Posted on 02/06/2003 3:57:00 PM PST by Jaded
Who had it first? Damon Scott David?
sw
In addition to the "small bloodstains" from Danielle that allegedly turned up on Westerfield's clothing and in his RV, traces of DNA found on a garment of the girl's in her room matched the suspect's, the chief said.
Can someone tell me what garment in Danielle's room had traces of DW's DNA on it?
Bump
The nice chief policeman must have been misinformed,huh?
I believe, I believe.
Total cost of Westerfield case surpasses $1 million
San Diego police tab about $756,000
By Mark Arner
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 22, 2003
San Diego police estimated yesterday that they spent more than $750,000 in the David Westerfield case, raising the total cost to win kidnapping and murder convictions to more than $1 million.
Two weeks ago, the District Attorney's Office said it spent nearly $270,000 prosecuting Westerfield in the slaying of Danielle van Dam, his 7-year-old Sabre Springs neighbor who was abducted the weekend of Feb. 2, 2002.
John Welter, executive assistant chief, responded to a written request from The San Diego Union-Tribune and said $755,564 was spent on "personnel" costs and $865 on "nonpersonnel" costs.
Some of the cost of Westerfield's defense came from public funds, but that amount was ordered sealed by Superior Court Judge William Mudd. The Union-Tribune has asked the 4th District Court of Appeal to unseal those figures.
Death-penalty trials are usually the most expensive to prosecute because of the legal complexities involved.
Welter said the $756,000 estimate did not include all fuel costs, including for vehicles driven to distant areas such as Imperial County to collect evidence about Westerfield's trip to the Anza-Borrego Desert after Danielle was reported missing.
The $865 spent on nonpersonnel items covered about $200 for gasoline, plus several small tools and recording supplies, as well as petty purchases, Welter said.
The biggest expense for prosecutors was DNA analysis, on which they spent $152,712. Prosecutors also paid more than $62,000 to a jury consulting firm and more than $14,000 to a forensic anthropologist who testified about the girl's time of death.
Westerfield, a self-employed design engineer, was sentenced to death Jan. 3 for kidnapping and murdering Danielle, who lived two doors away. He is being housed on death row at San Quentin State Prison near San Francisco.
Wow, they paid that idiot 14,000??!!??!
I got the impression that his only job was to seem stupid, so that all of the bug testimony would be discredited as wishy-washy.
At the PH, he said he didn't know about the blood in the stairwell or the garage...what a marooon.
This is simply outragous. There are very competant, highly qualified, PRIVATE labs, that do DNA testing for as little as $600.00. Also consider that this is even when they only have 1-2 cells containing DNA.
Methinks the citizens of San Diego have paid their "police crime lab" AND a private lab way too much.
Check this out...
"In the case of the international child porn ring, Paul Whitmore, a child and family counselor from San Diego, was arrested on January 27th 2002. Paul Whitmore appeared, like Damon Van Dam, to be a computer games addict ; spending time playing and talking video games online."
"Brooke Rowland, a salesman from Poway and good friend to Paul Whitmore, was arrested on February 15th 2002. Brooke Rowland happened to live at walking distance from Dad's cafe, the bar where the Van Dams use to go and where Brenda Van Dam was part of the night of Danielle's diseappearance."
"In 1999, Paul Whitmore, wanting to move to Gainesville, Florida, was looking for someone (online) with a good knowledge of Gainesville able to provide information."
Here is my question:
Knowing Paul Whitmore and Brooke Rowland from San Diego county were both arrested in the case of an international child porn ring, (Brooke Rowland being arrested AFTER Danielle's diseappearance)
And, knowing Paul Whitmore is a video games addict (like Damon Van Dam), knowing Paul Whitmore wanted to move to Gainesville Florida (where the Van Dams come from),
knowing Brooke Rowland lived within walking distance to Dad's cafe (the bar where Brenda Van Dam was on January 25th and February 1st 2002),
is it impossible these 2 men have no relation at all with the circumstances surrounding the death of Danielle Van Dam?
It IS definately possible to speculate that these individuals had possibly met and associated. See Here for links showing Paul Whitmore's FL. inquiry and online gaming intrests. http://www.unposted.com/child_porn.shtml
And knowing that Damon wanted a "seperation" from Brenda (who wouldn't?), makes me wonder if the VD's were seeing or had seen a "counselor" for their marital problems.
Heard on Fox news that Clara Harris is getting a new attorney to represent her in the appeal. Guess she still has money left (unlike DW). She might not when the step-daughter gets through with her wrongful death suit. Heard a little blurb regarding that.
The Disappearance of Laci Peterson:
Why Her Husband, Even If Innocent, Should Not Agree To A Lie Detector Test
By JONNA M. SPILBOR
---- Monday, Mar. 03, 2003
In recent weeks, news shows have frequently turned to the notorious case of Laci Peterson - the pregnant Modesto woman who disappeared on Christmas Eve from the home she shared with her husband, Scott. While watching one such bulletin, I turned to my own husband, and said, "Honey, promise me something. If I ever go missing without a trace, and the police are breathing down your neck, do not, I repeat, do not, take a lie detector test. Okay?"
On the advice of counsel, he agreed. Sometimes it helps to be married to a lawyer - even if you are subject to cross-examination for not taking out the garbage.
It's not as clear that Scott Peterson will follow the same advice. Thus far, he's done a lot of talking; indeed, he's even confessed to having carried on an adulterous affair just weeks before his wife's disappearance. A few stretches and pulls by police, and a morsel like this becomes a possible motive. Still, Scott Peterson has yet to hire counsel.
Now Peterson is being pressured to take a polygraph. So far, he's refused. But authorities are continuing to lean on him, arguing that he is not "cooperating." He should keep on refusing - even if he's entirely innocent.
Scott Petersen Is Plainly A Suspect In the Minds of the Police
To begin, Scott Peterson needs to realize he is a suspect. And is it any surprise? After all, isn't the husband always a suspect?
Police and prosecutors have refused to call him a suspect. But they may be withholding the word simply in an attempt to avoid its legal consequences.
Place the word "suspect" before Scott Peterson's name, and arguably, a casual police visit transforms into a formal "detention." A seemingly impromptu chat session becomes an "interrogation." And the Fifth Amendment pops up as an obstacle to the police's investigation. Simply put, a suspect - unlike a husband - has an absolute right to remain silent.
Whether or not the police call Peterson a suspect, they certainly have treated him like one. The police conducted an investigatory search of the Petersons' home - and then they conducted another. This time, authorities pulled out everything that wasn't nailed down.
The first search might have been standard procedure. The second indicated that suspicion has likely fallen on Scott Peterson.
Although investigators have been tight-lipped about what they're hoping to find, they brought along Laci Peterson's sister to assist in the second search. By doing so, police have run the risk of contaminating a potential crime scene; a move which certainly will draw objections from defense counsel when - and if - evidence from the second search of the Peterson home is admitted in the matter.
Only Suspects Are Generally Given Polygraphs in the First Place
Furthermore, the search isn't the only evidence Peterson is a suspect. There's also the request for a polygraph (better known as a lie detector) itself.
The police may be telling Peterson they want to give him the test to "rule him out." If so, that's, quite frankly, a lie on their part.
Police typically reserve polygraphs for weak cases only. The reason is simple: when there exists strong evidence against an accused, a polygraph is wholly unnecessary. Ergo, lie detector tests are not used to rule someone out - but to rule someone very much in.
While evidence that a suspect has failed a lie detector is not admissible against the accused in court, it may provide some basis for probable cause to arrest. The burden of proof necessary for a showing of probable cause to arrest is much lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required for a conviction. To make an adequate showing of probable cause, police need only demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and that the accused likely committed it.
Polygraphs Are Often Inaccurate, and Provide Evidence Against the Innocent
Think of a polygraph as a sort of magician's hat, and a suspect as a brightly colored hanky. Any magician, even a bad one, can put a hanky into a hat and pull out a live rabbit. By the same token, police can put a mere suspect into a room with a polygraph machine, and pull out a full-fledged defendant. It's that easy.
With no other leads, the police are doing what they are prone to do: Working backwards. Instead of searching for clues to the killer, the cops are looking for reasons to convict Scott Peterson. In sophisticated legalese, this is what we fancy mouthpieces call a "fishing expedition." And it is precisely why Scott Peterson should keep his mouth shut.
Notice, in my analogy with the hanky, the magician and the rabbit, that I didn't say the suspect had to be guilty in order to become a defendant. That's because he doesn't: The magician's hat works every time.
Rarely do suspects pass polygraph tests. It doesn't mean all suspects are guilty. It means that lie detectors are often wrong.
What About Talking to the Police, But Not Taking a Polygraph?
Okay, you say, I can see why Peterson shouldn't take a polygraph - it might wrongly indicate that he's guilty. But why can't he talk to the police? If he's innocent, he's got nothing to fear, right?
Wrong. When the police tell you anything you say can be used against you, they mean it. Remember, under our system, only guilt - not innocence - needs to be proved. Scott Peterson doesn't have to "prove his innocence" by talking. Instead, the presumption of innocence means that, if he didn't do it, he doesn't need to talk.
If Peterson talks, he may inadvertently get himself into trouble - for instance, by giving slightly different accounts on different occasions due to a failure of memory. He may also attract more and more police attention - and distract from other leads.
Just last week, Modesto police were criticized for ignoring a call from what could turn out to be a critical witness. A neighbor living ten blocks from the Peterson home, called police within a week of Laci Peterson's disappearance to report seeing her the very morning she went missing - a full forty-five minutes after Scott Peterson left to go fishing.
Police have yet to speak to the witness, claiming they haven't had time to return the more than 8,000 phone tips they've received on the case. They have had time, mind you, to keep a close eye on Scott Peterson despite his continued protestations of innocence.
Maybe the most important piece of evidence the police have overlooked is the family dog Laci was walking when she disappeared. Although Laci never returned home from that walk, the dog did. Which means the pooch didn't get too far before his owner went missing. My advice to the Modesto police? Stop looking in the ponds, puddles and potholes, and start knocking on the neighbors' doors.
In the meantime, Scott Peterson should keep his eyes open, and his mouth shut. While communication may keep a marriage together, when one spouse goes missing, silence is golden.
Jonna M. Spilbor is a frequent guest commentator on Court-TV and other television news networks, where she has covered many of the nation's high-profile criminal trials. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. In 1998, she earned certification as a Court Appointed Special Advocate with the San Diego Juvenile Court. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.
Not in Sabre Swings!!!
I quite agree with this post.
I personally do not think Scott is innocent, but I do think he should be refusing to take a polygraph. That's a no-winner, regardless. It's like giving the police permission to search your car or house when you do not have to.
I am tempted to weigh in on Scott's defense on all this, if only for the purpose of playing a devil's advocate.
For all the speculation we do here and for all his apparently odd behavior, the state does not seem to have anything tangible that connects him to Laci's disappearance.
I do think he is connected, but he might not be. He is still entitled to the proverbial presumption of innocence.
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.