Posted on 07/24/2002 10:44:59 PM PDT by FresnoDA
So do you believe Neal Westerfield? Do you think DW is behind the child rape porno collecting?
That is what I heard in today's testimony, which refutes one of the contentions often floated by the "DAW is Innocent" faction.
A few have suggested that the chance is small, for all of the damning evidence against DAW to have been "coincidence." In other words, that it has a low probability.
I predict a hung jury. I cannot predict a vote count. I expect some jurors will see it as you do.
I believe the folks on this thread who maintain that DAW is innocent are not representative, of an average jury, hearing all of the evidence as presented in court. The evidence as presented in court is much different than the totality of discussion on this thread.
The DAW is Innocent faction make many excellent points, on some items of evidence; on others they are weak.
I give you credit for hanging in there, absorbing the ridicule. Many intelligent posters have left, after a day or two, because of the juvenile tone and ridicule.
I'm waiting for the balance of the trial, including how both sides conclude.
Not being an attorney, I don't see that either side wins, based on attorney performance. Maybe that will change.
At the end, I might conclude for "reasonable doubt"; I don't know yet. If the criteria was "preponderance of evidence," I feel it meets that test, at this point. (I know the former is the standard, so I don't need correcting).
Why would Feldman bring on a computer expert to testify when that testimony can be so easily refuted by Neal?
There´s been no attempt AFAIK for Feldman to explain the DNA evidence or for Dusek to explain the method of abduction. No Barb, which most likely means she would be a disaster for either side.
I haven't read all the testimony, but I guess the CD's and ZIP disks had no writing on them, or couldn't be compared in the way they were stored or archived to other CD's or disks.
The child porn revelations blows any sympathy I have for DAW out the patooty. I don't find the Van Dam's particularly forthright. I'm not saying sympathy matters, I mention it because I don't think any party in this case has exhibited a consistent pattern of behavior that I could consider trustworthy.
I would say if Dusek can explain the 'bug' evidence, DAW is found guilty, otherwise a hung jury, as you suggest, and a 'do over' when more evidence is available.
And ?, what ever happened to the drunkeness issue that was to be a major part of the defense?
longjack
He didn't have child porn tapes.
Some porno CD's were found on DW's bookshelf, one of them had, among 600 meg of porn, the rape scene.
It should be pointed out that Neal has no way of knowing if the CDs he saw are the ones LE "found."
Again, even on the CD, the vast majority was not CP. And it is still not clear that the scene was CP. I haven't seen it, have you? Are we going to just take Nancy Grace's ever-changing word on it?
Again, with a CD full of porn, and only one "questionable" avi, you have to wonder if DW knew it was among the stuff. Neal didn't see it.
I think Feldman wants to throw the case, but come as close to winning as possible. After winning on appeal, in a lawsuit, he will present the orange fiber evidence, the bug evidence, and possibly more evidence (short blue-grey fibers from LE vehicles) to show that LE had good reason to believe that most of the evidence against DW was bogus, but presented it anyway. Means much more to to have beeen found guilty in a railroad than to have been aquitted.
The River chick's testimony is a joke. The fact that the woman's back was hurting is an indicator that she had NOT taken her pain meds. "More" could have been a misunderstanding or "my" or she could have meant more like more since yesterday, when I last took it. Cherokee's Mom's testimony agrees with others and was backed up by credit card records from the resaurant where she ate. Discrediting her doesn't mean much, anyway, other witnesses testified to what she said, she was just more colorful.
I hope Judge Mudd is impeached for the casual way he lets the vaguest, most prejudicial evidence in for the prosecution but refuses to allow defense to examine the crime scene, etc...
I know I may have covered old ground with this post, but I just couldn't make it through the last thread. Out of 1500+ posts, maybe 50 factual posts, the rest banter an flame. Ladies, I used to be so grateful for the blow-by-blow, as I miss most of the testimony at work. Last night I spent most of the evening skimming other people's arguments. I haven't been invited to the chat room, so I don't know if all of the content has moved over there or what.
Kim, I know you have gotten some negative posts directed at you, and they started that thread without pinging you, but I have to say that you are childish to run and tattle, especially since you have done worse in the past yourself. Bottom line, you only object to certain behavior when it is from people who disagree with you.
Anyone: Where do the transcripts get posted? Does anyone know where I can actually get the info from the trial fairly quickly? I would rather just leave the DW persecuters alone on the thread and have time to make a decent supper.
As a conservative Christian I do not think Mr Westerfield is a very good example of what an American ought to be, but the Van Dams are obviously much worse. One doesn't expect much in Southern California.
I would not argue that Mr Westerfield is necessarily innocent of anything at ALL, but the idea he could have brutally murdered this girl, mutilated her savagely, smashing out her teeth, etc just does not wash. This was done by someone who hated the girl, was taking out anger on her...not merely by someone who had one too many drinks and went for someone underage. This man had lived there 5 years, and in total 50 years, with no previous record.
Let's face it once and for all, no one entered the Van Dam home and took anybody or anything that night. There is not one wisp, not one scrap, of evidence of that.
When Danielle last left her home, she was walking out on her own to play out front or just down at the local mini-park as she normally did. It was common knowledge that the VD's did not closely watch their kids. An Avila-type perp is a very plausible assumption, much more so than DW.
All of the above, if the Damon did not himself accidentally or in a rage, kill or at least witness the death of, his daughter. If anyone carried her out dead it was he, let me tell you.
If there were one-fourth as much reasonable doubt as there is, an acquittal would be mandatory in any state in USA. This judge has been very prejudicial and would allow any fool thing to be alleged by prosecution, while denying the defense a chance to really build any case at all. Yet the bugs alone would require an acquittal, NOT because they absolutely prove DW innocence, but because they introduce too large an element of doubt for him to be found guilty!
We are looking at around 50% chance of a stranger perp grabbing Danielle as she played locally; around 40% chance that Daddy was molesting Danielle and the crime is related to that; around 20% chance that DW did commit a crime.
BUT: DW never entered the VD home to get Danielle. If he took her it was from a public area, just as any stranger perp would have had to, ...or she voluntarily went with him, stowing away in the MH etc. as not considering him a total stranger or perhaps wanting to go on a ride or trip with him. He might not have even known she was aboard.
Even that would not explain how she was brutalized, or how/who dumped the body on Dehesa Road.
Acquit, and then research this crime as should have been done in the first place, is my word to the SD police. And no more framing of patsies, please.
Far, far too high on any crime at all relevant to this case. Westerfield's biggest mistake was having anything ever at all to do with the Van Dams. He should have never opened the door for them with the GS cookie sales, he should have never gone to Dad's Cafe once he knew they hung out there. He should have even considered moving out of the neighborhood they live in.
But as to his having anything to do with a crime on the facts so far presented, he is no more likely than any other neighbor in a six block radius, at least.
Add to that the fact that DW did not take the witness stand. If he is innocent this was a BIG BIG mistake.
Regarding the "hidden/not hidden child porn/not child porn CDs. I was only hinting at a problem because one of the signs of a drug/alcohol addiction is that the addict will sometimes hide thier "fix" out of fear or shame.
My husband reads playboy and although I disapprove - I don't think he's a murderer.........
uh oh.......
BRB, I gotta go search my house for beer that is hidden somewhere other than in my fridge.....
From Day One, the Van Dams have been lying, their stories are all over the place. They say Danielle went out the door at night in her pajamas: is this likely? They would not release the "chip" from their security system; they claimed it indicated insecurity or even entry, then they saw doors ajar, is any of that likely?
Far more likely she was already gone Friday afternoon, or left her home to play outside only Saturday morning at 8 or so.
All this crap about the dog bleeding, about the dog eating its bed, about the dog not letting Damon sleep; about Damon's going to bed at 10 with the kids asleep, but...was he out playing PAINTBALL, and if so with whom, and when did he return; or was he just out having sex somewhere and didn't get back till 5 or 6 am; why all of this?
Was Brenda plotting to run away with Danielle and leave Damon, and the latter found out about it and took it out on Danielle?
All of this seems to need to be looked at in deciding on the inside-job hypothesis.
Much more work also needs to be done as to whether any stranger vehicle was seen lurking about Sabre Springs that Thur-Fri-Sat; or even earlier or later, was Avila or his ilk, or any unexplained stranger at all, cruising the neighborhood?
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.