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.
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.