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

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | January 7, 2003

[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.

[UCANSEE2]

You are most probably correct. "HIT" may be miscontrued.

An empty house next door sure seems like an inviting place for a kid to want to explore, especially when mom and dad are both gone for a while. (which they were on Friday afternoon.)

It also seems a likely place for someone to take a child they just kidnapped to, before transporting them.

So many possibilities.

[UCANSEE2]

Where did it say that the JURY decided to ACQUIT so they wouldn't have to be sequestered over the Christmas Holidays?

[EllaMinnow]

In the article here on FR a few weeks ago - that I've been searching for.
If I could remeber the killer's name, I could find the article.

[UCANSEE2]

You are most probably correct. "HIT" may be miscontrued.

Sorry, "MISCONTRUED".

[UCANSEE2]

OK. But, did it state they admitted to doing it for that reason, or was it an IMPLICATION by the writer of the article? (Which is what I meant by 'making it up'.)

[UCANSEE2]

With the way the weather has been this year, you might want to be on the look out for SNOW!

It was 70 degrees last week here in KC and it is supposed to be 3 degrees over the next day or so. With 3-9 inches of snow.

[UCANSEE2]

If you want to bring in other cases, and compare info about how jury misconduct can lead to a killer getting away with it, here is one article. I haven't read it myself completely yet, but it fits in with the kind of case you mentioned.

Jury Misconduct leads to Killer going free (my title)

[EllaMinnow]

The killer's name is Mel Ignatow. He served time on a federal perjury conviction, and was tried and convicted on a state perjury charge last year - for lying in different case. He is serving 9 years - the absolute maximum - in Kentucky State prison.

It was on the FR thread where I read about Christmas - I believe it was posted by a Louisville freeper.

[UCANSEE2]

Are you saying that it was another Freeper's opinion that the reason the jury acquitted was due to Christmas Holidays coming?

[UCANSEE2]

Here is the article. Suspect admits to crime after being acquitted (my title

It is slow loading, so I haven't read all the posts (even being a speed reader), and have yet to find anything in the article mentioning any fault by the jury.

[EllaMinnow]

Post 21 in that thread.

[UCANSEE2]

Yeah, I see. This is what I have been talking to you about the past few days. You read apparently only the things that interest you or you would agree with and totally ignore any other information. Even if the info you like comes from a bozo, and info that would appear to be from someone really knowledgeable about the law and the case you ignore. I say you do the same thing in the DW case. You pick up only on what you agree with and anything that undermines your belief, you ignore. Same with most of the HANGDAVERS (not all) and the JURORS, and most of the US PUBLIC.

Here are samples of those posts where someone expressed an opinion about the JURY in that particular case. You posted the idea that the JURY acquitted because they wanted not to be sequestered over the holiday is totally fabricated and based on one little sentence that someone without much real info on the case spewed out. Yet you see it as gospel, and tried to pass it on to us as TRUTH.

---

I work with the brother of Ignatow's victum. It is all he can do to muster the strength to follow this scum bag through all the trials. He was realsed from federal prison about a year ago. He had been sentenced for lying to the FBI and is now facing purgory charges on the local level in Kentucky. Once he was found to be not guility of the murder he could not be charged with any other offense directly related to the actual death. The constitution is sure a funny animal in this case. The orginal trial was a real farce. The jury went out for deliberations a few days before Christmas and the judge told them they would be kept sequestered through Christmas if they did not come to a verdict. I could go on and on, but I am slightly prejudiced against this scum ball so won't.

21 posted on 12/28/2002 7:49 PM PST by SLB

---

Yep, sounds like the prosecution blew the murder case - Nothing like a good-'ole murderer set go because of incompetence....

30 posted on 12/28/2002 8:16 PM PST by TheBattman

---

If memory serves, he had a female accomplice in that murder who made a deal with the prosecutor in exchange for her testimony. The photos and/or videotape were not enough to connect him to the actual murder; the defense argued that they only proved that a kinky sexual relationship existed with the victim that may have been consentual. You can be sure that she did NOT consent to being murdered. I believe that the prosecutors, as well as the jurors, botched the case.

33 posted on 12/28/2002 10:48 PM PST by flushed with pride

---

To: SoDak
Couldn't he be tried for another, related crime? Like rape, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter or aggravated assault?
No. The prosecutor is required to try all offenses and counts arising from the same set of transactional facts at one time. He is not allowed to prosecute in a piecemeal fashion. Other charges, such as aggravated assault, are treated as subsumed within the greater charged offense of murder. If he's acquitted of murder he is also acquitted of lesser subsumed offenses. He was apparently acquitted straight up in this case.

Now if the feds were creative (e.g., Rodney King) and could figure out a way to charge this as civil rights case, it would be live again. That won't happen. There is nothing here to interest them.

23 posted on 12/28/2002 7:55 PM PST by Kevin Curry

[UCANSEE2]

I apologize if I said that too harshly.

There seemed to be a difference of opinion, from the JURY acquitted just to go home, to the Properly acquitted. And these were opinions. Why did you state it as if it were fact that you were relaying?

[UCANSEE2]

If you really were involved in debating in school, you would know that you just did a no-no.

[EllaMinnow]

The poster works with the victim's brother. I did not IGNORE or disregard other posts, but his was the one that stuck in my mind.

Thank you for pointing out my failings.

[EllaMinnow]

Confused again?

I'm not the one who debated in high school.

[UCANSEE2]

P.S. We all have done the same from time to time. I don't really want to pick on you. The reason I mention it so bluntly is that you(and your amigo) are the ones accusing ME and OTHERS of doing that very thing.

Yet, here you are doing it and providing the proof.

I have admitted when I wasn't clear about the divider between qoute and opinion. I have admitted when I misstated something or had a faulty memory.

Can you?

[cyncooper]

You never said you were involved in debating school did you??

I believe Kim mentioned being on her debate team in H.S. and I responded that I was, too.

[UCANSEE2]

BTW, before I leave, I am donating money to FR in the name of those who either told me the jury would convict (regardless of true guilt) or were convinced of guilt and have stuck to it.

These posters are REDLIPSTICK, CYNCOOPER, and VRWC_minion. I will add VALPAL1 just because she is calm,cool and collected when debating.

There were probably others, but I don't remember their screennames now.

I promised during the trial I would, and I am a man of my word.

I already told Jim Robinson this is what I want to do and of course he was happy.

I am sending $60 in the name of the mentioned posters because DW was convicted by a JURY.

[EllaMinnow]

I have a question for U.
There was/is a case in Louisville where a man brutally tortured and murdered his girlfriend. He was aquitted by a jury who thought it easier to aquit than to deliberate over the Christmas holidays.
After his aquittal, there were photographs - actual real, true photographs of him committing this atrocious murder.

He cannot be tried again, because of the constitutional right against double jeopardy.

Do you think that it is okay that he is getting away with murder?


869 posted on 01/15/2003 4:13 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies | Report Abuse


To: redlipstick

Did the jury not get to see the pics during the trial and why not?...was the case not strong and due to the jury instructions, they had to acquit?

Which jurors actually said that Christmas was the reason?


884 posted on 01/15/2003 5:45 PM EST by Rheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: Rheo

The photos weren't found until quite a while after the verdict.
There was a thread a few weeks ago about the case. I'm trying to remember the guy's name - I'll pull the thread up if I can find it.


886 posted on 01/15/2003 5:50 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies | Report Abuse

To: UCANSEE2

I know about the case red is referring to. I never knew the part about the jury wanting to go Christmas shopping. There were pics found after the fact(trial) and if I'm remembering correctly, he was tried again on Federal(?) charges and is in prison. If I'm wrong I'm sure it will be pointed out immediately. The POINT is that the jury decided on this one and he was found not guilty. The LE didn't screw up by violating his constitutional rights.


890 posted on 01/15/2003 5:56 PM EST by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 880 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: Rheo

Wanna bet she never answers and that she made it up (the part about why they acquitted)?


898 posted on 01/15/2003 6:02 PM EST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 884 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: UCANSEE2

I'm not the one who said Christmas shopping. IIRC, the judge told them that they would be sequestered over Christmas if they didn't come to a decision.
I might be wrong, but I think that's what was stated in the article I read recently.


900 posted on 01/15/2003 6:06 PM EST by redlipstick (get real


To: redlipstick

Where did it say that the JURY decided to ACQUIT so they wouldn't have to be sequestered over the Christmas Holidays?


902 posted on 01/15/2003 6:10 PM EST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

To: UCANSEE2

In the article here on FR a few weeks ago - that I've been searching for.
If I could remeber the killer's name, I could find the article.


903 posted on 01/15/2003 6:19 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: redlipstick

OK. But, did it state they admitted to doing it for that reason, or was it an IMPLICATION by the writer of the article? (Which is what I meant by 'making it up'.)


905 posted on 01/15/2003 6:28 PM EST by UCANSEE2

To: UCANSEE2

The killer's name is Mel Ignatow. He served time on a federal perjury conviction, and was tried and convicted on a state perjury charge last year - for lying in different case. He is serving 9 years - the absolute maximum - in Kentucky State prison.

It was on the FR thread where I read about Christmas - I believe it was posted by a Louisville freeper.


908 posted on 01/15/2003 6:46 PM EST by redlipstick (get real.)



NOTE: I especially appreciate your post #898