Van Dam Case Witness Challenges Findings Of Defense 'Bug Expert': But...His Testimony Don't Add Up..

Union Tribune ^ | July 31, 2002 | Jeff Dillion

[VRWC_minion]

He is right, the transcript spelled it wrong.

Presumptive Blood Pocket Test Pack, Phenolphthalein 

   $ 19.95  

New and Improved!

Doje's is proud to announce an inexpensive presumptive field test for bloodstain testing. This easy to use test, consists of a plastic container including three crushable plastic vials holding reagents. The use of plastic eliminates the concern of glass splinters from the crushable vials.

To use, place a small amount of the suspect stain or a portion of the swabbing or rubbing of the stain into the protective sleeve, crush the color coded vials as described by the included instructions and observe the color change that occurs.

Having a truly portable test that fits into a shirt pocket removes the necessity of measuring, mixing and storing reagents or carrying bottles of reagents into the field, which may leak or break. The scaled vials provide a long shelf life without refrigeration, enabling them to be kept in a field crime scene kit.

Ten (10) test packs

[demsux]

HE WAS GOING TO LEAVE FRIDAY, AND THEY WERE GOING TO RETURN ON SUNDAY.

BUT, libby wanted to go on Sunday, so Damon delays the trip??? Why???

I would say "see ya when ya get there".

Damon saving his gas money?

[nycgal]

DW told police it was a spur of the moment trip. First, we must know exactly when this statement was made, and where in the conversation it occurred.

I don't think this clarifies the "spur of the moment" much but here it is in context:

REDDEN: Okay. Alright, so, ok, so, Saturday, what time did you go get that thing then?
WESTERFIELD: Um, let’s see. I got up, I’m guessing about 10 after 7.
REDDEN: Saturday morning?
WESTERFIELD: Saturday morning.
REDDEN: Okay.
WESTERFIELD: Went downstairs and opened the front door and turned off the front light, looked around. And got dressed, took a shower, got dressed. Then I left to get the motor home.
REDDEN: Okay, so was this spur of the moment or something you had planned?
WESTERFIELD: No, it was spur of the moment. Because I had a, you know, I had made a commitment to Gary to be at the bar on Friday night. And I knew that I had nothing really planned for today. So it was going to be Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

[UCANSEE2]

My point is that DW saying 'spur of the moment', 'good place to hide a body', etc,etc. are not proof he kidnapped and murdered a child.

It seems the media and the police used these statements as HYPE to get the public excited about their bringing home the BIG FISH.

They committed tons of YOUR money, and LE's time (more your money) to going after DW.

Once committed, there is no backing out.

Most people do not understand, even if the police find during the investigation that you are totally innocent, they have no obligation to testify/provide this info in court. IF they arrested and charged you, YOU Have to defend yourself, and if you can't, TOO BAD.

[Lanza]

Those are great UCANSEE2!

[VRWC_minion]

I would assume that an owner of an RV would be using it most weekends and that only the destination would be spur of the moment. Therefore, unless Westerfield specified the presise trip he might be considered to be referring to the destination and not a trip in general.

[nycgal]

What part of the CTV transcript is inaccurate? I downloaded the transcript in pdf format and it looks okay to me. Granted I haven't read through it completely yet.

[UCANSEE2]

I see this case not as a CONSPIRACY, but as a SNOWBALL that once it started rolling downhill, picked up in size and speed and then COULDN'T BE STOPPED.

Notice that police/media didn't make a big deal out of catching two CHILD/PORN/RAPISTS that lived within miles of Danielle, and one of whom wasn't even arrested until a few days after FEB 16th.

Is is POSSIBLE these two were involved in Danielle's abduction/death? SURE it is.

For all we know they may have even confessed to it by now.

BUT, the SHOW MUST GO ON. Sure, If Feldman had access to that info, he could present it. But, he must know it exists, and then get proof.

If it would embarrass the police, IT WON'T HAPPEN. If you believe otherwise, you have a lot to learn about this world.

[John Jamieson]

phenylthaline is another presumptive test for BLOOD that reacts to 100's of substances including drool, and even horseradish. It only narrows down a wide area search to the best areas. The real test for human BLOOD is called the Precipitin Test, which they did not run on these "stains" .... however they did run this test on stains in the stairwell to prove that they were NOT HUMAN BLOOD.

Interestingly of course the DNA match in whatever it was was perfection beyond belief, even the stain that no one could see on the jacket that had been dry cleaned.

[UCANSEE2]

So, if this is the text that KIM and CYN and whereever they got the idea from, then it was NOT DW saying (originating) the statement SPUR OF THE MOMENT.

It was him responding to REDDEN stating 'SPUR OF THE MOMENT'.

IN court this would be called LEADING THE WITNESS.

DW then clarifies why he would agree to SPUR OF THE MOMENT.

So, my point all along has been that those that say DW LIED TO POLICE are trying to take what he said OUT OF CONTEXT, and I believe I am right.

[the Deejay]

"saying 'spur of the moment', 'good place to hide a body'"


So, one should *never* use these terms? Like these terms go along with having/using bleach, unrolled hosed, & a host of other things that placed suspicions on DW?

(I can't even begin to guess, how many times in my lifetime, I've used those same terms, at one time or another. And not thinking anything of it.) LOL

[the Deejay]

If DW was the perp, he would have been trying to conceal as much as possible from the police in the interview. Well, it would have been so easy to say, "I planned the trip ____ago." Right?

[UCANSEE2]

I would assume that an owner of an RV would be using it most weekends and that only the destination would be spur of the moment. Therefore, unless Westerfield specified the presise trip he might be considered to be referring to the destination and not a trip in general.

I don't believe he had been using it much over the winter. He had made PLANS to go SOMEWHERE. He asked a friend to go, and that friend had other plans. (per testimony). His son was asked to go, but he had other plans (per testimony).

DW went to where he planned first, but that sucked, so he went several other places searching for a better time. He went to where his 'sand buddies' usually go and they weren't there.

So, it was a planned trip, but where he went was SPUR OF THE MOMENT. A few posts back is the actual quotes from the REDDEN interview so you can read what REDDEN said, what DW said, and DW's explanation of why he agreed to REDDEN's Statement that it was SPUR OF THE MOMENT, for yourself. (best way)./

[cyncooper]

Nobody was "hyping" the "spur of the moment" comment. Kim picked up on it when CTV played the tape this morning, and in the wake of Neal's testimony and the friend who said DW had planned to be gone, put two and two together by herself. That being, why did DW say it?

Notice Westerfield underscores it by the italicized portion:

WESTERFIELD: No, it was spur of the moment. Because I had a, you know, I had made a commitment to Gary to be at the bar on Friday night. And I knew that I had nothing really planned for today. So it was going to be Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

end excerpt

Plus Neal said their weekend camping trips were usually Fri thru Sunday.

Nobody is saying the statement and the statement alone are proof of murder, but it is foolish to just cast it aside without giving it some thought.

[UCANSEE2]

So, one should *never* use these terms?

Unless you like being hung in the village square.

[the Deejay]

"Unless you like being hung in the village square."


Sure looks that way in the SD Village Square.

[Jrabbit]

John, off topic, but do you know if sur-rebuttal is in answer to the DA's rebuttal? If so, can't Feldman bring in his own fiber expert on sur-rebuttal?

[Krodg]

Q. HOW LONG COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE? A. WELL, I THINK THE FIBER CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR AS LONG AS THE BODY WAS IN ITS RESTING LOCATION. THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THE FIBER WAS THERE FOR MUCH PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS TANGLED IN SUCH A LARGE WAD OF HAIR ON THE NECKLACE. SO I THINK THAT THE FIBER GOT ONTO THE HAIR ON THE NECKLACE AT SOME POINT CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS WHERE THE BODY WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS FOUND. Q. ARE YOU GUESSING? A. I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION. Q. IS ANOTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THAT THAT FIBER HAD BEEN WRAPPED AROUND PREVIOUS TO THAT TIME, AND THAT DANIELLE HADN'T BEEN MOVING FOR A WHILE? A. SHE HADN'T BEEN MOVED? THAT CERTAINLY IS POSSIBLE. Q. IF SHE HAD BEEN KEPT IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, SAY FOR TEN DAYS, IT COULD STAY THERE, COULDN'T IT? MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU NEED NOT ANSWER. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE BODY WASN'T PLACED IN ITS ULTIMATE RESTING LOCATION UNTIL APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY THE 16TH AND FEBRUARY THE 18TH. A. OKAY. Q. AND ASSUME THAT FOR A FEW DAYS OR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THAT THERE HADN'T BEEN MUCH IN THE WAY OF MOVEMENT OF THE BODY. COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE? MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. HOW MANY DAYS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY THE 16TH, IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION, COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN PLACED OR LOCATED WHERE ULTIMATELY YOU IDENTIFIED IT? MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU MAY ANSWER THAT, IF YOU KNOW. THE WITNESS: IF THE VICTIM WAS NOT MOVING OR PARTAKING IN ANY NORMAL ACTIVITIES AS FAR AS PERSONAL HYGIENE, THEN CERTAINLY THE FIBER COULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED AND REMAINED ATTACHED THROUGH THAT TIME. BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. AND IF ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS WITH REGARD TO YOUR ANSWER, ASSUMING ALL OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST ARTICULATED IS THE CASE, HOW LONG COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN --

There is no testimony to Danielle having a bath that evening and her hair did not look groomed for her passport picture, so this witness cannot say that the fiber was there at the time of death. I don't see Feldman conceding anything, he was just shut down by the judge.

[UCANSEE2]

If DW was the perp, he would have been trying to conceal as much as possible from the police in the interview. Well, it would have been so easy to say, "I planned the trip ____ago." Right?

Right. The media and police and Prosecution have tried to make mountains out of molehills, by taking statements out of context to try and imply guilt.

WHY?

I believe it is because they saw just how weak their case was, and that they realized DW was not a member of the LOCAL #510 CHILD/PORN/RAPIST/KILLER club run out of SD and Poway, that they had others suspects which were more likely the bad guys, but BRENDA/DAMON had already put them on DW,and it was already in the news, and the DA wanted to ROLL on it.

It has been so obvious by DW's behavior,statements, bothering to drive the police all over hell for how many hours ?????? in an effort to cooperate, and those are the reasons they give for assuming his guilt.

HE WAS TO NICE, HE COOPERATED WITH POLICE, HE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE.

uuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!~

[cyncooper]

It was him responding to REDDEN stating 'SPUR OF THE MOMENT'.

Read it again. Redden asks if it was planned or spur of the moment:

"REDDEN: Okay, so was this spur of the moment or something you had planned?"

snip

Look, I never said DW "lied", I do think he misrepresented the trip if he did tell his friend and Neal he was planning to go camping.

What is this leading stuff? You don't think DW was capable of saying "I was planning on going but originally planned on going to the desert and changed my mind and went to the Strand, but that didn't work out after all".