Posted on 01/08/2003 9:24:19 AM PST by TomB
In a videotaped interrogation with San Diego police detectives four days after Danielle van Dam was kidnapped, an exhausted David Westerfield says "my life is over," seemingly coming close to an admission that he murdered his 7-year-old neighbor.
"As far as I'm concerned my life is over, the life that I had, the life that I was living is over," Westerfield says in the interrogation conducted the evening of Feb. 5, 2002. Danielle was last seen the night of Feb. 1.
"But you can't blame anyone but yourself, Dave," answers one of the police detectives.
"And I have no problem with that," Westerfield replies.
In the tapes released Tuesday, Westerfield admits "unusual" sexual encounters with his wife, denies anything improper about his alleged use of binoculars to watch neighbors and says the child pornography found on his computer was simply something he downloaded along with a lot of other pornographic images and that he had no sexual interest in children.
Superior Court Judge William Mudd agreed Monday to unseal the videotape along with hundreds of pages of transcripts, documents and recordings in the Westerfield case, as well as transcripts of police interrogations and court hearings conducted in secret.
Some of the material – audiotape and videotape of Westerfield being interrogated during the early stages of the investigation – was released Tuesday afternoon.
The remainder of the material, which ranges from transcripts of closed-door court hearings to motions regarding potential evidence, will be released Monday, Mudd ruled.
The ruling Monday came three days after Mudd sentenced the former design engineer to death for kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, his neighbor in Sabre Springs.
Monday's court hearing came in response to a request by The San Diego Union-Tribune, which has been seeking access to the information for months. The San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal has ruled that Mudd must release the information.
The San Diego chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists made a donation to the legal costs.
Westerfield, who attended Monday's hearing, is scheduled to be moved within days to death row at San Quentin State Prison outside San Francisco.
During earlier court appearances, Westerfield was always dressed in civilian attire, but he appeared in court Monday in a green jail jumpsuit. He sat in a holding area so he couldn't be filmed by a television camera.
My view is that there was too much monkey business going on, and that makes me suspicious. The lying, the possibilities for evidence contamination or outright falsification, The twisting of stories by the media to make DW appear guilty. No one can come up with an explanation of how this was done that fits in with the timelines and situation.
You, I would assume, believe everything is above board, no one lied except DW, and he is guilty as hell, mainly due to the physical evidence. Is this correct?
Regardless to your answer, you have your 'view' and I have 'mine'. I try to respect your view and give you information that I think might change it. If you are open enough to give that info a look, and it doesn't change you mind, well, that is the way it is. Same from you to me.
I think no less of you as a person, no matter your view. The only times I have problems are when your behavior goes beyond discussion and evolves into personal attacks. And you should have the same sentence on me.
We all walk a fence that is slippery.
Westerfield, who is also charged with first-degree burglary, will be arraigned in a San Diego Superior Court Tuesday....from 2/24 article.
One possibility is that it was the BURGLARY investigation unit that was first sent out on the case. I believe the assumption must have been that someone did a BREAK and ENTER on the VD property to kidnap Danielle.
Since the VD's insisted Danielle MUST have been in bed asleep (even though neither had actually seen her since 1030pm at the latest, possibly even earlier).
The only question I have is did you hold that opinion before he went to trial, before there was confirmation of the evidence (which wasn't until during the trial)?
Since the VD's insisted Danielle MUST have been in bed asleep (even though neither had actually seen her since 1030pm at the latest, possibly even earlier), then police felt they were dealing with a potential robbery that went bad. (My guess, anyway).
The question about why Robbery unit and not homicide, was brought up several times in these threads, but that was long ago. Some others might have more info than I have on this.
(I will not attack or attempt to discredit your answer. Your reason is yours and not mine, therefore I have no reason to challenge) I am just curious as to what convinced different people and when.
Q: AND YOU SAID IT WAS DIFFICULT TO TELL FROM ONE HAIR WHAT THE ANIMAL LOOKED LIKE, CORRECT?
A: CORRECT.
Q: AND WITHOUT D.N.A. YOU CAN'T REALLY MATCH THE HAIRS, CAN YOU?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION. LACK OF FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. SHE CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: WELL, MATCHING, NOT IN THE SENSE OF INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFYING AN ANIMAL, NO. WE CANNOT DO THAT.
That was your push?
Q: DOES THAT MEAN THAT THOSE HAIRS IN THE EVIDENCE COULD HAVE COME FROM THE VICTIM'S DOG?
A: YES.
A: THEY HAD BROWNISH PIGMENT IN IT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO TELL FROM A SINGLE HAIR WHAT THE ENTIRE ANIMAL LOOKS LIKE, BUT THEY DID HAVE PIGMENTATION IN THEM.
If one stops listening at direct....they miss the rest of the story in crossexam.
Rolling MY eyes.
She couldn't tell what the animal looked like, yet you decided he was guilty from that....is that what you are saying?
A WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, 2 CHIEF CREIGHTON ASKED ME TO TAKE OVER THE 3 INVESTIGATION, AS THE ROBBERY LIEUTENANT IN CHARGE 4 OF KIDNAPPING INVESTIGATIONS. 5 Q CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY A ROBBERY 6 LIEUTENANT WOULD ASSUME CONTROL OVER A KIDNAPPING 7 CASE? 8 A THE ROBBERY SECTION IS IN CHARGE OF 9 INVESTIGATING ALL CRIMES INVOLVING COMMERCIAL 10 ROBBERY, RESIDENTIAL ROBBERY, BANK ROBBERIES, AND 11 KIDNAPPINGS WHERE THE VICTIM IS STILL OUTSTANDING.
15 Q IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, IS IT 16 THE CASE WITHIN THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT 17 THE FORENSIC UNITS REPORT UP THE CHAIN OF COMMAND?
18 A YES. 19 Q AND AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THIS CASE, ARE YOU 20 AT THE TOP OF THE CHAIN OR WERE YOU AT THE TOP OF 21 THE CHAIN OF COMMAND? 22 A NO. THERE WAS BIFURCATED CHAIN OF COMMAND. 23 LIEUTENANT DUNCAN WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PHYSICAL 24 EVIDENCE AND THE PROCESSING OF MR. WESTERFIELD. 25 Q OKAY. I'M SORRY. YOU JUST SAID 26 LIEUTENANT DUNCAN WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PROCESSING ON 27 THE WESTERFIELD INVESTIGATION PART. 28 WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AND Page 49 1 PROCESSING OF THE VAN DAM ASPECT OF THE CASE? 2 A THE HOMICIDE TOOK OVER RESPONSIBILITY FOR 3 ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.