Westerfield's Death-Row Letters

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | May 3, 2003 | Alex Roth

[nmh]

If Westerfield is innocent, then how come his attorneys offered to tell the prosecutor where the little girls body was BEFORE they found it? Does Westerfield also have ESP?

LOL! He's guilty as hell and where he belongs. His death will be a blessing to all left on this earth.

[Freedom2specul8]

Well, if pfingst says it, and the defense doesn't deny it by demanding a retraction etc.... I guess there is only one thing to say.. It's true! What else are we to do but wait and see what happens.

[Freedom2specul8]

We have a lightening storm and MORE tornado watches... Will turn off the puter for awhile..take care all..

[Valpal1]

Too funny!

We should all chip in and buy U2 a clue!

[Amore]

Amazingly, 2 have. The more rational ones have wisely slunk away.

[bvw]

I think it was an unfair trial, and didn't demonstrate guilt. There was more than reasonable doubt. I don't know who killed Danielle, the trial didn't help much. I don't like California's rules of evidence -- I'm a fan of giving a jury everything and letting them sort it out, I would include all the negotiations, all the "inadmissable" evidence -- tell the jury why it is problematic, let them weigh that too. That's all to a lot bigger thing than just this one trial or even California. We have to fully trust juries, or not use them at all. You can't find the truth from selected bits.

[EllaMinnow]

There are a couple still holding out in the SBR. They give new meaning to the term "bitter end."

[cyncooper]

Believe me, your bolding and all caps is very much appreciated.

I saw this segment on O'Reilly last night and posted it on the thread in the dreaded Smokey Backroom. So far silence.

I hope some people grasp the implication of his knowing where she was, or are they going to shift to "he didn't kill her, just came by knowledge of where she was"? The capacity to rationalize away evidence by some is limitless.

[cyncooper]

Hi Kim.

I didn't see that part of O'Reilly tonight, but I saw the interview with Pfingst last night. Pfingst said Westerfield was offering (through his lawyers, of course) to lead them to the body in exchange for dropping the special circumstance charge. He said they were within an hour of making the deal when she was found.

No parsing, just as plain as day.

[ladyinred]

Poor guy. He has to read murder mysteries now instead of participating. Tough life this death row.

[TomB]

Oh, and it really, really DOES add to the importance and truthfulness of it that you bolded and enlarged it, doesn't it now?

Judging by your complete inability to read and understand what is being said, I'd say I need to use a LARGER font next time.

He offered to lead the police to her body for a reduced sentence. What more do you need?

[UCANSEE2]

I wanted to go over this again, because there seems to be this implicit acceptance of Pfingst's statement.

He also doesn't touch on the subject of the pretrial plea bargain. The Union-Tribune first reported the story after Westerfield was sentenced to death. The newspaper quoted anonymous sources as saying Westerfield, shortly after his arrest, offered to disclose the location of the girl's body in exchange for a sentence of life in prison rather than the death penalty. So far, just referring back to the same story without proof, story from anonymous source that was fed to the media, very much on purpose, to help convict Westerfield.

The deal fell through when searchers found the girl's body, sources told the newspaper at the time.Same anonymous, undocumented source.

Pfingst's comments yesterday represent the first official public acknowledgment of the aborted plea deal. Pfingst, now a legal commentator for KUSI-TV, said he felt compelled to defend himself against Westerfield's accusation that politics played a role in the prosecution.

Had to go and make a public display of defending himself,which is usually what people that are guilty do. Those not guilty don't bother. He has to protect his status in his new job, and if he admitted any wrongdoing, he could be prosecuted or sued, and he knows it.

"He's singing a different song now than he did when he wanted a plea bargain in return for showing us where he had dumped Danielle's body," Pfingst said yesterday. " . . . He knows full well that his attorney was involved in plea negotiations on his behalf, and for him to now say that he didn't do it is ridiculous."And here is the so-called PROOF that Westerfield offered to show where Danielle was. What amazes me is that normally intelligent posters on FR,as well as the general public, accept this crap as proof.

Because it supports what they believe, they accept it without any consideration or scrutiny. If you read the statement again, you will notice that Pfingst doesn't state that DW offered to tell Pfingst where the body was. The statement is that "HE KNOWS FULL WELL THAT". Well, Westerfield may or may not have known what Feldman and Boyce were doing. Pfingst hasn't actually lied, and is not required to provide proof in any way to support that part of the statement.

Next we have this, "that his attorney was involved in plea negotiations on his behalf"

This part of the statement is likely true. Feldman and Boyce were brought on the case very late in the process. Westerfield had already spent countless hours with police, and then took the polygraph tests. After being told that his heartrate went up everytime they mentioned a question that had the name DANIELLE in it, and that that proved he was a liar and was guilty (and this is exactly what they told him) he asked for a lawyer. Gee, let's see, the case has been in the news, hottest item, everybody thinks you did it, and they are telling you they are going to find the proof, even if it doesn't exist yet, and your heartbeat speeds up when they ask you questions about her. Notice that REDDEN didn't rephrase the questions to ensure that the name wasn't just a trigger due to the situation. He could have asked DW "Did you kill anyone in the past 6 months. No, REDDEN believed DW did it, and he wanted to make sure he proved it, even if he had to spike the charts. Also remember that the polygraph results are not accepted in court, yet Judge Mudd allowed 40 minutes of the taped polygraph session to be aired in court. So much for the articles saying they didn't use it in court.

Feldman has been told his client failed the polygraph. He knows the Pros. is going for the death penalty. He goes to Pfingst,with the thought that his client just might be guilty of the crime, and asks Pfingst this: "What kind of deal can I get for DW, if he tells you where the body of the girl is?"

Feldman was simply exploring options, based on what he knew about the case so far. A lawyer might suspect highly that his client is guilty, even if his client won't admit it to him when they first meet, or even later. Doesn't prove he is or isn't.

Same way with this thing. Yes, Feldman was discussing the option with Pfingst, but he wasn't doing it at DW's request. And Pfingst never makes the statement that it was at DW's request. The media and Pfingst allowed the gullible readers of the article to make that leap for themselves.

Final part of the statement by Pfingst:

" and for him to now say that he didn't do it is ridiculous."

Nothing wrong with him saying this either. It is proof of nothing, and it requires no documentation to back it up. But for the gullible who swallowed the hook in the first statements, this final line sets the hook in the gills. What suckers!

What ALEX ROTH (again, do a little research on the backpatting between Alex Roth and Paul Pfingst, you might find something) needs to ask PFINGST is do you have documentation proving Westerfield offered to Feldman to disclose the location of Daneille in return for a lighter sentence.

When Pfingst supposedly turned Feldman down, did Feldman return to jail to inform his client the deal was a no go ?

Feldman isn't going to comment on what he said to Pfingst, and if DW said anything to him, he won't comment on it either. It would be unethical to do so.

[UCANSEE2]

Going back to your qoute, "... Westerfield offered to lead police to the second-grader's body in exchange for escaping the death penalty.

The sentence qouted here is the reporter's words, and not the words of Pfingst. But notice that when they are put in the same paragraph with this, ". It is the first time former District Attorney Paul Pfingst has commented publicly on the aborted plea bargain." those that want to believe DW did it, automatically assume that the PUBLIC COMMENT Pfingst made was the sentence preceding it. And it is absolutely, unequivocably wrong.

The writer of the article is very very skilled at this kind of MISINFORMATION. Almost every article he writes has this kind of tactic displayed. You only need go back and read the articles by him on this case. Same trick over and over.

[UCANSEE2]

If you are so sure of yourself, then provide documentation stating that Westerfield explicitly asked Feldman and Boyce to go to Pfingst and see what kind of deal he could get if he disclosed the location of Danielle. You will never find any because it doesn't exist.

What does exist is that Feldman and Boyce thought DW might be guilty, as they had just been brought onto the case, and been told that he horribly failed the polygraph test.

They went to Pfingst , based on that knowledge, to see what he would offer if they could get DW to tell where her body was. The police had asked DW over and over and he told them he couldn't tell what he didn't know. REDDEN thought that skewing the poly exam and convincing DW he was guilty and a liar might get him to disclose the location of the body.

Feldman and Boyce were also (naturally) convinced that if DW was guilty, maybe if they took a deal back to him, he might tell. If you read the actual statements by Pfingst, he admits that Feldman and Boyce were there to profer a deal "on their client's behalf". No where does Pfingst state that DW offered the deal, or offered it to Feldman. You need to read the article again, instead you are doing like the others, you KNOW he is guilty, so anything that supports that, you accept without question.

[Jaded]

2/25 Pfingst Press Conference transcript:

QUESTION: Can you talk about the potential issue of double jeopardy – the murder charges were not to be filed tomorrow?

PFINGST: If we were not to file murder charges tomorrow, and a kidnapping charge were filed, and the defendant were to go to court and plead guilty to the kidnapping, there would be an issue to whether or not he could be tried in the murder. I don't know how that issue would ultimately be resolved by the courts, but it's an issue, of course, we would not want to test.

QUESTION: Can you rule out the possibility that Westerfield leading you to the body could be used in the future as a bargaining chip for plea bargaining, if it is used would the family (inaudible)?

PFINGST: I am not going to answer that question.

****

Feb 27, The Woody, John and Matt Hour

LAUER: Actually, that's an interesting point. Mr. Clarke, let me go back to you on that. They do not know where their daughter is. Would the district attorney's office be willing to make some kind of deal with Mr. Westerfield? Again, presuming he's innocent--we have to do that--but if he were able to provide some information as to Danielle's whereabouts, even her body's whereabouts, would you be willing to drop the death penalty?

Mr. CLARKE: That's a decision that ultimately, if that circumstance arose, that the district attorney would have to make in consultation, I'm sure, with again his staff of experienced lawyers. But I think that's something that obviously anyone would consider, because all of us would like to see that body returned.

LAUER: Have any deals been offered to Mr. Westerfield? Mr. CLARKE: At this point, I couldn't comment on that, and at this point I think it's a little premature, in any event.

***

I also found a post on 3/1 after the body was found:

Broadcast Reports are stating that Feldman and SD District Attorney are meeting to discuss possible Plea Arrangement!!!!........developing.....updates when confirmation is available......

From SDUT

Court cites a danger to fair trial for defendant Westerfield as reason

By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
March 9, 2002
In his order, Domnitz prohibits all of the principals in the case from talking outside of court about "the character, credibility or reputation of the accused"; the possibility of a plea agreement; the identity and credibility of witnesses; the content of any of Westerfield's pretrial statements; the existence or nonexistence of physical evidence; and the results of polygraph or laboratory tests, among other things.

---

Mar 9, FR Thread

3. How much the D.A. allows revealed at the Prelim may depend upon a variety of factors; is he looking to plea-bargain the defendant because his case has problems which might jeopardize victory at trial? On the other hand, the more airtight his case is, the more he may allow to be revealed by his witnesses, etc.

*****

March 18 SDUT;

The final decision is Pfingst's. He has never decided to seek death in a case in which the panel recommended the other option: life without the possibility of parole. Pfingst also has said he refuses to use the death penalty as a bargaining chip. In other words, he would not pursue the death penalty to induce a defendant to plead guilty rather than go to trial and risk the ultimate punishment.

"His first card was, my life for her body, and that's passed," said Silverman, referring to prosecutors first charging Westerfield with murder before her body was found. "His second card is, if you make me, I'll make life miserable for the parents, but that bluff has just been called."

There is precedent for Pfingst accepting a plea in exchange for a life sentence in a death penalty prosecution. In 1997, he allowed Frederick Davidson, a graduate student who gunned down three engineering professors at San Diego State University Aug. 15, 1996, to plead guilty to committing three murders and be sentenced to life without parole.

Pfingst said he acted on the wishes of the widows, who begged him to accept a plea bargain because their families' lives were being torn apart by the turmoil of watching the case go through the criminal justice system.

"We had three young women with young children talking about their kids clinging to them and not being able to sleep nights before going to court," Pfingst said in announcing his decision.

"I didn't want to put them through an ordeal that would have stretched out for years and years."

*****

March 28 KFMB:

Most likely, the judge will set a trial date within a 60 day timeframe. Otherwise, Westerfield's right to a speedy trial will be violated.

Attorney Bill Nimmo says it's probable that Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, will waive this right.

If that happens, it could be six months to a year before the Westerfield's case goes to trial.

There could also be a possible plea bargain by the self employed design engineer to avoid a possible death penalty charge.

"The way I read the state's evidence, it's very powerful. And rarely do they bargain unless they have problems with their evidence. If they had some problems with their evidence, like there was a faulty DNA test, or if one of the witnesses had actually more contact with Westerfield... watering down the presence of the DNA... and that brought a fear in the prosecution that they could lose this case, then they might try to plea bargain," explained Nimmo.

---

On 2/25 Paula Zahn is interview John "LE's best friend" Walsh:

ZAHN: Can you tell us what those charges might be?

WALSH: Well, I would guesstimate, in my opinion, having done this for 20 years in other states, child endangerment, anything that they can put on to the kidnapping to make it a more serious case. You know, he certainly, if -- in my opinion, that's only as a father of a murdered child, he could do the right thing. He could make a deal right now and tell them where Danielle is no matter what happened to her and make a bargain for life without possibility of parole instead of -- if she is dead, and she is somewhere in the desert, instead of facing the death penalty.

But the good thing is, more searchers have joined the search. This has energized the search, because police can't do it alone. So people are searching the 25-mile area around the home, and in the desert, where he was the day that -- the day after she was kidnapped.

ZAHN: You have always been very candid about the amount of pressure that was on you and your wife when your son went missing.

---

4/24 KFMB:

PROSECUTORS TO SEEK DEATH PENALTY IN WESTERFIELD CASE (04-24-2002) - Westerfield Death Penalty

There's a major development in the case against the man accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

Prosecutors have decided whether to seek the death penalty against David Westerfield, 50.

Sources say that the decision has been made to seek the death penalty against David Westerfield.

The District Attorney makes the final decision on whether to seek the death penalty, but only after he gets a recommendation from a panel of prosecutors that reviews each and every death penalty case.

Westerfield has been eligible for the death penalty ever since prosecutors filed a special circumstance charge against him for murder during the kidnapping of young Danielle.

Sources also say that the motion to seek the death penalty against Westerfield will be discussed at a court hearing Thursday morning.

One factor in the decision to seek the death penalty is the parents of Danielle.

Experts say, the District Attorney usually consults with the family of the victim to get their input on whether to file death penalty charges.

The District Attorney's decision to seek the death penalty does not eliminate the possibility of a plea bargain in the case down the road.

A hearing to discuss the prosecution's motion will begin Thursday at 9 a.m.

---

So from the middle of February until the end of April they are still babbling about a plea.

Enter David Faulkner...... but for him. and the dogs and

[sinkspur]

You are spinning. YOU believe Westerfield to be innocent, and you're twisting yourself into knots, parsing words, and denying that things which have occurred really did occur.

Westerfield's guilty, he's been adjudged guilty, and he'll die an old man in prison. Justice is served.

I really don't care that much about this issue.

[UCANSEE2]

Where is your proof? You don't have any. See post by Jaded just prior to yours. Did you read Pfingst's statement? Did he say Westerfield offered to disclose the location of the body? You know why he didn't?

You know, for a smart feller, you don't know when you are wrong.

[UCANSEE2]

I really don't care that much about this issue

Here we go again, with the "I can spout off, because I am right, everyone that disagrees is wrong". Then when confronted, those same refuse to back up their statements, simply claiming others are wrong, and then want to make a statement like you just did. If you don't care, keep your fingers off the keys.

[UCANSEE2]

Many of us are responding, after careful evaluation of all the information. Compare that to the knee-jerk/blood-lust reaction you and others have, and you will see why we take our time. I might suggest reading all the posts on the various threads involving Westerfield. The Pfingst crap is just that.

He was very careful about making his statement, so that he didn't actually lie, but gave just enough for the GUILTY no matter what crowd to make an ASSUMPTION that Westerfield initiated the offer.

If you actually go read his statements, he never said that.

I will give anyone that provides written documentation that David Westerfield told Feldman and Boyce to go to Pfingst and see if he could get off the death penalty if he told them where he hid Danielle's body.

I do this in complete safety, as no such document exists. Pfingst knows it to, that is why he was careful to make his statement the way he did.

Did Feldman and Boyce discuss with Pfingst what he could offer if they could get Westerfield to disclose the location of the body? Absolutely.

[UCANSEE2]

OOPS.

I will give anyone $100 that provides written documentation that David Westerfield told Feldman and Boyce to go to Pfingst and see if he could get off the death penalty if he told them where he hid Danielle's body.

The article in the paper ,written by Alex Roth, where he surmises WESTERFIELD MADE THE OFFER, is not proof.