Westerfield Trial Close To Finishing

SAN DIEGO -- A lawyer for accused child killer David Westerfield ended his closing argument Wednesday by telling jurors it was "impossible" for his client to have dumped the body of Danielle van Dam beside an East County road.

WESTERFIELD TRIAL Judge William Mudd Issues Death Penalty Sentence Hear Jury's Death Penalty Recommendation Watch The Jury's Verdict Being Read Share Your Thoughts DANIELLE VAN DAM 1994-2002 Watch Danielle Video Montage E-mail: daniellevandam @yahoo.com Send mail to: P.O. Box 501515 San Diego, 92150

A major point of contention by the defense throughout the trial was that Westerfield was under tight surveillance by police and the media beginning Feb. 5, three days after the Sabre Springs second-grader was discovered missing.

Repeatedly saying it was "impossible" for the defendant to have dumped the body, lead defense attorney Steven Feldman told jurors that every expert who testified said the corpse could not have been placed beside the road until well after that date.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt, Danielle van Dam was not deposited in Dehesa before Feb. 9, and that's from Dr. (M. Lee) Goff ... their expert," Feldman said.

Video

Each Attorney Very Persuasive Insight From Attorney Milt Silverman 'A Stupid Thing For Feldman To Do'

He said two pathologists who worked on the case gave a range of dates which fell within dates provided by forensic entomologists, who study when insects infest bodies. A "concordance" of experts in different professions is how Feldman described it.

Brenda van Dam discovered her daughter missing from her bed the morning of Feb. 2. Police immediately focused on Westerfield, and the design engineer was arrested Feb. 22, just five days before volunteer searchers found the child's body.

As Feldman wrapped up his argument, he listed what he said were five points of doubt about the case, beginning with motive.

"Spare me the speculation on pornography," Feldman said.

The second was access -- Westerfield's ability to get through the darkened van Dam house the night of Feb. 1. Feldman pointed out that three unidentified fingerprints were found in the house, along with an unidentified hair under Danielle's body when it was discovered.

He also cited Westerfield's behavior, a lack of information about when physical evidence was placed, where it was found and time of death.

"I hardly know where to start," Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek (pictured, right) said when his turn for a rebuttal argument arrived.

He accused Feldman of "falsehoods, misrepresentations and distortions throughout the entire (defense) closing argument."

The experts did not agree as closely as Feldman said, Dusek argued to the jury. The prosecutor said Goff actually testified that the child's body could have been exposed to the elements as early as Feb. 2.

Most of the day, however, involved a defense effort to poke holes in the evidence introduced by prosecutors -- or at least suggest what Feldman called "reasonable interpretations."

In a case built on circumstantial evidence, the law calls for jurors to accept the one which favors the defendant, according to Feldman.

Feldman started by telling jurors that the prosecution's version of Danielle's kidnapping and murder was not logical.

"It's not reasonable," Feldman (pictured, left) said of the prosecution theory that Westerfield entered the house through a garage side door and hid in the 7-year-old's room before carrying her away. "It's a great guess."

The theory required the defendant to enter the house without leaving fingerprints and negotiate an unfamiliar residence in "pitch black" darkness, Feldman said.

Then, he said, Westerfield would have to find the stairs, locate Danielle's room and stay there while her mother, Brenda, returned from a night out with four girlfriends.

He also noted that the door from the garage to the house had been rigged to lock from the opposite side.

"The only thing that's logical is (that) whoever was in the room was someone (Danielle) knew," Feldman told the jury. "You send someone strange into the room to touch your child, and they're going to scream bloody murder. 'Mommy! Daddy! Help me!'"

Westerfield (pictured, right) would then have to carry the girl out of the house and down the street to his own home, Feldman said.

"Their theory requires you to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that's what happened," Feldman said.

Westerfield, 50, could face the death penalty if convicted of murder. He's also charged with kidnapping and misdemeanor possession of child pornography.

Feldman brought up what could be a critical part of the law during his closing argument.

Instructions read to the jurors Tuesday stated that the murder had to take place during a kidnapping for the defendant to be found guilty. But the law also defined kidnapping as the victim being moved a significant distance while still alive.

"If she was killed before they left that room, he's not guilty," Feldman told the jurors. "If she's dead in bed, there's an acquittal."

However, the prosecution said Tuesday Danielle was still alive when she was in the bed of Westerfield's motor home -- and may have been killed there.

About the police discovery of laundry in Westerfield's house, Feldman said, "This ain't sinister folks. It's doing laundry when you get back from a trip. That's all it is. Isn't doing your laundry consistent with innocent activity?"

As to an alert from a police dog in a motor home storage compartment -- which would indicate that Danielle's body had been inside -- Feldman said there was no trace evidence of the girl having been inside.

Feldman suggested the prosecution had to place Danielle in the storage compartment in order to say the introduction of insects to her body was delayed.

"They had to come up with something, so they went fishing," Feldman charged, and used the dog to back up the story.

Once the prosecution's rebuttal argument is complete, Superior Court Judge William Mudd will give more instructions to jurors, then turn the case over to them.