Replies

One man's verdict: Jury selection won't be easy

March 14, 2002

To guarantee an untainted trial, maybe we should all be gagged.

Not only the players in the David Westerfield case, recently rendered mute by a court order.

All of us. All the fallout victims.

Think of it as a countywide holiday from gossip, speculation and sea lawyering.

But as a result, would Westerfield receive a better brand of local jury down the line?

I sort of doubt it.

In fact, the televised preliminary hearing, which could wind up today, already has made up a multitude of minds, I suspect.

At this point, no matter how little we say – or hear – the vast majority of San Diegans think pretty much the same thing:

He killed the girl.

So go ahead. Gag everyone.

The evidence, the sine qua non of justice, is out.

The damage to the presumption of innocence is done.

Try as I might to focus on other matters at hand – filling out my NCAA brackets, for example – I can't turn away from this infernally involving case.

Today, the prosecution appears headed for its coup de grace – a coherent theory of how Westerfield entered the van Dam house, kidnapped the little girl and later dumped her body.

Of course, much has been made of Judge H. Ronald Domnitz's gag order.

More interesting, it seems to me, is whether this case, assuming it goes to trial, will remain in San Diego County.

Given what we now know, can a jury of San Diegans be impartial?

Tuesday night, I had a little hallucination, the highlights of which I'll share.

As one of 5,358 jurors called for the Westerfield trial, I was apprehensive as we filed into the jury box.

Steven Feldman, Westerfield's lead attorney, looked me over and began his selection interview:

"What is your occupation?" Feldman asked.

"Journalist," I replied.

The wiry lawyer rolled his eyes. "Have you been exposed to media coverage of the Danielle van Dam case?"

"Inundated," I admitted. "Saturated. Soaked."

"How many hours have you spent absorbing information about the case?" he asked, unable to conceal his disdain for my classless profession.

"Just guessing, I'd say somewhere between 80 and 120 hours of conscious attention."

"Have you formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, David Westerfield?" he asked.

"Well, I'm willing to admit the remote possibility that Mr. Westerfield is, in fact, innocent," I said, "but given the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, I'd have to agree with defense attorney Milton Silverman, who, while impersonating Greta Van Susteren on a local TV broadcast, said: this is 'one of the most solid cases I've seen' in 32 years of trial experience. In my view, the real issue will be the one of life or death, not guilt or innocence."

Feldman scowled. "Do you believe you could hear evidence in this trial and come to an impartial conclusion, even if the facts refuted what you believed to be true?"

"Yes, I do," I replied. "If you were to pull a Perry Mason and find the 'real' murderer, I'd be happy for Westerfield, a victim of a diabolical conspiracy. If you could undermine the integrity of the prosecution's evidence against Westerfield, I would be unhappy for the justice system, but I might vote to acquit. The odds of that, however, seem about as long as the blood on Westerfield's jacket not being Danielle's. What were they? One in 25 quadrillion?"

Feldman stomped back to his table.

"Gag this juror," he said to the judge.

Look, the second day of the preliminary hearing was devastating. More so if you watched it on TV. (Even if you sit in the courtroom, you almost never see the defendant's face. How many times, after a damning piece of evidence was presented – disgusting photographs, blood, fingerprints – did the TV camera pan to Westerfield's face?)

Prosecutors, gagged outside the courtroom, are not only proving to the judge they have a legitimate case, they're boiling the jury pool.

Maybe the Westerfield trial should be moved out of San Diego County. Tough call.

Historically, high-profile trials have gone both ways.

You be the judge.
Source

Watkins said he found less than 100 "questionable images," including those he said that may have depicted minor females engaged in sex acts or posing nude in a sexual manner. Two of the files he said he retrieved were cartoon animations of an act of rape. Eight more photos also entered into evidence were supposedly of a girlfriend of Westerfield's and her teen-age daughter in a bikini in suggestive poses.

The Westerfield connection is something that has mystified me from the start. How did that man become the leading suspect so rapidly?

To hear the Van Dams tell the story, they barely knew Westerfield. Brenda mentions that she only met him briefly while canvasing the neighbors for girl scout cookies. If I remember correctly, that was a full year before the Danielle disappeared. Then she ran into him again "briefly" on the night her daughter disappeared.

It seems wierd to me that a guy could be out buying Brenda drinks at one moment, then secreting into the Van Dam home just minutes later. I'd like to see an accurate timeline of the friday evening and night this all occurred.

When it comes to the computer files that are reported to incriminate Westerfield, I get a little squeemish. I don't understand why any grown man would have child pornography on his computer. But in the accounting of what Westerfield had on his computer, the descriptions go limp. Watkins determinations are described for us.

Westerfield has been turned into a monster by the revelation that child pornography existed on his computer. I expected to hear that thousands of photos existed on his computer. I expected those to be of little girls. I expected them to reveal a man obsessed with girls ranging from age 1 to 10. Now it is revealed that Westerfield had less than 100 questionable photos on his computer. It is further revealed that those images included photos of "possible" minor females. Just how many actual photos of little girls exist on Westerfield's computer? Were there any at all? Were there ten or less? How many?

When I think of child pornography, I think of children from the age of birth through ten or twelve. When the police think of child pornography they think of any minor child. I believe a revealing or suggestive photo of a girl that is seventeen years and 360 days old, would qualify technicly as child porn. Any eighteen year old boy might have child porn, if for no other reason than that he might have a photo of his girlfriend in a bikini, or God forbid even less.

Is Westerfield the monster we've been led to believe. Was this just too quick and easy? How many people are aware that Danielle's blood was found on the stairs at the Van Dam home? I'll be interested to hear the acutal case against Westerfield. At this point it almost sounds like a setup to me.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I have found the scenario that sees Westerfield secreting into the Van Dam home, locating Danielle's room without distrubing anyone else, then getting her out of the house without disturbing anyone, to be a very difficult sell. I guess anything is possible, but it sure seems iffy to me.

All this being said, I still lean toward Westerfield. But I sure do have a lot of questions at this point. I am far from convinced.

Van Dams thank volunteers who searched for Danielle

By John Berhman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 24, 2002

It was a day to reward and thank the hundreds of volunteers who helped in the search for Danielle van Dam, the 7-year-old Sabre Springs girl whose body was found Feb. 27 almost four weeks from the night she disappeared from her bedroom.

alt Under cool and cloudy skies at Hospitality Point on Mission Bay, Danielle's parents and leaders in the search effort gathered yesterday to meet and thank the many county residents who volunteered their services.

"It's all about them today," Brenda van Dam said. "The whole event today is to thank the many volunteers who gave up their time away from their families to help in the search for Danielle. It's to give them a big thank-you."

About 2,500 people volunteered to scour the suburban hills around the girl's home and trek out into the county's backcountry. An estimated 1,000 were expected for the outdoor luncheon yesterday, but an early-morning rain and cool temperatures kept attendance to about 300, an event sponsor said.

Ken Foley, who owns San Diego Catering Concepts, donated the food and drinks for the "Appreciation Event."

"We had 1,500 hamburgers and 700 hot dogs ready to serve 1,000 people," Foley said. "But we had quite a downpour when we were setting up here at 5 a.m., and it stayed pretty cool during the day. But I still think it was a successful event to honor the volunteers."

And the volunteers, many of whom sat on lawn chairs or blankets, agreed. Several of those interviewed said they were glad they volunteered, and although many were saddened when Danielle's body was found by volunteers searching in rural East County, all said the discovery at least brought closure to the girl's disappearance.

A neighbor who lived two doors from the van Dams, David Westerfield, 50, has been charged with kidnapping and killing Danielle and will stand trial.

"I was sad when they found her, but also relieved because at least it gave closure for the parents and the rest of us who had been searching for her," said Scott Dell, 42, of San Diego, who spent seven days assisting in the effort.

"This is why I did it," added Dell, patting the head of his 9-year-old daughter, Hayley. "If it had been her, I would have hoped that people would have volunteered to look for her, just as they did for Danielle."

John Huey, 35, also of San Diego, said he doesn't have any children of his own, but still spent 16 days in the search effort. "I just looked at my brother's four girls – ages 12, 9, 7 and 4 – and I knew I had to help out," he said.

Diane Halfman, who headed the Danielle Search Center, and San Diego police Lt. Jim Collins spoke and thanked the gathering.

"In my 30 years on the San Diego Police Department, I have never seen a volunteer effort like this one," Collins said.

The van Dams did not address the gathering, but mingled among the volunteers, thanking them and hugging many.