In taped interrogation, Westerfield tells police 'my life is over'

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | January 7, 2003

[Freedom2specul8]

Are you saying you didn't know that he was using it for sexual purposes?

[Freedom2specul8]

Very True.. :(

[Valpal1]

The light dawns, UCANSEEAFTERALL. Have you figured out that he is a sexual deviant yet?

[UCANSEE2]

see 418. I misunderstood your qoute about the light.

[Freedom2specul8]

NEW LINK FOR THE NEW DOCUMENTS.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20030109-9999-docs_index.html

[UCANSEE2]

I haven't read that document yet. All I saw was your qoute and got "black light" then "didn't know they were being taped" as a mental picture. That is why I made that comment.

[Freedom2specul8]

Yeah, I figured that out..kind of funny ...

[UCANSEE2]

He seems to have some perversion based on insertion of objects. Sexually deviant, I would say yes, based on two instances that we seem to know of, so far. One self-admitted or ex-girlfriend statement, the other on tape. What document was this in. Well, it doesn't really matter, I trust you both on this.

[Valpal1]

It's okay, you naive and nice person. Just shows you've been staying out of the gutter.

It was excluded for being prejudicial. An excellent judgement call.

[Freedom2specul8]

It was here
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/documents/SCN_20030109150457_001.pdf


and don't forget his fingers in his niece's mouth.

[UCANSEE2]

Well, I just read it. Wonder who the woman was? Seems like she is a sexual deviant also. No one mentioned that.

Also more proof of proclivity for voyuerism. Supportive but not unconditional proof of murder.

[Freedom2specul8]

ha...does that mean we've been in the gutter? :)

[Valpal1]

It is in a motion to exclude as prejudicial. Kim posted the link a bit earler.

Then there's the tooth rubbing of his neice, and Danielle's missing teeth.

And the shocking scope and content of his "collecting for congress".

[Freedom2specul8]

All adds up to serious character issues.

[Valpal1]

If you want to describe the research we've done and the slogging it out on these threads for the past 11 months as a gutter, yes.

My family can hardly wait for this to be really, really over.

[Freedom2specul8]

I can relate! I've had to "hide" it from family until last night. (just kidding of course)

I really do try to avoid dealing with it when they're around..but last night and tonight was an exception cuz I listened to the tapes on RR's show.

[Freedom2specul8]

I'm outta here for now...cya tomorrow..

[CW_Conservative]

Am I getting this information mixed up. I haven't read the document. Kim's remark was about using a black flashlight, I thought she meant using some kind of UV light to be able to videotape in the dark. Are you saying he used the flashlight for sexual purposes?

The prosecution was trying to show that Dave had "spied" on Danielle and learned how to get in the house without detection.

Supposedly, they have a 8mm tape of DW "attempting" to insert a "black flashlight" in somewhere. Whether or not he was successful is not stated.

But they somehow conclude that the women knew nothing about being videotaped or DW's use of a flashlight.

Since DW was secretly taping this woman, as well as taping another woman "apparently" drying off after a shower, the prosecution says he could have secretly taped Danielle.

No tape of Danielle, no tape of children, only tapes of ADULT WOMEN, no tapes of the Van Dams backyard, frontyard or home.

Oh, I almost forgot, the pros. wanted to include a baseball bat as evidence, as well. Get it, "black flashlight", "baseball bat". But that evil judge wouldn't allow it, depriving the witchy-poos of a great visual to cackle over.

This is nonsense for consumption of the soap opera, jerry springer set, who feed on this crap for twisted reasons of their own.

[Freedom2specul8]

Good set of links... http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/issues/capital/drphotos/index.htm

[Freedom2specul8]

If you're insinuating that the info gets freepers off you are frickin crazy.