Anatomy Of A Murder: Westerfield vs. Van Dams (A Mother's Story)

San Diego Online ^ | June 27, 2002 | Kevin Cox

[juzcuz]

To stretch and answer that -WHY??
I probably would have to try to find my aluminum foil.
Which may or may be needed for this situation. The typical scene with these people appears to be really odd/abnormal=dark.

Nevertheless, Damon is far from credible in his statements of time and events that night. He seems to have vaguely covered over and purposely left out many details that has left alot of people in their darkness.

[demsux]

Yeah, sb, I was thinking the same thing.

Could she have fallen into the hot tub (lost some teeth), got knocked out and drowned...

Who knows...

[Freedom2specul8]

Did you catch the child porn expert on ctv? Wow, now that's what I'm talking about..serious stuff.

[Freedom2specul8]

Here is their website
http://www.paulandlisa.org/

The Reality - Child sexual exploitation is a broad term referring to the illegal use of minors (under 18 years of age) for sexual purposes. It is "an extension of child sexual abuse that goes beyond the dynamics of an offender, a victim, and an act." (Lanning, K. Child Sex Rings: A Behavioral Analysis. Washington DC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1989).

The Facts - Child sexual exploitation is not sexy. It is a $5 billion international industry that affects both men and women. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimates that at least one million children are sexually exploited each year. Child sexual exploitation takes on many forms:

[Freedom2specul8]

THE PAUL & LISA PROGRAM, INC. is a non-profit organization established to address the growing crisis of children, youth and young adults at risk for sexual exploitation, including juvenile prostitution and pornography, by providing education, professional training, crisis counseling, street outreach, court based rehabilitation, and the development and distribution of prevention information, in order to dispell the myths and provide alternate lifestyle choices.

[Karson]

Damon is far from credible in his statements of time and events that night. He seems to have vaguely covered over and purposely left out many details that has left alot of people in their darkness.

You got that right!! Damon's testimony just brings up more questions than answers. IMO

[cyncooper]

LE was standing all around, watching, as dogs searched. Told LE dogs did not make any hits. Police report states dogs did not make any hits. The first time he told anyone Cielo made an alert on the motorhome was WEEKS later. (Says his lieutenant was watching and she had to have observed the "alert," thus he did not feel it necessary to notify LE himself. Again, LE told dogs did NOT hit on anything, which was what they put in official report.)

See the article Kim posted at #23 which contains the following:

In court documents filed several months ago, prosecutors attached a police report stating that on Feb. 6 a police detective at the impound lot told other officers that "search dogs had alerted on a storage area located on the exterior of the motor home near the main entrance on the passenger side."

I would think the prosecution will be giving that report to the jury. The witness yesterday wouldn't have been able to testify to a report he had no hand in writing, I would think. The defense speaks Clintonese, as defense attorneys are wont to do.

[spectre]

Kim, you are really obscessed with this child porn stuff. No one on the fence is giving a thumbs-up to it, are they? We all agree it's bad, very bad, ugly..awful..OK?

Interesting the Prosecution has not given it's theory how DW is supposed to have entered the house, kidnapped Danielle and disposed of the body? Didn't they "promise" in opening statements they would do just that?

If all we can do is focus on the possibility that DW became sexually aroused by the porno and put on his invisible cloak to do the dastardly deed, then we are in a rut here. Is the Prosecution going to "deliver" on its promise?

Court TV interviewed a shrink who said if DW had viewed the porno, he would have satisfied his urges (paraphrasing here) and would not have gone after Danielle...Was she saying that Porno has it's up side? We'll never know, she was cut off.

sw

[John Jamieson]

That would be a "claim" by the prosecution. Not testimony in court. Lawyers don't offer evidence. You think Feldman might disagree?

[John Jamieson]

I think it would, if Westerfield was talking to the cops at the time (and date, obviously) of the murder.

[John Jamieson]

He knows he's winning in court and losing in the press.

[RnMomof7]

If the jury is watching on court TV ....they need off the jury there is no fair trial..If I were the defense I would poll the jury on tv watching..a fear of perjury might keep them honest

[RnMomof7]

I thing Kim has tried DW in her head and found him guilty..so she is happy if the jury is tainted in her direction..sorry kim that is the way it looks

[sbnsd]

That would be a "claim" by the prosecution. Not testimony in court. Lawyers don't offer evidence. You think Feldman might disagree?

Here's what Dusek said in his opening statement:

THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WILL INDICATE THAT SOMEBODY SNEAKED INTO THE VAN DAM HOME THAT LATE EVENING FEBRUARY 1ST GOING INTO FEBRUARY 2ND;
THAT SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO GET UPSTAIRS TO DANIELLE'S ROOM;
THAT SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO GET HER OUT OF THE HOUSE.
WE WILL SHOW YOU HOW THAT HAPPENED.
THAT SOMEBODY KILLED HER, MURDERED HER. WE WILL SHOW YOU WHO THAT IS. AND THAT SOMEBODY DUMPED HER BODY LIKE TRASH ALONGSIDE THE ROAD DOWN IN DEHESA

I haven't seen any *SHOWING* of any of this. I know opening statements aren't facts, but it's an introductory outline of what he's going to be doing. I don't think he showed any of these. He showed stuff AFTER the abduction, but what he claimed he was going to show didn't happen.

My order of questions for his statements are:
How did DW sneak in?
How did he get upstairs?
How did he get her out of the house?
How did that happen?
How did they kill/murder her?
How did he dump her body?

I don't think I really saw any answers to any what he claimed to do.

[RnMomof7]

I wondered how he eliminated this possibility of no water in the lungs considering he had said the body was mummified and there was no blood left. If there was no blood left, wouldn't any water have evaporated along with the decomposition as well? If the water evaporated or whatever the term is, just like the blood was gone, of course there's no water to in the lungs. There weren't any liquids in the girl.

great observation

[spectre]

The presumption that the Jury is watching any TV involving this case, was there. RnMom, you are correct, CTV is totally pro prosecution...Beth Karass, the on the spot Court Reporter is so biased, her name would appear next to the word in the dictionary.

JJ..The prosecution is desperately trying to deflect the Defense calling the Nations top Forensic Entomologist, Faulkner, to the stand...(CTV Reporter Beth, calls him the "guy who specializes in bugs")..LOL. BTW, Faulkner WAS on the Prosecutions list, but they didn't call him...hummmm? The date the child's body was deposited in the desert is the Number one, most important piece of evidence, since DW was under 24/7 watch by the LE Feb. 16th.

sw

[spectre]

Duhh...:~)

sw

[spectre]

#134..BUMP!

sw

[Rheo]

Faulkner, the bug guy, wasn't he at the autopsy?

Why would the prosecution not call him?..surely he has information regarding the bugs that deflect Feldman and/or help the prosecution?....or not.