Fox talk show host calls for disbarment of Westerfield lawyers('Cause He was Really Guilty)

Court TV ^ | Harriet Ryan

[John Jamieson]

You're happy with the story you have, so be drop it and let some of the rest of us investigate a little more. We're not convinced that the story is that simple.

Why harp on us for being bad people, or stupid. You're entitled to your opinion, we heard it, but that's all it is. We have one too.

[Ditter]

DW, at any time, could have blown the whistle on these mysterious others. He did what was in his own self intrest, he sat there & said nothing, hoping for a not guilty verdict. Doesn't that tell you he did it alone?

[Ditter]

In your post #358 you did ask me to convince you.

[John Jamieson]

No, if anything it wopuld mean he was "involved", his only hope now is through the appeals process, he can't cut that off at the knees.

Don't be so sure of things that you can't be sure of. I have the same information you have, and probably equal intelligence. Think "out of the box" a little.

I still visit Deilly Plaza every few years.

[John Jamieson]

You said you couldn't and you're right. You don't have any information, I don't have.

[Valpal1]

>>>>> but he didn't
"feel" guilty of those three things. <<<<

JJ, LOL at your interpretation.

Det. Redden and FBI criminal profilers will tell you those are the weasel words of guilt conflicting with fear of punishment. He didn't make confindent and strong denials, because he didn't "feel" innocent!

These types of sexual killers working in tandem or cooperatively with one another is extremeley RARE. DW did this crime as the culmination of years of peeping, skulking, and fantasizing. He finally acted out his desires and you can bet he didn't invite any helpers who might interfere with his violence/control fantasies by wanting to do differently according to their fantasies (this is why they seldom seek partners in these crimes). He is the perfect example of escalating depravity.

The porno ring you so want to tie him to manifestly did not kill any of their victims. The methods and reasons for their crimes are very different and I have no doubt that these guys were questioned (and property) searched looking for that link. The FBI and SDPD would have been thrilled and delighted by such a link, because they could charge these creeps with felony murder on top of the porno charges. Also being able to tie a porn ring into a grisly kidnap murder would act to open the spigots of funding (think congressional grandstanding)for the FBI task force on crimes against children. And don't think Ashcroft would ignore this opportunity to blacken SCOTUS' eye with it, as he was extremely put out with their gutting of the federal child porn statute.

Assuming that because there has been no media accounts of cross-investigation, that there has been no cross-investigation is specious logic.

You are still absolutely dead wrong on every aspect of this case. But keep flailing about, you might come up with some niggardly detail you can claim you were right about.

[John Jamieson]

And, your positive that no one else is involved because ...... what?

They never killed anyone before .... Your sure? No unsolved cases in SD?

Why did they kill this time? Maybe that had a spare girl around and knew they were going to jail on 2/15, so they dumped her on 2/14. Don't the dates bother you just a little?

[Valpal1]

Because - the FBI bowed out of the investigation early! I think after SDPD tagged DW and the FBI took a look at the case, they said, you've got the perp, we have other things to do.

The porno ring investigation was of long standing, had been going on for some months or even longer. I have no doubt that the FBI looked for links to them immediately because they had prior knowledge of them. However one was arrested immediately prior (1-2 days) prior to Danielle's kidnapping. So the other one, know the net is tightening, what? Goes on a kidnap jaunt with DW. Don't think so.

Look at the difference of FBI involvement/warnings in the Runnion case. They went into overdrive on that one because profilers thought he would reoffend almost immediately, base on profiling from crime scene photos.

Got any bets on how long before the first book/movie is out.

[CW_Conservative]

There are a lot of indications that DW is suffering from moral and legal fine line issues.

There is a rumor that DW failed part of a lie detector test where he was asked something like "do you know what happened to Danielle?" or "Did you have anything to do with the death of Danielle"? If this lie detector rumor isn't complete BS, it sounds like he truthfully answered (No) the logical question, "Did you kill Danielle van Dam" and maybe even, "Did you kidnap Danielle van Dam".

The police seem to be implying the same thing when they say, "We know you had something to do with it".

I believe he failed lie-detector because I read an editorial last March blasting the DA for disclosing this information in an interview.

Watching the trial has convinced me that Westerfield has some kind of nervous condition, he trembles and the police said he sweats profusely. This condition might negatively effect this test. That's why this test isn't admissible. No two people react the same.

Compare this behavior with the zombie like behavior of the Van Dams. I wonder if Brenda was legally under the influence of pot when she passed her lie-detector. (At least, according to her)

As far as the police and their suspicions, there was an "A&E Invesigative Reports" televised after the verdict, which told the story of a couple in the midwest whose daughter was taken from her bed in the middle of the night.

No evidence of an intruder, front door was found open at 3am, father thought nothing of it, closed it and went to bed without checking his daughter.

Investigators interviewed said parents are suspects when no evidence of break-in are found. They could not believe a father would not check on child after finding front door open.

Father passed lie-detector. Father charged and convicted of murder. At least there was some evidence against Westerfield, they had nothing on this guy, except the fact the cops "knew he had something to do with it".

Appeals court overturned and acquitted father due to bias from jurors exposure to autopsy photos that were unable to show cause of death.

This verdict will not survive either, I mean when flies then dogs can't smell what there supposed to smell, maybe it ain't there.

[John Jamieson]

"However one was arrested immediately prior (1-2 days) prior to Danielle's kidnapping. So the other one, know the net is tightening, what? Goes on a kidnap jaunt with DW. Don't think so."

Rowland/Whitmore had very little to lose at that point, didn't they? One last spit in the public's face? An old score to settle?

Of the three, Westerfield was the only one who had everything to lose.

You're a great researcher, help me find out if Whitmore was out on bail (see post 351).

[John Jamieson]

Police had photos of who they were looking for since November from "operation hamlet" (a Danish operation), but no names. Whitmore was arrested on 1/27, after a phone tip on 1/25. I wonder who ratted on him? Talk about motive.

Rowland was arrested on 2/15 at midnight. Whitmore had a hearing that day so he might have ratted on Rowland.

[Cold Heat]

Then why and the world would his lawyers offer a plea bargain with a body location and guilty plea in exchange for life in prison??????

Sorry for the delay Rin, but I went to New Orleans for the weekend!(grin :-)

Anyway, what I was trying to say and explain is that there is no person on either side that is backing this up or adding any clarity to it. Nobody! There was a rumor going back to the time prior to the body being found, but nothing else and there is still nothing. It would not have been in the clients best interest for his lawyers to cop a plea prior to the trial. My guess is that they did not and the procecution made the offer. I am sure that Westerfields atty's said they would consider it as they are legally obligated to do. This is totally normal.

I believe some over zealous cops are responsible for this story and Mr. O is responsible for blowing it up like a thanksgiving TURKEY!

The legal system does not like to air their views and whatnot regarding plea bargains so I doubt that they will speak about it. O'reilly cannot go to court without proof and right now he has un-named sources protected by the constitution.

What a stupid thing to do to get ratings! The atty's should sue his ass off for this.

[Jaded]

He said "As far as I'm concerned, I didn't do it. I know you are adamant that I did."

It makes it less strange.

[Valpal1]

Right after DW was arrested and charged, people were posting the County jail's arrest info. Apparently jail information is publicly available on the net.

I suggest you look there, I don't have a link, but it could probably be googled and found.

The had very high bails set, I don't think Whitmore found a bondsman to make bail for him, given the unsavory crime and the flight risk.

They weren't involved and it is highly unlikely that DW had an accomplice. i.e. the bug-sperts are wrong and had insufficient data to make a better determination.

[MagnoliaMS]

You "think," "assuming that," blah, blah, blah.

[EllaMinnow]

I believe I saw that Whitmore's bail was 2 million.

And the article said he was being "held on 2 million dollar bail", which would lead me to believe that he was never out on bail.

[Valpal1]

Exactly.

As more and more negative stuff comes out from the LE background investigation, it becomes obvious why they started concentrating on him, and why they became so sure he was the perp.

It's going to get harder to get info though, I think, because the public, in general, has lost interest and the media is moving on to fresh pastures after trampling this one into the muck. There won't be as much follow-up jounalism as I would like. Brenda and Damon have no Q factor, although John Walsh is getting a new t.v. talk show program according to the Sunday Parade ragazine.

[EllaMinnow]

And testing still continues on some unidentified physical evidence. I doubt the results will be publicized if they do nothing to exonerate DW.

I'm hunting for a link I found last night. I'll post it to you if/when it resurfaces!

[John Jamieson]

He was charged twice. First for a 10 year old and then for a 13 year old. I believe his original bail was lower. Either way it's still possible he was out on bail. Opinions don't count, we need the facts.

[EllaMinnow]

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/2717378.htm

I'm sure you've seen it.