Police tried to talk with Westerfield without his attorney! (Big No No!!) van Dam Case Update

KNSD NBC ^ | March 6, 2002 | KNSD NBC

[FresnoDA]

David Westerfield was arrested on charges of kidnapping and burglary. Police say Danielle's blood was found on his clothing and in his motor home.

Police tried to talk with Westerfield without his attorney by NBC 7/39 News Staff

SAN DIEGO, March 6 –    A San Diego police captain confirmed Wednesday that two detectives tried to talk with the man accused of killing Danielle van Dam when his lawyer was not present to represent him.

Lawyers for David Westerfield filed papers in court Tuesday saying that the detectives attempted to talk with Westerfield last Wednesday, the day after he was charged with kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam. The lawyers called the action “outrageous government misconduct,” and wrote that it jeopardized Westerfield’s right to effective counsel.

Defense experts say the law is clear: once a suspect has a lawyer, police and prosecutors should not attempt to talk with the defendant without getting permission from the lawyer. Some say the incident could harm the case against Westerfield.

"It sends a lot of messages, in addition to laying the groundwork for potentially asking the court to dismiss the charges because of this outrageous governmental conduct," criminal defense specialist Kerry Steigerwalt said.

Wednesday, Police Captain Ron Newman told NBC 7/39 that two detectives did request to speak with Westerfield, but he apparently refused to talk with them and called his lawyer to report the attempted interview.

"I have confirmed that that did happen,” Capt. Newman told NBC 7/39. “I question the appropriateness of it. I'm sure the detectives felt that it was the appropriate thing to do, given the set of circumstances that they were under. But we will be handling that internally. So it's not something that we would normally do. In fact, we should not be doing it, frankly.”

Another legal expert told NBC 7/39 that if police did not actually talk with Westerfield that day, there's little damage to the case against him.

[MizSterious]

What if Westerfield did not act alone? There are other possibilities, but we must remember that he was with a friend when he met BVD at the bar that night, someone named "Gary." Wouldn't it be wise to get all of the evidence, and not just settle for the two drops of blood? What if "Gary" left fingerprints--but with so many people in and out of the house, they might have been smudged or even lost. That's just one possibility, but there are other good reasons why they should have taken greater care with the crime scene.

[homeschool mama]

Seems the spider has a tangled web, huh?

In my heart of hearts I feel the van Dams are *not* being forthright and honest about what, when, where, how.

[MizSterious]

There might still be material the SDPD hasn't made known to the public that only the killer(s) would know--the editorial writer made some good points, but like the rest of us, he might not know the whole story yet. I believe you were the one who mentioned there would likely be some political angles to this story early on? Looks like they're heeeere!

[spectre]

We haven't begun to hear the master of the game, Feldman, work his magic.

BTW, did you catch the "third party culpability" statement?

Westerfield is the FIRST party, so who are the second and third party, unless the SECOND party has already been charged...who is that? AND who is the THIRD party? Interesting choice of words.

sw

[MizSterious]

"I absolutely cannot understand why Westerfield would consent to having his home and belongings searched when he knew there was all that evidence there (porn,blood,etc). It doesn't make sense! Can he be that stupid?"

This has bothered me, too. For such a highly regarded inventor who some have called a "genius," this is really some low-wattage thinking. Why? Stress maybe? Or something else?

[MizSterious]

One thing I've considered about the evidence in the motor home--remember, it's being said now that BVD was having an affair with Westerfield. If that turns out to be true, could they have gone for a drive in the motor home, with Danielle along? Ok, now hand me my tinfoil hat, please.

[MizSterious]

Oh, I should have read a little farther down before posting! I see you had the same thought I did--mom in the motorhome.

[MizSterious]

Your insights from the local perspective are most helpful in understanding what's going on in Southern California! Your comments help make sense of what would otherwise seem a strange strategy for the DA.

[FresnoDA]

What's Wrong With This Picture?

First we know that he is smart. He holds several patents and is an engineer. He has no history of deviant nor criminal behavior. So one of two things is true. Either he waited until the ripe old age of 50 to become a deviant and a murderer, or he has been that for a long time, but he is so clever and so good that he has never been caught or even suspected until now. So it is probably safe to assume he is not a total idiot. Let's keep that in mind.

Now first the motive. The article in the Union on Saturday said a San Diego detective said it was always about sex. And we are off and running.

So now on that Friday night, Feb 1, DW goes home around 10:30 pm. At this point he is going over to get Danielle for the purpose of sex. Either this is a spur of the moment decision or he has been planning it for some time. OK, again assuming he is not an idiot, he waits for the lights to go off in Danielle's house. He surely takes a flashlight, perhaps some burglary tools and something to subdue Danielle with, since when she wakes up, she will very likely resist and make noise, waking up one or more of the other 3 people in the house.

Now something else we can conclude about DW. He has really big brass ba&&s! He is going to go into a house occupied by 3 children and their father and a dog, any of which might hear him, yell and wake up the father. In that case DW will at least be recognized and then he is screwed. Police, embarrassment, illegal entry, the whole neighborhood will find out, jail time and on and on. He is going into a house that he has not been in before and he is going to go upstairs in the dark to get a seven year old girl out of bed, and carry her to his house without waking anyone and, take a chance that the dog won't care. He is going to do this, all the while knowing that the mother could come home any minute and he would be caught for sure that way too. Remember, he is not an idiot, or is he?

Then after he carries her out of the house, he has to go past another house and across a street to get to his house. If anyone in the neighborhood who happens to be driving home, they will surely see him. And again, if the mother comes home, which she is expected to do, at that particular time she will surely see him as well. Any of these likely occurrences happen and it is all over for DW. Still he presses forward. All the while, carrying not only Danielle, but his flashlight, the burglary tools and what ever he used to subdue Danielle with so she couldn't make any noise. (drugs, duct tape, etc.)

Now back up. When he gets to Danielle's house he finds the back door closed but not locked. If the VD's are like most homes with security systems, they most likely have one of those signs warning potential criminals and hopefully deterring them from entering. Surely DW saw such a sign, and he must assume that if he opens the sliding glass door, the alarm will go off if it is set.
He would have no idea whether or not it was set. But what the hell, he decides to take a chance and open the door anyway. Just feeling lucky, huh? Are we sure he is not an idiot or just has a death wish. I wonder what he planned to do if the door had been locked?

OK, we know from the wonderful reporting in the Union, that generally pedophile are not killers, but on the whole, only kill when the child threatens to expose him. Well in this case he has to start out a killer, because there is no other way for him to go through with it without being exposed. He has to plan to kill her from the get go.

So now he manages to get her to his house without being detected. He must keep the lights out. Why? Because he knows that any minute the mother will arrive home. And being a good normal mother, she will check on her young children before she goes to bed. And when this happens, she will discover Danielle missing and call the police, who will come out, search the neighborhood, and surely knock on any doors of any house in the neighborhood that has a light on. Can you picture DW talking to the police at the front door, while Danielle jumps up and down in the background with her hands and feet bound and duck tape across her mouth? Of course he takes the chance that the police will not bring dogs which would surely pick up her or his fresh scent and the trail from her house to his regardless if a light is on or not. And then they would want to search his house that night.

Stevon V

(This is a fascinating scenario/review by a Union Trib poster.  Several interesting points)

---

So now he manages to get her to his house without being detected. He must keep the lights out. Why? Because he knows that any minute the mother will arrive home. And being a good normal mother, she will check on her young children before she goes to bed. And when this happens, she will discover Danielle missing and call the police, who will come out, search the neighborhood, and surely knock on any doors of any house in the neighborhood that has a light on.

And that is the real crux of the Damon and Brenda VD story.  How would the perpatrator "know" that the VD's would not do a random "bed check" of the children while they are padding around the house, between the hours of 1:30 A.M. and 3:30 A.M. when they VD's went to bed??? 

Unless.........oh yeah, no unsubstantiated rumors.....FresnoDA

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Your comments help make sense of what would otherwise seem a strange strategy for the DA.

Pfingst's role in this has bothered me from the get-go. The primary timing seemed so relevant to the rush in this case.

Westerfield was named almost instantly as THE ONLY suspect and then it all fell into place for the prosecution.

Add to that, that we are seeing that there are many things that don't pass the smell test and seemingly not a lot of evidence. It's very bothersome.

[fivecatsandadog]

I seem to have lost track of this thread overnight (and I'm at **a-hem** work and supposed to be WORKING); can someone explain how the political angle fits in this case? Are the VDs connected with someone investigating the case?

[crystalk]

No, never within 3000 miles of him as far as I know. But there is just nothing on the public record yet, in the hands of the public, available to us...

THAT IS EVIDENCE HE EVER COMMITTED A CRIME IN HIS LIFE...

But, I will add, that his involvement with a married, much younger neighbor woman and mother of three, suggests the California lifestyle had got to him, but after all he IS FROM THERE, while the VD's appear to be refugees from Dallas or Lauderdale or something.

[crystalk]

Danielle was born long before the VDs moved to California, according to my records. DW is a lifelong resident of Southern California, this says.

[_Jim]

JonBenet all over again. No one seems to care if a little girl is murdered.

*Lovely* over-generalization based on the barest of information - that being those accounts of the case as related by the snooze media ...

Keep that shaker of salt handy.

[FresnoDA]

Confirmed, Westerfield has lived in Sabre Springs for about 5 years, the VD's for less than 2 years. Again, when the VD's arrived, the cost of the home was around 325-350K. They sold their previous home for 103K. That is quite a step up in household expense. Must have been one heck of a raise at Qual Comm........

[Bush2000]

What if Westerfield did not act alone?

That's a good point -- and one that I hadn't considered.

[fivecatsandadog]

Unless.... the perp is intimately familiar with the normal activities/proceedings within that household, aka a resident of the household or a relative.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

San Diego DA, Paul Pfingst, was running in last Tuesday's primary. He is not an overwhelming favorite and the target of quite a lot of criticism. Last election he ran unopposed, but this ballot had four candidates.

He failed to receive 50% of the votes and is now faced with a run-off.

IOW, his political life is on the line. You can fill in the blanks.

[crystalk]

It would not surprise me at all if it develops that:

There is not only NO ABDUCTION of Danielle, other than by her parents, and that after she is dead; but

There is also NO SEXUAL ASSAULT upon Danielle, other than by her father, and perhaps not EVEN by him; and

Thus DW cannot be guilty of anything but having the VD's plant an inconvenient corpse on him (or was it just a little blood, and their own cousins got rid of the corpse)...

And all we really have is massive child neglect and abuse, including by heavy sleeping pills which are the cause of Danielle's death. Slip her 3 or 4, she'll sleep till 9 or 10...But just the wrong food or lack thereof before ...just one too many pills...just the wrong microconditions, and one has overdosed the poor little thing.

Is this murder?

[fivecatsandadog]

aaahhh so /// thanks