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.
Thanks, just goes to show I can make the same mistake over and over and over.
I believe, in capital cases they are automatically requested?
DW Dumb mistake #1: Talking too much. Only answer questions asked. And get a lawyer the instant you think they consider you more than a suspect.
Dumb mistake #2: Giving permission for things that require search warrant. Even if you are not guilty, you should make them get one. Reason: If judge doesn't grant one, then they have no right to take things that may not really be a link to a crime, cause they can pin a crime on you even if the evidence had nothing to do with the crime.
Dumb mistake #3: going with a lawyer the COPS recommend. Especially cops that have been caught falsifying evidence. Kind of like asking the devil which priest to use for an exorcism.
It may be the case that a cop could give you a good lead for a lawyer, just due to the fact they 'know' who is good and for what as far as lawyers go. Feldman may be an upright, outstanding lawyer. But, sure seems he blew the hell out of this one.
HUH? The news article doesn't say the jurors decided to acquit just to not be sequestered over the holidays. It can be inferred by a reader, but that doesn't make it fact. (Not sure I am answering your question properly)
You consistently bash me for posting MEDIA articles and listening to the radio.
You may think I do that, and have accused me of that. What I bash you for is taking your own inferences from what was in the media articles , or on the radio and posting them as fact, or not making it clear they were not part of the article or radio broadcast.
The words I THINK or I BELIEVE help others see the divider between others statements and your opinions.
I have been bashed by you when I do it, and I have done it before. I try not to anymore. I try to remember to put THINK OR BELIEVE or MY OPINION in my posts where appropriate.
Westerfield is supposed to have raped and killed Danielle. This prompts one to ask what his motive was. Well, in trial it was brought out that he had Child Porn and Child Rape Porn. This was put forth as motive by the Prosecutor.
This would be fine but for a few facts.
In most cases where a person is charged with possession of CHILD PORN, it is usually the majority of their 'collection'. If this is their 'perversion' they are very exclusive. There have been some cases in recent time (past 10 years) where we have seen this. There have been some really recent cases (the past two weeks) where we have found this to be the case.
In Westerfield's case we see several 'disks' that have a broad range of various types of 'porn'. Including Child Porn, Including Beastiality.
Where once that type of deviant material was only available through mail order, and was selectable by type, now it is available via the internet and CD's/Zipdisks that hold tons of data.
This type of porn has been available since before I was born, and much of it was probably filmed then too. This includes Child Porn and Beastiality. If you find your way to one of these places that allow you to download 'FORBIDDEN' porn, you will find that many categories are included in the FORBIDDEN realm.
For belief to exist that DW was a "child molestor" one would expect him to have magazines, films, videos, computer gif files, and photos. We would expect to have recent contacts with children, with molestation involved.
We would expect that he would have been viewing this porn, and doing so recently and repeatedly.
Instead, we find this 'mixture' of forbidden porn, that was either downloaded off the net by DW or someone onto disks of some kind. We can't be sure of the kind, as the LE's and Computer experts disagreed on the type. We can't be sure if they were legally obtained with search warrant as there are conflicting statements as to whether they were in plain view or not. It would seem most 'evidence' in this case did not exist until after police visited the area, then the evidence not only existed, but suddenly was in plain view, which met the terms of the search warrant.
Sorry, going off subject.
We have been told DW was spying a neighbor female and videotaped her taking a shower through a window.
We are not told why this woman was taking a shower where people outside her house could see, but let's say he was being voyeuristic. So what? He was taping an adult. What evidence existed to prove a preference for Children? What evidence existed to prove he had been stalking Danielle?
As many others on these threads view things, if we start off ASSUMING that DW raped/killed Danielle, then everything falls into place.
Everything can be explained (not together, but seperately) as leading up to or as a result of raping/killing Danielle.
As I said, each explanation given for one aspect of the case conflicts with other aspects, but if you believe DW did it, you find a way to ignore that the pieces of the puzzle had to be sawed to fit together.
Since no other occurences of CHILD PORN were found, I would find it hard to believe based what was found and how it found supportive of being a 'child molestor'.
I do not find DW's changing story about why the FORBIDDEN stuff existed strange. You are talking about something, the possession of which can put you behind bars for 5-10 years. The fact he admitted to it even being there is also supportive of someone who has not to worry about trying to hide raping/killing of a child from the police.
Anyway, were DW to be stalking Danielle, one would think he would have video of Danielle or children her age. As far as we know from the LE's investigation, he did not.
So, doesn't add up.
Here is what the jury based their decision on (my belief based on a juror's statement): The stain by the bathroom in the MH, the stain on the jacket(found at the drycleaners, and mixed with items from two, possibly three different loads), the fingerprint on the cabinet in the MH, and the Hair in the sink trap.
This phsyical evidence normally would be hard to explain away, but in this case the reasons abound.
This 'evidence' wasn't found in the first search of the MH. SO? Well, of itself, it means nothing. Further searches can reveal missed items. What is different here?
Ott and Keyser were in the MH, alone, in between the two searches. Ott and Keyser have been CAUGHT FALSIFYING EVIDENCE in previous cases. This was a high profile case and the pressure to find a culprit was IMMENSE.
Reputations and jobs were at stake.
The SDPD (I believe) believed that they had the RIGHT MAN. There are many supportive reasons for that belief. Not proof, but belief. They believed so firmly, that it is possible that (Ott and Keyser) could have decided to just make sure there was some physical evidence to support their belief.
If you put yourself in the SDLE's shoes, you can see why they believed so strongly. One reason was Brenda's insistence that DW knew things he could only have found out about by talking to Danielle. (When the truth would appear to be that Brenda did tell DW those things (Damon/babysitter , Father/Daughter dance).
Now, those that would believe that Danielle told DW these items really must 'want' to believe. Since the story is that DW hid in her room until 3am then carted her out to the MH, raped and killed her, I would guess they want us to beleive Danielle told DW these stories either (1) while he was hiding in her bedroom from 12pm until 3am, or (2) While he was raping and killing her (she felt like talking while being raped).
How absurd, yet that is what the SD LE's, the Prosecutor, the Judge, the JURY, and many posters believe.
Without motive (rape), there would be no purpose in kidnapping. Without the kidnapping, no murder. Without the physical evidence provided, no link to DW.
It was the (TRUE) story of a Family in Australia that went on a weekend camping trip, and while around the campfire, a dingo had gotten into the tent where the baby was sleeping, drug it out of the tent, taking it somewhere and killing it.
As I watched this case I saw all the elements of the VD/DW case.
The pressure from the media, the release of rumors via the media, the mistakes made by police, some due to the pressure from the intense involvement of the media, the public turning against the family, and the accusations against them. The turning of brother against brother in the general population.
I hope some others of you saw this movie. It was different in that the mother and father were accused of killing their own child and the other suspect (the dingo) was let off the hook. Many people in the movie were wearing shirts that bore the phrase "FREE THE DINGO". People were spitting on the mother of the dead child.
Eventually, the mother was convicted of MURDER and sentenced to LIFE IN PRISON, the father was given a shorter sentence, which was commuted to 3 year probation(out of mercy by the Judge so he could take care of the other children).
The mother was Pregnant during the trial and had her baby in jail.
Eventually, some 8 (?) years later, evidence was found that exonerated the mother and father. After several more years work they were able to get their record cleared.
During this, I saw all the same tactics and symptoms of the VD/DW case.
I didn't see the start of the movie, so I missed the name of it.
It gave me a better perspective on what the Van Dam's must have gone through. It showed me just how the media manipulates the public to achieve their selfish ends, and how normally sane people just go crazy. It showed me how the police, through ineptness or corruption, distort a case and end up jailing the wrong person. It showed me how the VD's behavior could be explained. It showed me how once the public and the media take a tack (direction) the court and judges and jury and police usually follow. (You would think it would be the other way around!)
Did anyone else see this? And see the comparison to the VD/DW case?
Still not clear on why Torgersen would just take the afternoon receipt in on 2/6 and not both of them?
I wonder how close the book, the movie, and the true case were.
Similarities...... You should have listened to the JUROR sessions. My, my, my. No wonder. The media sensationalizing the case and spreading rumors to sell newspapers, the Jury convicting an innocent woman, the evidence used being analyzed wrong, by non-experts who claimed to be experts, the lies by Prosecution, it just went on and on.
The ONLY DIFFERENCE was that it was the MOTHER that was the target of the PUBLIC, The MEDIA, The Prosecutor.
And the mother finally getting exonerated. The future holds the answer to whether that will be the same as in the DW/VD case.
I.E. The original motive floated was that it was a revenge killing. Revenge against our dear sweet, puritanical Brenda.
But, I thought DW was only interested in raping and killing little girls? Why did he even want a date with Brenda (a married woman with 3 kids)? He was at the same bar the weekend before, drinking and possibly dancing. Don't perverts usually hang out where they can find the object of their fancy?
That is what the posters that believe DW is guilty (and believed all along he was guilty) told me.
I guess the main things that create some "doubt" with regards to Westerfield being the perp are as follows:
The parents lied to and misled police for the first 17 + hours after their daughter was reported missing.
A 60+ pound dog AND alarm system in the home.
TESTIMONY revealed that the Van Dams were involved in wife swapping, with at least one occassion taking place in the master bedroom, just down the hall from Danielle's bedroom.
Damon Van Dam admitted having sex with Barbara Easton at Easton's apartment...Damon also admitted that Barbara Easton came up to the master bedroom, got on the bed and "cuddled" with Damon at about 2:00 am ON THE NIGHT DANIELLE DISAPPEARED.
Two people at the bar, Cherokee Youngs (female) and Ryan Tyrol (male), complete strangers to the Van Dams, testified, under oath, that Brenda Van Dam invited them back to the Van Dam home ON THE NIGHT DANIELLE DISAPPEARED...they felt that it was for sex...btw, either Barbara or Brenda asked Cherokee "if she liked girls?".
The Van Dam's drug dealer and his ex-brother in law came over to the Van Dam home at about 2:00 am, after the bar closed.
The bug evidence indicated that the body was placed at Dehesa Rd. closer to Feb. 15-16, than Feb. 2-4. Westerfield was under constant surveillance after the 4th.
The lead detective was "not aware" that blood was discovered in the Van Dam stairwell and garage, until the preliminary hearing.
A spent shell casing (.22 caliber) was found on the floor of the girls room one day after the room was thoroughly searched.
NO evidence of Westerfield in or around the Van Dam home.
Unmatched DNA mixed with Danielles DNA on the cuff of her pajama's. Westerfield excluded.
Unidentified fingerprint on bannister in the Van Dam home. Westerfield excluded.
Unidentified hair on Danielle's body. Westerfield excluded.
Pot use and drinking by the parents on the night Danielle disappeared.
Location of body: somebody wanted this body found...not buried or hidden...an illegal dumpsite...more like a serial killer...Westerfield was all over the county and desert and could have buried her in the desert.
International child porn ring broken up at virtually the same time as this event, with one of the perps living within walking distance of the bar, in POWAY.
Alot of unanswered questions, however I am hoping that the civil suit will answer ALOT of questions.
Might want to change that to under constant surveillance from the morning of the 4th.
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.