I was speculating that the molestation was ongoing before the child's death. My only reasons for this speculation was the DNA in his motorhome, the Van Damme's lifestyle, the fact that DW knew them, and was perhaps close, and the fact that he had (as I understand it) categorized, stored kiddie porn. These coincidences make me think that the man may not be completely innocent, but I agree that, from what I could follow of the trial, there was more than reasonable doubt, and had I been on the jury, with the evidence that I was able to see NOT being on the jury, I would have held out for "not-guilty" until we all rotted in the jury room.
The whole thing is very sad and disgusting. I'm not sure Westerfield is innocent in any sense of the word, but the prosecution sure didn't prove their case to my satisfaction. As an entomologist who has studied forensic entomology, and my understanding of the entomological data, it seems almost 100% to me that the girl was put whre she was found while DW was under constant surveillance. That's the creepiest thing to me about the case, and really the only thing that got me following the case at all.
BTW, what was the nature of the DNA found in his motorhome? Hair? Skin? Blood?
Have you ever seen maggots migrating(crawling)...flies transporting them---I have!
I am surprised that at least one juror did not hold out based on the bug evidence alone. I think the emotions of the jurors had regarding the porn overwhelmed their collective sensabilities and reasoning related to bug evidence. If DW did just breakup with his girlfriend, it does not surprise me that he would wonder around for a day or two in his motor home. A guy that likes relatively slim, big-busted women does not all of a sudden take a sexual interest in a little girl. It make no sense to me.
Like you, I am not totally convinced of his innocense, but I am convinced the prosecution did not actually prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; not even close. This is one case in which a hung jury may have been the best result. It is also a good argument against the death penalty.
Never mind; a little bit of reading on my part answered the question.
Just as it is strange that a plastered DW entered the home so stealthily and nabbed the child, it is strange, on the other hand, that a plastered DW suddenly went for a long road trip that night. I have gone on sudden, solo road trips before, but I was never plastered.
Another problem for DW is the blood on his jacket. Hairs in his motorhome might be explained away by the child entering it unbeknownst, but how the heck did he get her blood on his jacket? It is fishy that he was thoroughly cleaning everything at that time, as well.
But the maggots are still a problem for th prosecution.
I just think the whole picture is not being painted, here. If DW was the perp, and I can see some of the reasons they suspected him in the first place, it seems to me, queasily, that other people were somehow involved.
Did the cops know whether or not the porn DW had could have been MADE by him?
They didn't show the alleged kiddie porn to the media, but my recollection is that the questionable stuff amounted to less than 1% of an extensive collection of run of the mill T&A porn. Also, there is some question whether all of it was the defendant's, given his teen aged son had access to the machine and was actually using it while his dad was downtown being grilled by the police.
As an entomologist who has studied forensic entomology, and my understanding of the entomological data, it seems almost 100% to me that the girl was put whre she was found while DW was under constant surveillance.
Obviously, this jury doesn't hold entomology in very high regard.
BTW, what was the nature of the DNA found in his motorhome? Hair? Skin? Blood?
I'm no expert, but my recollection is that the strongest piece of evidence was a spot on Westerfield's jacket that matched Danielle's DNA, but was not verified to be blood (not sure how that's possible). Also troubling were also some strands of hair and a couple of fingerprints that were in the motor home. It seemed to me that, if he had done the crime in the motor home or used it to transport the body, there should have been a lot more of such evidence. Also, there are possible alternative explanations, such as the kid trespassing some time in the fall of last year, or even the real perp (or Ott and Keyser — San Diego's finest, don't you know) doing a frame up.
So, I don't think it was proven that Westerfield did it. Nor was it proven that he didn't. But I'd sure love to know who did, how, and why!