why didn't a neighbor overhear the killings?
> O.J. couldn't have done this because someone would have heard." (First
> of all, at least one neighbor did hear something.) Those killings *did*
> occur. The tree did fall in the forest, whether or not someone was
> there to hear it. Assuming that Danielle was snatched from her bedroom,
> then *SOMEONE* entered the house, walked up the stairs, grabbed her, and
> walked downstairs and outside with her.
What if you don't make such assumptions,
and open up to the possibility (and even likelihood),
that some other more credible scenario occurred?
>
> --
> John
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
>
>
> I'm sure it'll all get cleared up during the trial.
> Or not:)
>
> Barbara
Like in OJ,
where the only fact that got cleared up was;
If you soak a pair of leather gloves in human blood,
then store them in an evidence locker until they dry and shrink,
they won't still fit their original owner.
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
>
>
> And the binoculars don't seem peculiar unless they were in
> the bathroom. Lots of people have more than one pair of binoculars.
>
> Patty
Maybe he was "spying" on the neighbor who was "spying" on him.
The Sheriff dispatcher, that testified during the prelims. (don't recall
name)
I just wish the media and spectators would use a park and ride,
then trolley to the courthouse.
lower B'way is mucho fucked up these days.
--
Bart
Nicole Dahl
debacle is not a good fit. We had a man with a history of domestic assult.
Westerfield has no history, and the prosecution has only charged him with a
misdemenor as opposed to a felony child pornography count. Someone posted
the California legal code in here when it first came out - they did have a
choice, also, they charged as a misdemenor *before* the body was found.
Yes, someone did something atrocious, *but* there *is* some wiggle room, as
well as some weird shit going on. I'm not biased either way, which is my
problem -- As soon as we see some evidence that is firm, and with the input
of the defence (like my wondering if there were any other childrens
fingerprints in the trailer - if not, I'd be inclined to hop down on the
prosecution side of things). It's not like there is this contingent who want
Westerfield to get away with murder because we think the parents should
suffer for their lifestyle -- It's that so far, it's just not a tight case.
"Bart Bailey" <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:3CFE5AB4...@amsat.org...
> John Hawkes wrote:
<snipped to respond>
Nicole Dahl
Another thing I wonder is... I think it's pretty locked down that he was
trying to get *in with* (until actual evidence, I wont post swinging) the
Van Dams. In my fence sitters position - doesn't it seem more likely he was
after the adult versions?? BVD? I dunno, with the media coverage, it seems
like the lifestyle rumors were commonly known in the neighborhood. If a man
was intrigued with the lifestyle and heard the rumors, I can see him using
binoculars to "check out the action." I agree it's a stretch - :) I have
binoculars in my living room... I guess someone could make a case I was
peeping on the neighbors bedroom window facing the street?? God help me if
they were to be involved in a crime.
Two questions:
1. Is there a bird feeder in his backyard? (any news descriptions?)
2. How many kids live on his block? Young females? (again, any news
articles?)
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.02060...@posting.google.com...
vond...@hotmail.com
ponyduck wrote:
> On 05 Jun 2002 04:33:07 GMT, ever...@aol.com (Every9man) wrote:
>
> >>From: eartha...@yahoo.com (Patty)
> >
> >>Prosecutor outlines new physical evidence in Westerfield trial
> >>By Alex Roth
> >>San Diego UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
> >>June 4, 2002
> (snipped here & there)
>
> >>Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told jurors in opening statements that Danielle
> >>van Dam's hair was found in a lint ball in the trash in Westerfield's
> >>garage. He also said fibers from her bedroom were "similar" to fibers
> >>found in the back of Westerfield's motor home. The prosecutor didn't
> >>specify the type of fibers.
> >
> >The only way they could know for sure that it's Danielle's hair is if it were
> >pulled out by the roots.
> >
> >Otherwise DNA tests done on the dead hair would only be accepted as evidence
> >under certain conditions but if they did have the roots I think there's been
> >enough time for an accurate ( as accurate as DNA tests go) DNA analysis.
>
> Even if it is Danielle's hair, it doesn't prove much really. She had
> been in his house earlier that week selling Girl Scout cookies.
Even if she was in his house, that doesn't mean she was rolling around on the
floor like a Irish Setter with a flea in its ear. And that still wouldn't explain
why her hair would show up in a lint trap in the *dryer*--unless her hair was on
bedding that was recently laundered. If people shed hair (complete with roots) so
freely, then who else's hair was found in the house besides Danielle's? Or was
she the *only* person besides Westerfield in his home?
> Her hair could have been left in his house at that time, and then vacuumed
> up or whatever, and ended up in a lint ball. The "similar" fiber
> evidence is pretty weak too.
>
> >>Dusek also said fibers were found on a towel inside the bag in which
> >>authorities placed Danielle's nude body after she was found dead in a
> >>rural area off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon on Feb. 27. Some of those
> >>fibers – again, it was unclear what kind – matched fibers
> >>found in a laundry room in Westerfield's house, the prosecutor said.
> >
> >They're saying that Westerfield left a towel from his home where he allegedly
> >stashed the body? doesnt that sound a little far fetched?
>
> I had to think about this a little. The way it was worded in the
> article was a little strange, so it made me think--maybe they mean the
> authorities had a bag in which to place Danielle's body, and the towel
> was already in the bag, placed there by authorities in order to
> (pardon the grossness) soak up any leaking fluids or some such. The
> fibers, which were originally on Danielle's body, got transferred to
> the towel in the bag. Seems kind of strange that the authorities
> would place a towel in a body bag, but maybe they have special,
> pristine & sterile towels that are made specifically for that purpose.
My reading of the story is that fibers from a towel found at the dump site match
fibers found in Westerfield's home and/or RV. Which is pretty damning. Maybe he
brought it with him, or maybe he used it to wipe off his hands, or maybe he didn't
realize the towel was on/under her body when he bundled her up for disposal.
Remember, the Hillside Strangler case was won on fiber evidence.
Vonda
Patty
Excerpt from UPI article:
His most concerted efforts, however, were aimed at Damon and Brenda
van Dam.
In occasionally animated fashion, Feldman accused the Van Dams of
being concerned with getting their story straight about the events of
that night as they waited for police to respond to the call they
placed to 911 after they discovered that Danielle was missing.
He alleged that the couple decided not to tell police that they
had been drinking and smoking marijuana the night before, and that
they had also had Brenda's drinking buddies in the house until after 3
a.m.
While they were at Dad's Restaurant on Friday night, Brenda van
Dam and her two friends had danced and played pool with a number of
male patrons, including Westerfield, who left the bar before the
women.
"The women were dancing with each other and with other men in a
manner designed to entice other men to come to the Van Dam residence
that evening," Feldman stated.
The events of the night, which spilled into the early hours of
Saturday, were apparently not something the Van Dams felt police
should know, Feldman said, and was withheld by the couple during the
initial investigation.
Police, the lawyer said, would not have even known about the
extra people in the house had they noted spoken to Barbara Easton, one
of Brenda's friends who had accompanied her to Dad's the night before.
"Barbara apparently hadn't sobered up enough to withhold the
information about her relationship with the Van Dams," Feldman said.
"She told the truth. She said, 'This is what happened that night. We
were smoking dope. We were in bed together. We were hugging and
kissing. This is what happened in the bar.'"
After the opening statements, the volunteer searchers testified
about finding the decomposing body of Danielle.
"The body was laying down on her back with her head facing
right," milkman Karsten Heinburger testified, "A portion (of the body)
was missing; I thought the body was burned because I didn't know what
a decomposing body looked like."
Heinburger said he recognized the shimmering of her earring in
the hot sun.
Another volunteer, Chris Morgan, said he recognized that the body
was that of Danielle.
"The teeth structure looked a lot like the gap in the photos of
her," he said.
(Reported by Hil Anderson in Los Angeles)
tiny dancer
"John Hawkes" <jrha...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k3rL8.117090$cQ3.3607@sccrnsc01...
And it doesn't seem that hard at all to me. We have another case on here
where a gunman entered the house and snatched a 14 year old, how about Polly
Klass? The dog was locked away behind a closed door of a bedroom. They had
all been drinking and smoking a bit of pot, probably slept pretty heavily.
It was a Friday night, after a long workweek my hubby sleeps like a log on
Friday night. And she was a small child, not like lugging a grown person
around. Haven't we all carried our kids up to bed while they were asleep.
It's not like one gets a hernia from carrying a sleeping kid around.
td
>
>
Patty
In his opening statement in Superior Court, Deputy Dist. Atty. Jeff
Dusek said that Danielle's blood and hair were found inside
Westerfield's recreational vehicle, along with carpet fibers from the
Van Dam home. Some of the hair still had roots, suggesting a struggle,
Dusek said.
But defense attorney Steven Feldman said there is no evidence that
Westerfield was inside the Van Dam home, which is two doors from his
own house in the upscale community of Sabre Springs. He suggested that
the blood, hair and fibers may have been left behind when Danielle and
her mother, Brenda van Dam, came to Westerfield's home selling Girl
Scout cookies in the days before Danielle disappeared Feb. 2.
ponyduck
>ponyduck wrote:
>> Even if it is Danielle's hair, it doesn't prove much really. She had
>> been in his house earlier that week selling Girl Scout cookies.
>
>Even if she was in his house, that doesn't mean she was rolling around on the
>floor like a Irish Setter with a flea in its ear. And that still wouldn't explain
>why her hair would show up in a lint trap in the *dryer*--unless her hair was on
>bedding that was recently laundered. If people shed hair (complete with roots) so
>freely, then who else's hair was found in the house besides Danielle's? Or was
>she the *only* person besides Westerfield in his home?
From various news articles, I got the impression that Danielle & her
brother were playing around in Westerfield's house the day of the Girl
Scout cookie sale. Mom went with Westerfield to look at his remodeled
kitchen--who knows how active & playful the kids were in the other
rooms. As far as these particular hairs having roots--didn't one of
the articles say the hair found in the lint was determined to have
come from a *child* of Mrs. Van Dam? This implies they did
mitochondrial DNA testing on the hair (as opposed to nuclear DNA
testing). They can only do mitochondrial testing on a hair with no
follicle present, and it is not as exclusive as nuclear DNA testing
(which requires a follicle). So it sounds as if the hair found in the
lint was one which had probably fallen naturally out of Danielle's
head, as opposed to being pulled out. (Now the hairs they found in
the motorhome--they say these had roots, and could be indicative of a
struggle.)
I just don't find the presence of Danielle's hair in Westerfield's
house to be all that incriminating, since it's been established she
had been in his house a few days earlier on the Girl Scout trip.
The hairs (with roots) and the blood found in the motorhome?--Yes,
these I find very incriminating.
--pony
Every9man
I remember it but I have no recollection of where I saw it or heard it
Anyway, Westerfield realizes
>that at least for a few minutes, the coast is basically clear--Mom at
>the club, Dad gone for whatever. So he takes this opportunity to
>sneak in the house & take Danielle.
I can see that if he knew the layout of the house. I cant if he didnt and had
to do all of that to find her and get her out, knowing that there is a dog in
the house, the brother and that Dad may come back at any moment.
>
>It's still a stretch, what with the brothers in the house, and the
>neighbors and all--but still, it's the only way I can even envision
>Westerfield getting up the nerve to even try such a thing.
>
>As far as the fingerprints in the motorhome--is the defense allowed to
>send in their own experts to try to find other fingerprints? What I'm
>getting at is, what if there are fingerprints of several of the
>neighborhood kids in the motorhome? Like Westerfield was maybe in the
>habit of allowing the kids in it whenever he had it parked at his
>house. Does LE have to provide the defense attorneys with
>*everything* they find--or can they be selective about it?
All the defense has to do is provide evidence to support the possibility that
Danielle had gone in there during the cookie visit or actually at any other
time. Mrs. Van Dam had to admit that Danielle sometimes wandered further than
she was supposed to and that the motor home was parked out in front often
enough for her to call it an eyesore.
>
>I'm with you sitting on that fence.
Me too.
But more off than on.
Barbara
>
>--pony
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pat Fish1
eartha...@yahoo.com (Patty) writes:
>But defense attorney Steven Feldman said there is no evidence that
>Westerfield was inside the Van Dam home, which is two doors from his
>own house in the upscale community of Sabre Springs. He suggested that
>the blood, hair and fibers may have been left behind when Danielle and
>her mother, Brenda van Dam, came to Westerfield's home selling Girl
>Scout cookies in the days before Danielle disappeared Feb. 2.
>
>
++++
This thing about Brenda and Danielle being in that guy's house to sell girl
scout cookies is going to jump right up and smack the prosecutors in the face.
Also, Brenda being out so late and all those people in that house. Plus the
fact that a fellow entering a house with a sleeping father, two brothers and a
dog and absconding with a kid is going to be difficult for the jury to
comprehend.
I'm not saying Westerfield didn't do it. I've said before, the prosecutors are
going after him with both barrels and if they were looking for a defendent,
both parents were right there and handy enough to charge with the crime.
I still see reasonable doubt all over the place here. But hey, I'm not on the
jury and I'm sure if I've considered this the prosecutors will as well.
Should be interesting.
Pat Fish/Merryland
Every9man
The gloves were never *soaked *with anything, they had some blood spots on
them.
In addition and my memory on this is blessedly dim, I think that they did an
experiment with a duplicate of the gloves and they didnt shrink.
barbara
Bart Bailey
Then your blessedly dim memory is better than mine,
I thought the gloves were drenched with the blood of the two decedents.
However,
being a fine cabretta leather,
they wouldn't exhibit as much shrinkage as cheaper ones.
WRT: DW evidence,
I share you're implied skepticism.
>
>
> barbara
--
Bart
John Hawkes
"Every9man" <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020609042938...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> The gloves were never *soaked *with anything, they had some blood
spots on
> them.
It's my recollection that OJ was wearing a latex glove on the hand over
which he was attempting (and not very hard) to pull an Isotoner (weren't
they Isotoner?) leather glove. I think the glove size (shrunk or not)
is irrelevant. If I were wearing a latex glove, I imagine I couldn't
pull on a leather glove even several sizes larger than what I'd normally
wear. The prosecutors blundered bigtime.
--
John
Every9man
Not only is my memory dim, it's showing signs of early alzheimers:)
of course there was a lot of blood on one of the gloves at least. I think it
was Herbert MacDonald (?) who testified to testing an identical pair and not
being able to detect any shrinkage.
It strikes me now that I think of it, that it's interesting that the
prosecutors never had OJ try on the gloves *without* the latex gloves on .
Had they been certain of the fit.....
Barbara
Barbara
Every9man
I think it would depend on what the lining was like. For instance if it was fur
lined or a smooth wool like cashmere it would go on easily over latex.
Certainly latex isnt thick enough to make a bit difference otherwise.
Barbara
Ronald Helm
>It strikes me now that I think of it, that it's interesting that the
>prosecutors never had OJ try on the gloves *without* the latex gloves on .
>Had they been certain of the fit.....
>
>Barbara
Why do you think he was wearing latex gloves...universal precautions
to avoid contact with all that blood...as if he had not contacted that
blood before. Try to put any glove on while wearing latex gloves...it
is almost an impossibility.
Ron
Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the
agencies of the central governemnt.......Brave New World Revisited by Aldous
Huxley.
John Hawkes
> I think it would depend on what the lining was like. For instance if
it was fur
> lined or a smooth wool like cashmere it would go on easily over latex.
> Certainly latex isnt thick enough to make a bit difference otherwise.
It is my recollection that the gloves were thin Isotoner (or something
like Isotoner) gloves. This was Los Angeles, Barbara. Not much need
for fur lining.
Of course, they might have been the same gloves he wore at that football
game, where his photo was taken with Nicole. You remember, the photo
showing him wearing his "I'd-never-wear-those-uglyass" Bruno Magli
shoes.
--
John