Posted on 02/04/2019 1:39:09 PM PST by onyx
In case it’s not clear, I assumed the imminent confession you were referring to was a reference to the reported plea deal negotiations. What apparently happened is that the prosecution approached the defense attorneys with an offer. They listened to it and took it to Westerfield, who rejected it.
“Lots of forensic evidence, to include DNA, is over stated or just plain junk science.”
True. Very true. Even though DNA, unlike other forensic techniques, has a scientific basis, a person’s DNA at a crime scene doesn’t prove that that person committed the crime.
Take the Westerfield case. Danielle was kidnapped from her bed. Unknown DNA was found in a blood stain on her bed. It didn’t match Westerfield. But the police were so convinced that he was the killer, and that therefore it wasn’t this unknown person, that they didn’t try to check that DNA on CODIS. There was also an unknown hair found under her body. It didn’t match Westerfield, so the police ignored it.
“Lots of forensic evidence, to include DNA, is over stated or just plain junk science.”
As far as I know, the current skepticism towards forensic evidence is focused on pattern-matching techniques, such as bite marks, tool marks, even fingerprints. Although DNA has its limitations (serious limitations, such as DNA can’t be dated), it does have a strong scientific basis. And I say the same about forensic entomology, despite its clear findings being rejected in the Westerfield case. Because there is considerable scientific research and evidence to back it up. And because it does not claim the precision (individualizing) of DNA or fingerprinting: forensic entomologists, like pathologists, give a range of dates to allow for the uncertainties in the world of nature.
“Investigators gathered enough evidence to arrest Westerfield, a neighbor of Danielle and her family, for her disappearance and death on Feb. 22.”
He was arrested because of the blood found on his clothing and in one of his vehicles - that’s what the police said at the time.
The blood on his clothing was just a single small and faint stain on his jacket, and the blood in his vehicles was just a single tiny drop on the carpet of his motor home. That was the entire blood evidence from a murder and presumed sexual assault of a small child.
The jacket had just been dry-cleaned, and the dry-cleaners HADN’T seen that stain. It wasn’t examined for blood spatter, to determine how it got there. And there’s no published photo of it - even though this was THE most important piece of evidence in a high-profile case which was extensively covered by the media, both local and national. Nor did we see a photo of the drop of blood in his motor home - because the criminalist hadn’t photographed it. So we must take her word for it that it existed - in a murder case with the death penalty on the table.
And why was no blood found in his house? He supposedly kidnapped her for sex, and took her straight back to his house, only taking her to his motor home hours later. So he waited several hours before sexually assaulting her? No biological evidence of a sexual assault was found either - not in his house, or his motor home.
Danielle had visited him earlier that week, and the family dog had scratched her at about that time. So her blood might have got onto his jacket during that visit (though her mother said it hadn’t bled). His motor home had often been parked in the neighborhood streets by their houses. It was a safe neighborhood so that vehicle wasn’t always locked, and the van Dam children were sometimes outside in the streets (playing, walking to school or the park or to visit friends, or to walk the dog). So she could have innocently been inside it previously, leaving that blood behind (perhaps from a nosebleed). The police should have asked her brothers and other neighborhood children about this, but apparently didn’t - in a capital murder case! How could they have been so negligent? Because they believed him guilty and didn’t want to find evidence which undermined their belief and could have resulted in him being acquitted?
The bottom line is that there are serious doubts about this evidence.
California has no death penalty
California is Euro wannabe and will never carry out the execution.
“I remember this case, the parents were big-time swingers.”
They were swingers, yes, but if the limited amount of evidence which is publicly available is to be believed, then they didn’t do much swinging. But the police decided very quickly that this wasn’t relevant (because they had already decided it was Westerfield?), so they probably didn’t investigate it thoroughly. And the judge restricted the questioning. And only part of Brenda’s interview by the police was made available, and none of Damon’s. So did they do much more swinging than we know about? Possibly: we just don’t know.
“I seem to recall they even remodeled their house to accomodate their “activities.””
There was a claim of sex parties in their garage, which the prosecution ridiculed, apparently because there was so much stuff there, leaving insufficient space.
I have seen a claim that, if I remember correctly, the room alongside their garage had been set up to view sexual activities in the garage, presumably by CCTV.
What may have given rise to these stories is that the parents had reversed the lock on the door from the garage to the rest of their house, so that the children wouldn’t walk in on them while they were smoking in the garage. And the night of the kidnapping they not only smoked marijuana in the garage with two of the female friends they had previously had sex with, the female friends also drank beer there before going to the bar. So it seems a natural extension to think that more than that went on during previous occasions.
“This piece of crap is STILL alive??”
“Almost 20 years and the killer is STILL alive?”
Almost 20 years and they STILL haven’t found any proof that he was the killer!
The police found ample proof that they were neighbors. And that’s ALL the evidence proved. That they were neighbors who’d had contact with each other. He’d had several contacts with her family, recent contacts with her family, very recent. They found NOTHING linking him to her abduction and death. In fact there’s actually proof - the dog scent evidence - that she HADN’T been in his house or motor home that weekend. And their own forensic entomologists also proved that it wasn’t him. The very fact that they couldn’t find any evidence of him at either of the two crime scenes, is further evidence that it WASN’T him.
Danielle’s mother had three cranberry and vodkas and a shot of tequila. (The previous Friday, she had apparently also consumed wine, but apparently not on this Friday.) This was even though she was the designated driver on both Fridays. However, she also drank a lot of water at the bar. And on top of that, she got high on marijuana, both before driving to the bar and while at the bar.
“Life sentence without parole, along with limited appeals, is the way to go.”
“Lots of forensic evidence, to include DNA, is over stated or just plain junk science.”
If new evidence is found, or new forensic techniques are developed, or doubt is cast on old techniques - in fact if anything happens which casts doubt on guilt, then an appeal should be permitted, even if all appeals have been exhausted.
“The prosecutor and Westerfield were very close to a plea deal for life imprisonment in exchange for information on the location of the body, but that went away when they found the body.”
The sole source of this information - actually, unsubstantiated claim - is the DA. Plea deals are confidential, so he was being unethical in revealing it. How can you believe someone who is unethical? And why would the deal go away when the body was found? Only one reason for a deal went away, there were still big reasons: a guaranteed conviction; saving a million dollars on the cost of the trial; and saving lots more money by avoiding the lengthy appeal process.
“Then California should drop the charade and release this pedo into the general prison population. No reason to keep him isolated on death row.”
Why? Are you hoping or expecting that he would then be assaulted, even murdered? That would be a crime, a violent crime, so you would be encouraging violent crime.
That’s the sort of anger which got him convicted, despite the weakest of evidence against him, and scientific evidence that he’s innocent.
“Also learned a lot more about botflys than I needed to know.”
Small correction: the flies discussed during his trial were blowflies, bottle flies, flesh flies and cheese skippers, but not botflies: botflies don’t naturally occur in the USA (I learned that recently watching a medical emergency documentary).
“I remember that there were MANY Threads on FR as to whether there was enough evidence to convict Westerfield before the body was found.”
Cynically, there wasn’t enough to convict him even after the body was found, the prosecution had to rely on emotion, the outrage of the community, which had been stoked by the media, fed by leaks from law enforcement, persuading them that he was guilty.
But to answer your point, they were relying on the two small (and questionable) blood stains, as I’ve previously mentioned. In addition they had some hairs which could have come from her, and some dog hairs which could have come from the family dog. I say “could have come” because they were relying on visual appearance (which isn’t at all reliable) and mitochondrial DNA (which isn’t precise). Only one hair (one of the human hairs) was matched on nuclear DNA, and the question arises: what did they match that against before they had the body? (The same question applies in the case of the blood stains.) Before the body was found, they also had a few carpet fibers (which could have come from another house in that development).
Hairs and fibers are copiously shed and easily transferred, so their presence in his house and motor home (but not his car) can readily be innocently explained by the “cookie sale” - Danielle, her mother and little brother, had visited him earlier that week, and could have deposited all that small amount of evidence in his house at that time.
“No mention of her MOTHER and FATHER who were either drunk or high (or both),”
True. And don’t forget the other four adults there that night, who were also either drunk or high or both.
Perhaps because of their impaired condition, all six adults were oblivious to the presence of a kidnapper in the house, and this despite the burglar alarm warnings. (Though you could argue that the family dog also didn’t notice the intruder, and it wasn’t similarly impaired.)
“in and out of their house for a screw or up at a swingers party up and down the street”
I don’t know about that, but what I do know is given below.
There is a story that her father was down the street with a girl friend, in between putting his children to bed and her mother arriving back home from the bar with her four friends, and leaving his children unattended while he was away.
I don’t know if that story is true. But what is certain, based on trial testimony, is that one of the male friends was hoping for sex with one of the female friends, and the females had behaved in a sexual way at the bar, and had invited a young couple at the bar back to the van Dam home for sex that night, but the couple refused. So those adults had sex very much on their minds that night. Surprisingly, despite all that, nothing happened - at least not according to trial testimony. On the contrary, the party broke up after only half-an-hour (some media reports said an hour), the mood was somber and one of the female friends thought she might have been sick. Makes you wonder if something bad had happened - something involving Danielle.
“with their door(s) wide open”
The side door to the garage was left unlocked after smoking marijuana and drinking beer in the garage before going to the bar.
“...THATS what the adults were doing.”
Sadly, yes.
“ Westerfield knew this and made his move.”
That claim was made in the media, but it was apparently merely based on his invitation to her mother to an adult party (which just meant “no children”!), and her mother’s brief dirty dancing with him at the bar that night.
I don’t know if any of the neighbors knew Danielle’s parents were swingers. As I recall, the neighbor across the street - the one whose children were at Danielle’s house when she was discovered missing - was upset that people thought she was also a swinger. So I wonder if she would have entrusted her small children to the van Dams’ care in their home had she known their lifestyle.
“It was the parents fault! Had they remained faithful and sober, they would have a beautiful daughter and possibly grandchildren. ....”
Agreed.
But we can also blame the police. If they had interviewed Westerfield on the Saturday afternoon (so within just hours of the kidnapping), when he was standing on the street corner talking to the neighbors (having returned home for the second time after the kidnapping), with his motor home parked a short distance down the street, supposedly with a kidnapped Danielle in it and still alive, then they could have rescued her. Of course, that only applies if he was the kidnapper, and the evidence says he wasn’t.
IIRC there was no evidence he was in their house at all.
the cops kept him awake without food for something like 22 hrs....
and yes,the parents were swingers and IIRC were out that evening....the prosecution IIRC were sure that Westerfield was hiding in the house when the parents came home....
that guy was surely a weirdo and people, like his niece, attested to it......
but the investigation /witch hunt seemed almost forced....like here's this creepy guy we can go after...
lets face it...he most likely did kill that little girl...but there was nothing more than circumstantial evidence to go on....he drove somewhere in his motor home and went past the area where the little girl was found..I just wish they had some dna to go on......
parents should always put their children first...above their sexual trysts, sports, drinking, etc......I am mad that they would carry on like that with 3 little children to raise.....
I’m just going to add to my previous post.
You have a group of people in Danielle’s home, people who were drunk, high and horny - and most of them had engaged in extreme sexual behavior. That’s a dangerous combination. Especially when there’s a little girl in that house. A little girl who, just minutes later, is kidnapped and murdered, and it’s presumed this was for sexual purposes. And then those people lie to the police about their activities.
In view of all that, I’d have expected the police to conduct a thorough and extensive investigation of those people. Instead, the police rapidly cleared them.
“I remember that there were MANY Threads on FR as to whether there was enough evidence to convict Westerfield before the body was found.”
I’ve already answered that, but I’m now going to discuss the evidence obtained from the body and the body recovery site.
Having her actual hands enabled the police to identify a handprint in his motor home as hers (though doubt has been expressed regarding the reliability of the match, seeing it was from rehydrated skin and was from an apparently unusual part of the fingers).
A criminalist said that the fibers with her body came from the last environment she was in which, according to the prosecution, was his motor home (for up to two days). So what fibers were found at the recovery site?
An orange fiber was found in her hair, which matched some orange fibers found in his house and car (but curiously not in his motor home). However, the source of those fibers was never identified, and they might have come from something in her own house. There were also some blue fibers, which were said to match ones in his house and motor home (but not his car), but this is very weak evidence as again the source was never identified, and they were probably common fibers - and they were only partially tested (they weren’t subjected to the best, most stringent test, so they may not even have matched!).
As far as I know, they didn’t check her own home for the sources of those fibers. (And they should have checked, even though finding the sources there would have greatly weakened their case against him, they should have been searching for the truth, not just trying to prove him guilty.) And there were various other fibers found with her body, which didn’t match anything in his home or motor home, which implies that she had been kept somewhere else before her body was dumped.
It’s not only fibers with her body which would have come from the last environment she was in, but also hairs.
None of his hairs were found with her body. But there was someone else’s hair under her body. Many animal hairs were found in his motor home, but none of those were reported with her body.
There was no DNA link to him found with her body, none whatsoever. Nor any item - document, gloves, baseball cap, etc. - which could be linked to him.
The body was in a meadow which was accessed along a dirt track. So you would have expected him to leave tire tracks and footprints. I don’t know if they found any footprints, but they did find tire tracks, which obviously didn’t come from his motor home. Nor was any soil or vegetation from the site found on his shoes or motor home.
There was just so much evidence with her body which didn’t fit him.
“I remember that there were MANY Threads on FR as to whether there was enough evidence to convict Westerfield before the body was found.”
That was before I had joined, but I’ve now looked up the old threads and there were certainly many of them, but I didn’t spot any which were specifically on that issue.
I’ve already discussed the physical evidence found both before and after the body was found. I would now like to discuss the other evidence. This will be difficult, as the police and prosecution argued that just about everything he did and said was suspicious and evidence of guilt. So where do I start? But here are some things which come to mind.
He went away that weekend (even though he returned home twice that same day, supposedly bringing her back home with him both times).
He left his garden hose lying untidily across his front lawn, which was seen as evidence he left in a hurry after his first return home (even though this was something he sometimes did, and if he were genuinely guilty, he wouldn’t have returned home, especially not with her still in his motor home).
He had pornography on his computer, which they tried to argue was child pornography (even though none of it was clearly child pornography, and none was of girls as young as Danielle).
They claimed he was sweating profusely when he was interviewed, which was seen as a sign of nervousness resulting from guilt (even though no sweat could be seen in the photo taken at that time).
He cleaned his motor home on arriving back from his weekend trip (even though he always did so, which is not surprising after staying at sandy sites).
One search dog showed an interest in a couple of places in his home (even though the handler said it was not an alert).
He had some clothes and bedding dry-cleaned on returning from his trip (even though he was a regular at those cleaners, the cleaners were on his route, and cleaning of the comforters had been pre-planned for this time).
I may give more examples later, if necessary.
“At Trial, Westerfield’s attorney wasn’t actually very aggressive in defending him.”
That statement surprised me, as his attorney, going into the trial, had a reputation for being a pit bull, tenacious, conducting withering cross-examinations, and I thought he put on a vigorous defense. But I also think he could have done a much better job, been far more effective.
I don’t have any statistics to back this up, but my impression was that the prosecution objected more often than the defense. And I did wonder if that wasn’t a tactic to disrupt the defense attorney’s arguments, maybe to throw him off balance, but also to prevent the jurors in particular from following his arguments.
There were many points his attorney either glossed over or missed making altogether. He could have created a song and dance about there being foreign DNA in a bloodstain on the bed she was abducted from - and loudly and longly condemned the police for not submitting that DNA to CODIS. How can you convict someone of murder when his DNA isn’t at the crime scene, but someone else’s DNA is? And the same for the hair under her body. There was a variety of different fibers found with her body. Instead of treating them as a group, singling out just the orange fiber, he could have prolonged that, pointing out for each different fiber in turn that there was no match in Westerfield’s motor home, so as to stress the importance of this exculpatory evidence.
The strongest evidence against Westerfield was found in his motor home. Here his attorney COULD have been more aggressive. Instead of admitting he couldn’t produce a witness who had previously seen her in the motor home, he could have condemned the police for not interviewing the neighborhood children and especially asking her brothers! What could be more obvious than doing that? At the preliminary hearing, it came out that Danielle had climbed up their side gate, opened it, and got out of their back yard and into the street. But that wasn’t raised during the trial.
The defense usually has far less resources than the prosecution, so they are immediately at a big disadvantage. But because in this case the media had rapidly convicted Westerfield, thereby convincing many people, including the jury pool, that he was guilty, his attorney had an even bigger uphill battle right from the start. I recall that he complained that a lot of the defense time was taken up in fighting the media. This greatly aggravated the situation most defense lawyers must face.
I think he put too many of his eggs in one basket, namely the entomology evidence. To me, that evidence by itself provided more than reasonable doubt. He had law enforcement’s very own scientist on his side, the scientist the police had brought onto the case, the scientist who had the best access to the evidence he had ever had in a case, the scientist the very same prosecutor had relied on to obtain a conviction in a very similar situation just a few years earlier, a scientist whose evidence excluded Westerfield by not a small margin but by a very large margin. And then even the replacement scientist the prosecution employed when they dumped their usual expert also gave dates which excluded him. I don’t think the defense attorney expected, or was prepared for, that prosecutor trashing not only the evidence in this case, but the very science he himself had successfully used.
I hope you don’t mind, but because of the many points you raised, and my lack of time, I’m going to respond in bits and pieces.
“I had problems with the Westerfield investigation then and still do.....”
I’ve heard that people were split 50/50 at the time, so you’re not alone.
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.