Posted on 12/12/2002 8:19:20 AM PST by Jaded
When a person goes in search of enlightenment, it's usually good advice to avoid an Internet chat room. And yet it was a random posting on the Internet that led to a key piece of evidence in the David Westerfield case.
At a luncheon in Mission Valley yesterday, prosecutors Jeff Dusek and George "Woody" Clarke told a number of anecdotes – some of them funny, others poignant and revealing – about what happened behind the scenes in the most publicized criminal trial in San Diego County history.
The luncheon was organized by the San Diego Crime Commission and about 100 people attended.
The lawyers talked about their late-night strategy sessions, about the emotional toll of the case on their spouses, about moments of inspiration that came from the strangest of places.
They also took some shots at the media coverage – especially the media's treatment of the parents of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam – and revealed some previously undisclosed statements they said were made by Westerfield. He is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 3 for kidnapping and killing the Sabre Springs second-grader. A jury has recommended the death penalty.
It was Dusek who told the story about the Internet.
During the trial, he said, the lawyers were surfing a Web site where most of the postings were from people convinced of Westerfield's innocence. Several of the postings dealt with the subject of the blond hairs found in Westerfield's motor home.
Prosecutors said the hair proved that Westerfield kidnapped the girl. Westerfield's lawyers said their client often kept the motor home unlocked in the neighborhood and that the girl might have snuck inside at some point to play.
On the chat room, the discussion turned to speculation about whether the prosecution had bothered to find out the date of Danielle's last haircut. The consensus in the chat room was that of course they had.
Actually, they hadn't. They'd never thought to do so.
It turned out that Danielle's last haircut had been five days before her disappearance. After the haircut, her hair was eight inches long – the exact length of the hairs found in the motor home, which hadn't been parked in the neighborhood for several months.
Dusek also revealed the story behind the alleged scratch marks on Westerfield's arm. Pictures of the scratch marks were used as evidence at the preliminary hearing in March – but the jury at Westerfield's trial never heard about them.
The reason: An expert analyzed the marks after the preliminary hearing and couldn't conclusively match them to Danielle's fingers.
"Woody and I are still convinced it's scratch marks," Dusek told the audience. "What else could it be? But we didn't have proof."
Dusek said parts of the trial were particularly draining on his wife, who broke into tears after listening to a media commentator who suggested that the defense's opening statements were more effective that the prosecution's.
He also criticized the media for overhyping the testimony about the van Dams' spouse-swapping and the couple's use of marijuana on the night their daughter vanished.
Discussing what he called the media's vilification of the van Dams, Dusek cited an incident where the couple was lambasted on talk radio for wearing Danielle buttons on their lapels during their testimony at the preliminary hearing.
Noting that the couple immediately removed the buttons from their lapels after leaving the witness stand, one radio reporter suggested that the couple had been making a phony display of their grief to influence the judge.
In reality, the only reason they removed the buttons was because both prosecutors wanted to have them as mementos, Dusek said.
"They walk out of that courtroom without their badges and they get blistered on the radio that night," he said.
Dusek also revealed some statements he said Westerfield made at various points during the trial.
At the start of the trial, just after the prosecution had finished its opening statements, Westerfield was being led down a hallway when he turned to a bailiff and said, "They may as well send me to (San) Quentin right now."
During the penalty phase of the case, when Westerfield's lawyers called friends and family members to the witness stand in an effort to save their client's life, Westerfield looked at his lawyers with a confused expression on his face when one woman approached the stand.
"Who's that?" he asked.
"It's your aunt," his lawyers informed him.
Yesterday, neither Steven Feldman nor Robert Boyce, Westerfield's two main lawyers, returned phone calls seeking comment.
At one point during the presentation, a questioner asked Dusek what he thought about Feldman, whose hyperactive theatrics became well-known to everyone who followed the case.
He called Feldman "a very good attorney." Citing ethics guidelines, Dusek wouldn't comment on a report in the Union-Tribune that Westerfield's lawyers had been trying in February to broker a plea whereby their client would reveal the location of the girl's body in exchange for a life sentence rather than the death penalty.
"He promised a vigorous defense," Dusek said of Feldman. "He did not say his guy was innocent."
Of course.
I clearly stated that if the accused has a trial by jury and they determine the evidence presented proves guilt, then at sentencing, etc.
And yes, I know that the jury system isn't foolproof. And I certainly disagree that we have returned to mob rule. You just don't like the verdict here.
Surely you agree that those who commit crimes ought to be held responsible and suffer consequences as a result.
Dusek: you talked about some guy bothering you or pestering you on that second occasion at Dad's. do you recall those questions?
Denise Kemal: yes.
Dusek: when did you first run into him at Dad's on the 1st of february?
Denise Kemal: shortly after we got there. actually, Rich and Keith i think were there at that point and he came over to us.
Dusek: did you speak with him?
Denise Kemal: yes.
Dusek: what did he seem like?
Denise Kemal: he seemed like a nice guy. he was just nosey.
Dusek: did you dance with him?
Denise Kemal: no.
Dusek: did you see him later on that evening?
Denise Kemal: yeah, he came around every -- you know, during the night he'd pop around and say hey, girls, you know.
Dusek: were there fellows in the bar doing the same thing, talking to you?
Denise Kemal: not really. i was -- he was in and out. we talked to people. i mean, when you're in a social environment you do.
Brooke Rowland???
BVD also mentioned this "nosey" guy who was "surprised" that BVD was a "mother". Could he have gotten one of those "special" invites like Ryan Tyrol/Cherokee Youngs?
In order for the SDPD lab to be able to find blood on DW's jacket, obviously they first needed to find the jacket. I will attempt to detail how this task was accomplished by analyzing the testimony and sworn affidavits of the cast of characters involved.
First up is 30-yr. SDPD veteran Det. Terrance Torgersen. He was assigned the seemingly simple task of locating a couple of dry cleaning receipts. As you might expect from a witness used to help craft Dusek's Fable, the story he relates is convoluted and full of holes, one that asks more questions than it answers.
FROM DUSEK'S OPENING ARGUMENT JUNE 4, 2002
on this early morning, cold day, when he showed up in his motor home...he came in and he didn't look the same. he was short, quick, disorganized, not well kept, wearing shorts, teeshirt, barefoot, and brought in a load of drycleaning to be done. a BLACK JACKET, two comforters, and two covers.
My Comments: As we can see by his opening statement, even Dusek has trouble identifying the GREEN JACKET that the SDPD swears contained Danielle's blood. When you have the wrong man, the case just gets worse, as it does here.
JUNE 17, 2002
TERRANCE NEAL TORGERSEN,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A POLICE OFFICER?
A: THIRTY YEARS.
Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A DETECTIVE?
A: NINETEEN YEARS.
Q: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN HOMICIDE?
A: TWELVE YEARS.
Q: ...DID YOU BECOME INVOLVED AT LEAST ON A PERIPHERAL MATTER IN THE DANIELLE VAN DAM CASE?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WERE YOU ASKED TO DO?
A: I WAS ASKED TO TRY TO LOCATE ITEMS FROM A DRYCLEANING RECEIPT TAKEN OUT OF A VEHICLE...
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.
Q: WHERE ALL DID YOU GO LOOKING FOR THE DRYCLEANER'S?
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.
My Comments: Okay, let's pause here for a minute and think about the Detective's testimony. I would think that finding this dry cleaners would be a priority, yet the Detective only searches 4 different locations and then calls it a day. Maybe he went out searching for the dry cleaners on foot. Anyway, why the delay in finding Twin Peaks? Was the Detective searching to ensure that DW didn't visit any other cleaners, knowing in advance that Twin Peaks was the place?
Q: WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE DRYCLEANER'S?
A: TWIN PEAKS CLEANERS.
Q: WHAT HAPPENED?
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.
Q: SO WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: I WENT BACK TO THE OFFICE, AND THE NEXT DAY I GOT A SEARCH WARRANT.
Q: FOR THOSE ITEMS AT THE DRYCLEANER'S?
A: FOR ALL THE ITEMS AT THE DRYCLEANER'S, YES.
Q: AND WHEN DID YOU RETURN TO THE DRYCLEANER'S TO PICK UP THE ITEMS?
A: THE FOLLOWING DAY.
My Comments: Det. Torgersen obtains his search warrant around 2:30 pm on Feb. 7th. Again, why the delay in obtaining the search warrant? We know the police obtained a warrant to search DW's office for porn in the middle of the night of Feb 4th. In that instance they were afraid evidence would be destroyed. In this case they show no concern.
25 CROSS-EXAMINATION
26 BY MR. BOYCE:
28 THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT TO THE TWIN PEAKS DRY
1 CLEANERS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE WAS ON FEBRUARY...
4 Q. I'M SORRY, FEBRUARY 6TH; IS THAT CORRECT?
5 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
6 Q. AND YOU WENT THERE AT APPROXIMATELY 2 O'CLOCK IN
7 THE AFTERNOON, IS THAT RIGHT?
8 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
16 Q. YOU WERE PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION BEFORE GOING TO
17 THE DRY CLEANERS, CORRECT?
18 A. YES.
19 Q. AND YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH THIS INFORMATION BEFORE
20 GOING TO THE DRY CLEANERS ON FEBRUARY 6TH?
21 A. I WAS PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION THAT TWIN PEAKS
22 CLEANERS COULD POSSIBLY BE THE ORIGIN OF THAT RECEIPT.
My Comments: It seems that the Detective had some information that Twin Peaks could be the origin of the receipt. That's not what the lying, corrupt Dusek told the jury during his closing. He told that ignorant bunch that the cops got "lucky".
FROM DUSEK'S CLOSING ARGUMENT AUG. 6, 2002
9440
8 ...THE OFFICERS WERE REAL LUCKY TO FIND THE
9 STUFF FROM THE DRY CLEANERS. THEY FOUND THE RECEIPT FROM THE
10 DRY CLEANERS. I THINK IT WAS IN THE S. U. V. DIDN'T KNOW WHICH
11 ONE IT WAS. THERE'S NO NAME ON IT. WHICH DRY CLEANERS IN THIS
12 ENTIRE AREA SHOULD WE GO TO?...
13 ...LET'S GO CHECK THIS ONE. AND THEY GOT LUCKY.
14 THEY GOT LUCKY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT WAS. WHEN YOU GOT THE
15 RIGHT GUY THE CASE GETS BETTER.
My Comments: According to the Detective's signed affidavit, needed to obtain a search warrant, Torgersen was informed by Detective Ott on the morning of Feb. 6th that Twin Peaks might be the place the receipts originated from, he also learned that DW had told the police on the morning of Feb. 6th that he had dropped off "bedding" at the Twin Peak's dry cleaners on Monday morning, February 4th.
My Comments: Remember, prior to going to the Twin Peak's cleaners Detective Torgersen has knowledge that there should be bedding. File that in your memory bank and read on.
JUNE 17, 2002
5177 - 5178
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. BOYCE:
4 Q. AND WHEN YOU WENT TO THE DRY CLEANERS YOU CONTACTED
5 AN EMPLOYEE ON FEBRUARY 6TH, DIDN'T YOU?
6 A. YES, I DID.
7 Q. AND THAT EMPLOYEE WAS JULIE MILLS, WASN'T IT?
8 A. YES.
9 Q. AND SHE TOLD YOU THAT SHE HAD TAKEN SOME DRY
10 CLEANING IN FROM MR. WESTERFIELD ON FEBRUARY 4TH, CORRECT?
11 A. YES.
12 Q. AND SHE TOOK IT IN THE MORNING, CORRECT?
13 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
20 Q. AND THE DRY CLEANING SHE BROUGHT OUT TO YOU IN
21 RESPONSE TO SHOWING HER THE RECEIPT WAS A BLACK T-SHIRT, A BLACK
22 PAIR OF PANTS AND A BLACK SWEATER STILL IN THE GARMENT BAG; IS
23 THAT CORRECT?
24 A. THAT IS CORRECT.
25 Q. THAT'S THE DRY CLEANING THAT SHE TOLD YOU THAT MR.
26 WESTERFIELD GAVE TO HER THAT MORNING?
27 A. YES.
28 Q. AND AT THAT POINT YOU TERMINATED THE INTERVIEW?
1 A. YES.
My Comments: What about the bedding? Doesn't he ask Julie Mills? In the affidavit previously referred to, the Detective states that he was told by Miss Mills that DW had asked for same day service on these black clothing items when she received them early on the morning of Feb. 4th. SOMEBODY IS LYING!!!
My Comments: DW requested this service from Kelly Belom when he dropped off the black items later Monday afternoon. There is no mention of Kelly Belom being interviewed by Detective Torgersen on Feb. 6th. If the Detective is the liar, then he would have had to have gotten information from someone, my finger is pointed at Det. Ott, that DW had requested "same day service." That might mean that Ott talked to Belom on the 4th, since he spent 16 hrs traveling SD with DW on Feb. 5th.
My Comments: What does all this mean? I told you that the Detective's testimony provided more questions than answers. By the end of Part 3, maybe we will have more answers.
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
16 Q. WHEN DID YOU GET A CLARIFICATION FROM MS. MILLS
17 ABOUT WHAT HAD HAPPENED?
18 A. I GOT A CLARIFICATION FROM HER ON FEBRUARY 8.
22 Q. WHAT DID SHE CLARIFY AND TELL YOU?
23 A. SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE MADE A MISTAKE WHEN SHE TOLD
24 ME WHAT ITEMS SHE TOOK IN. THE ITEMS THAT SHE SHOWED ME ON THE
25 DAY OF THE 6TH WERE THE PANTS, THE SHIRT AND THE SWEATER. THAT
26 SHE, IN FACT, DID NOT TAKE THOSE ITEMS IN. THEY WERE TAKEN IN
27 BY ANOTHER CO-EMPLOYEE. THE ITEMS SHE TOOK IN WERE ITEMS OF
28 BEDDING AND A SPORT JACKET THAT SHE TOOK EARLY THAT MORNING.
My Comments: Julie Mills was a propaganda feast for the prosecution and their media whores, with her vivid descriptions of DW's attire and behavior on the morning of Feb. 4th. You have to ask why would anyone believe her, much less quote her so frequently, knowing she couldn't even remember what items she received from DW that morning? There were a lot more details that Mills couldn't remember which will be examined in great detail in Part 3.
5179 - 5180
21 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
22 BY MR. BOYCE:
26 Q. AND MS. MILLS, WHEN YOU RETURNED TO THE DRY
27 CLEANERS ON FEBRUARY 8TH, TOLD YOU THAT SHE DIDN'T REMEMBER ANY
28 BEDDING COMING IN, DIDN'T SHE?
1 A. ORIGINALLY, THAT'S CORRECT.
5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. DUSEK:
7 Q. WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU LATER?
8 A. SHE CORRECTED IT. SHE REMEMBERED THE BEDDING
9 COMING IN.
My Comments: Third time is the charm for Ms. Mills. Finally, on Det. Torgersen's second visit on Feb. 8th and third visit overall, she is able to remember a story the cops can use that will help them kill David Westerfield. The tragic farce that is Julie Mills testimony will be reviewed in Part 3.
"What else could it be? But we didn't have proof"
The common thing I see in your statements, is exactly what has been discussed before. It is what DUSEK designed his entire prosecution case around. And that was this:
First, get everyone to accept the fact that HE DID IT, then proof is no longer an obstacle.
Surely you agree that those who commit crimes ought to be held responsible and suffer consequences as a result.
No one could argue with that particular statement. However you make the assumption that he did commit the crime. If he did, no problem. What if he didn't do it? What if the real killer is still free?
DW was convicted in a court of law. We all know that. My concern is that the law was used to promote a politician, the law was used to attack a person that may not be guilty of the crime, the law was used to cover up for a society that no longer wants the responsibility for any of it's own actions, but wants to blame someone else.
You know, you can get the public to 'feel' for you when you are robbed or raped while Christmas shopping at Dillard's, but when you leave your children locked in the car behind a strip club in the downtown ghetto area, you need to accept some responsibility for it if they get raped or killed. To lie to police about where/when you were and if you were doing drugs shows avoidance of responsibility. This is what many of us complained of about the Van Dam's. It is what led many of us to believe that the VD's and the Police were using DW as a fast/easy scapegoat. One sides concerns supplied fuel for the other. The police were anxious to have a culprit to show to the MEDIA, and if Brenda was willing to point the blame at DW, then they were happy also. Since the VD's were willing to lie/coverup to hide their guilt, they were willing to go along with whatever the police/DA wanted to do.
JO MORELAND
Staff Writer
POWAY ---- A Poway man is among parents accused of sexually molesting their own children and children in their care as part of a global Internet child pornography ring, U.S. Customs Service officials said Friday.
Brooke Rowland, 40, was arrested Feb. 15 on charges of aggravated sexual assault on a child, lewd acts on a child and possession, manufacture, production and distribution of child pornography, said Deputy District Attorney Jeffrey Dort.
He said bond is set at $2 million each at county jail for Rowland and Paul Whitmore, 43, of San Diego, another area defendant among 10 Americans and 10 Europeans indicted in Operation Hamlet.
"It was a situation of incest," Dort said about the cases in San Diego County. "There was a total of 12 children, mostly girls."
Officials said the international investigation has rescued 45 children worldwide while taking down the ring of alleged pedophiles that one man called "the club."
Authorities said 37 of the youngsters were in the United States. Their ages range from 2 to about 14, said Customs Commissioner Robert C. Bonner. Dort said the 12 children in San Diego County were 7 to 10 years old.
"Some of (the pornography) was done for money," the deputy district attorney said. "These gentlemen basically abused family members and they traded that pornography with each other."
Men in the ring sometimes asked for pictures of children in specific sexual poses, according to the federal indictment unsealed Friday in Fresno. It said one asked for an audiotape so he could hear a child crying while being spanked.
"These crimes are beyond the pale," Bonner said. "They are despicable and repugnant."
Dort said most of the children in the San Diego County cases are back with their parents, with the exception of the defendants' children. Some are still in state care, he said, but all of the youngsters are in counseling.
"We're trying to work with them so they can go on and lead normal lives," said the prosecutor. "There is hope for the children. Unfortunately their pictures will be plastered all over the Internet for years to come."
Rowland, an advertising salesman for a neon sign company, was separated from his wife at the time of his arrest, Dort said. He said Rowland had partial custody of his children.
Whitmore was taken into custody by Customs agents and members of the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force in San Diego County on Jan. 27 on 27 counts of child molestation and pornography.
Dort said Whitmore, a Grantville resident, is a licensed marriage and family counselor. He is married with children, the prosecutor said. He said investigators haven't found evidence that children among the counseling clients were involved.
If convicted of all state and federal charges, Dort said, the two men could each be sentenced to 200 years to life in prison.
"They would be serving 85 percent of their time," the deputy district attorney said.
The investigation is continuing. Officials said there may be more arrests in the United States.
"We must remember that every instance of child pornography on the Internet represents a case of child abuse," said San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst.
The case broke last year when Save the Children, an Internet watchdog group, discovered Internet photos depicting a man sexually abusing a young girl.
Dort said that picture was linked to suspect Bente Jensen in Denmark and his wife, Eggert, the only female defendant.
"He and his wife were arrested for abusing their daughter," said Dort.
In November the Danish National Police asked the U.S. Customs CyberSmuggling Center for help in what became a joint investigation that included INTERPOL, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
Once the Jensens' computer was analyzed, Dort said, thousands of child pornography pictures were found that led to the 10 U.S. defendants in California, Idaho, Nevada, Florida, New York, Washington, New Jersey, Michigan, South Carolina and Texas.
An 11th American, Sean Bradley of Reno, Nev., committed suicide before formal charges were filed, said Customs Special Agent Mike Netherland.
The European suspects were arrested in Denmark, Belgium, Germany, England, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Contact staff writer Jo Moreland at (760) 901-4085 or
jmoreland@nctimes.com.
8/10/02
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.