Replies

"The detectives said to DW:"I know you had something to do with it. Let's help Danielle's family. Let her go to heaven in peace. Get her a proper burial".

Westerfield said "As far as I'm concerned, my life's over."

Keyser says" Help us get Danielle back. Have the common decency to help us. Show a little remorse and help us get her back."

Westerfield said,"As far as I am concerned I didn't do it."

That last line is creepy. I fits with a theory I'm working on that has DW and one or two others involved in Danielle's death.

DW didn't snatch her, and didn't kill her and didn't dump the body, but he did provide the party vehicle and knew what was going on. Under CA law, he would still be guilty as sin, but he didn't "feel" guilty of those three things.

I think you have to take into consideration how many times and in how many different ways Westerfield had been asked the question, "Did you kill her".

The police have already told him they believe he did it and the proceeding questions demostrate how they have re-phrased this belief.

So when Westerfield said,"As far as I am concerned I didn't do it," this is just Dave re-phrasing the fact that he is still innocent.

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".

When DW says, "As far as I'm concerned....", which he used a lot, it could meam atleast two slightly different things:

1."To my mind, to my value system, to my sense of fairness...." Which would mean that he exonerates himself from the serious charges because he didn't physically kidnap or murder her.

2. "If your talking about my body, my corporal entity...." which again with a slightly different twist, means "it wasn't my hands on her".

In every case, the reading between the lines, indicates that DW is claiming without coming right out and saying it that others were involved.

DW may yet tell all, but not for many years until all his appeals are gone.

When Feldman referred to DW's "3 days of terror", I wonder if the reference was not to Danielle's terror (which certainly was much worse and may have last 2 weeks), but to DW's terror.

Was he caught by his own purent interest in a situation that spiraling out of his control? Was he invited to a desert sex party expecting adult women, that ending up featuring a tiny child? Was there anyway to stop it without going to jail forever anyway? Was Danielle alive, but certainly not well, the last time DW saw her?