If it weren't for the pictures they air on the shows, they probably wouldn't be catching many "bad guys" anyway. The thing is, he gets a huge amount of his facts wrong. On the Danielle case, he claimed Westerfield had just moved into the neighborhood a month or so earlier--among many other completely bogus statements. I'm told it's the same with many other cases he airs. Sloppy work like that when they're (essentially) calling for citizens to hunt down people is completely unacceptable. They're supposed to be professionals, not a bunch of kids taping Wayne's World.
On the Danielle case, he claimed Westerfield had just moved into the neighborhood a month or so earlier--among many other completely bogus statements. I know those words were written about John Walsh, but they seem to describe many of the popular pundits. Last night I was listening to some of the Van Dam pundits on O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.; and I can't believe how much they have wrong.
I really don't know if David Westerfield is guilty, or not, at this point; but I do know that there is no "overwhelming" DNA and forensic evidence linking him to the case. The so-called experts that are hired by the TV shows mischaracterize testimony and even misidentify witnesses as to whether they testified for the prosecution or the defense. No one calls them on it.