From news article: "When Westerfield returned to his Sabre Springs home two days later, police were waiting. In a search of his black Toyota 4Runner, police found the dry cleaner receipt, which had no business name. Police spent a day canvassing dry cleaners in the area, until a detective realized that the receipt was from the same business where he takes his dry cleaning, according to a search warrant affidavit."
Rheo: According to the unsealed affidavits they are talking about...he did give them the dry cleaners name and that he went there that morning.
NatureGirl: In one affidavit, San Diego police Detective Terry Torgersen said Westerfield told detectives he submitted items for cleaning at Twin Peaks Cleaners the morning of Feb. 4. If Westerfield told Torgersen which dry cleaners they used, why did they search others first? Quite obviously from this Detective's statement, they knew which dry cleaners to look at.
located by small l libertarian: 
small l libertarian: That is the one from the black clothes drop-off. Guess they didn't need Ott's brilliant detective work after all.
...how much sense does it make for a business (any business) to issue a receipt to their customer that has no identification on it whatsoever, yet their in-store copy is covered with their name, the items, prices, etc.
That just doesn't make any sense. Besides, Torgersen said on cross that he had "some information that Twin Peaks might be the place."
I just went back and looked at it again. It has the cleaner's name, address, phone number, date, time, customer name, description of items, pick up day (TUE), the number at the top that the drycleaning clerks said didn't mean anything, prices, and a total. But Torgerson testified that the receipt he (Torgersen) had to work with didn't have any identifiers on it at all and ... BINGO!!!! Oh, my goodness, you guys just witnessed an epiphany (see definition earlier). HIS RECEIPT DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDENTIFYING INFO ON IT, BUT OTT TOLD HIM WHERE TO GO!!!!!!!!!! OTT, OTT, OTT!!!!
small l libertarian: Aha! This puts Ott in the drycleaners one to two days before Torgersen: (Also from Jennifer Mills cross at trial)
Q: DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION FROM DETECTIVE OTT CONCERNING ANY ASPECT OF YOUR RECEIPT OF THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE? A: NO, I DID NOT. HE WAS A CUSTOMER OF MINE. AND WE JUST TALKED THAT KIND OF COMMUNICATION, JUST AS A CUSTOMER AND MYSELF. NOT CONCERNING THIS.
Q: OKAY. SO YOU NEVER DISCUSSED WITH DETECTIVE --
A: NO.
Q: -- OTT WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH DAVID WESTERFIELD OR THE VAN DAM CASE.
A: I DON'T BELIEVE I DID.
Q: THEN WHO WAS THE FIRST OFFICER THAT CAME TO VISIT YOU, IF YOU RECALL, MA'AM?
A: I DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME.
Q: BUT YOU REMEMBER THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A DAY OR TWO LATER, IS THAT RIGHT?
A: YES.
RE: More on Ott:
small l libertarian: (Cross of Annette Peer) 22 Q BUT YOU REMEMBER A DAY WHERE YOU WERE
23 INSIDE THE MOTORHOME AND AT THE SAME TIME
24 MISTERS OTT AND KEYSER WERE THERE, TOO; CORRECT?
25 A YES.
*** Ott was in the motorhome. ***
sawsalimb: And Ott is the detective who found what was introduced as the blood spot in the mobile home?
small l libertarian: Seems that Detective Ott (who has been previously reprimanded for falsifying facts in order to obtain a search warrant) turns up in every single place evidence was found. I have yet to find him in the VD house with access to Danielle's blood, fingerprints(?) and hair, but I'm trying to place him there. It's also important that he be in each location before the rest of the cops, which was true for the drycleaner - I'm trying to prove it for the motorhome. He was also on the team that was among the first to arrive at the body recovery site (per Detective Collins in the preliminary hearing).
small l libertarian: The Stealth Ninja Dave site puts the trip out to the desert with the detectives on Feb 5th. I think Ott was in the motorhome before the bloodstain was found. [Annette Peer found bloodstain on carpet Feb. 6th.]
RE: child porn
UCANSEE2: (regarding pics of Danielle L. used by prosecution as evidence of "child pornography") Turns out the picture was taken by her mother. Her mother sent the DIGITAL IMAGE via EMAIL to DW to see if he could use some software to CROP the image and get a better print, because she had shot the image off center. I.E. The girl's head was at the top and the 'lap' area was at the center of the image. DW didn't even take the picture. NOTICE that PROSECUTION didn't mention that part.
RE: Watkins and Youngflesh going into DAW's house and searching for files and copying hard disks prior to getting a search warrant, and the circular logic involved)
NatureGirl: The only problem with all this is that the Det. who got the Search Warrant, used all this information to get the search warrant. If you read that affidavit, Alldredge states that Watkins and Youngflesh were in DW's house. He mentions the "in plain sight" rule, and said that he believed that the search warrant issued over the phone gave them the right to look at the CDs and zips that they had supposedly just found. He states that they now need to go in and gather up all the computer info. that they can find.
BUT as you can see from above, when Watkins was in the house, he and Youngflesh were already imaging the hard drives of DW's computer, and (IMO) states that they looked at the CDs/zips "while they were waiting" - for that imaging process to be complete??
...they were in DW's house, Youngflesh found the CDs, and they decided to look at them because of the way they were labelled [X and XO indicating porn, Watkins said]. Alldredge says this happened sometime prior to 1 am, 2/5 (the time the warrant was issued, per his affidavit), Watkins testified that he wasn't in the house until "after midnight", meaning the 5th. My best guess is that Watkins lied on the stand about the timeline - that he, Youngflesh and Alldredge were in the house on the evening of the 4th, copying DW's hard drives, and looking at the CDs. Note that he (Watkins) had to be corrected by the Prosecution as to the actual day he was in the house, doing the imaging. He starts off by saying it was the 4th, and then corrects it to the 5th. Why? Wasn't it legal for them to be copying the contents of some guy's computer without a proper warrant?
Rheo: Feb 5th warrant 27802 to search Westerfield's computer, computer files and disks for images of nudity and/or sexual activities involving juveniles and/or with adults. The portion sealed on this warrant is Attachment "1"...last full paragrph on page 3 starting w/Van Dam stated and ending w/Westerfield.
What did the Van Dam's know about Westerfield's computer and how??...Brenda didn't even know his name a week prior??(ya right)
RE: blood and DNA evidence
domestice: I have heard that DNA can be gotten from teeth...maybe this is why there are missing teeth.
Rheo: 3 spots of blood on upper stairs..supposedly from dog...how did dog not get blood elsewhere?
Blood on cuff of pj's....non reportable results...is this cuz the blood was swabbed off to place elsewhere??
Blood on the VD garage door..non reportable.
The lead detective and the CHILD ABUSE expert are not even informed of this stuff while walking thru the house to determine if the child may have been harmed at the hands of the parents.
What the heck!!
John Jamieson: Ott doesn't even need to be in the motor home, althought it was described as having a revolving door after it was in LE custody. All he needed was access to the evidence room before the DNA tests were done. cle
arvision: I think the blood spots were destroyed in the process of analysis (and only polaroid's to show what they were). If they tested fiber they did not present it.
Jaded: That was interesting because they were certainly big enough. Remember when they were spouting about how small the spot could be and they could still extract dna? They did destroy all of the sample.
RE: Danielle's room
NatureGirl: Someone said the beanbag was up on the bed. I would have put the beanbag on the bed, IF I HAD VACUUMED THE FLOOR! Did Damon get the urge to clean Danielle's carpet while she was sleeping?