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.

[Jaded]

But it's a little to late at this point. What I don't understand is if it's CHILD porn why isn't it a felony?

[MACD]

The only evidence the police have mentioned is the 2 blood spots. And looking back, it seems the blood identification was almost instant. I think that's the item to watch . …. when do we get the DNA story, etc.?

[scholar]

Thanks for taking the time to post the link. No facts related to the abduction were presented however. We have been posting on these threads, villifing the van Dams for their negligence.

Yet, I am really wondering why there is no information how this little girl was abducted from her bedroom in a cogent state without alerting someone. This one sound really fishy to me as well.

If you locate any more information, please send it along.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I think that's the item to watch . …. when do we get the DNA story, etc.?

Yes......it's THE issue since it appears that it is all they are basing guilt on at this point.

[Jaded]

If he walked into the house undetected, where are his fingerprints on the doors that he opened? If he wore gloves or somesuch so as not to leave behind finger prints, why would he take the gloves off and leave a "print" in her room?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

If he walked into the house undetected, where are his fingerprints on the doors that he opened? If he wore gloves or somesuch so as not to leave behind finger prints, why would he take the gloves off and leave a "print" in her room?

Excellent point !!! If it was so premeditated, gloves would be a no brainer.

[spectre]

Jaded, I don't know the answer to that. We've got some lawyers who follow this thread. What seems to be conflicting is if he really had CHILD porn or not?

Scholar, It's strange that no one is mentioning the Castro case or how he got into the house at 3:30 am to take her? We need to know how he did that, and if it could be connected to Danielle's abduction. Maybe they are keeping quiet on purpose....maybe not. I see this man as a qualified suspect in Danielle's abduction, same MO...

sw

[nicmarlo]

Kidnap Suspect Jailed "This week, police removed a pair of closet doors from Danielle's bedroom and took them away to preserve fingerprint evidence. Sources said police have yet to match any of the prints." (February 23)

Man to Face Murder Charge "Westerfield, a divorced, self-employed engineer with two children, was taken into custody Friday shortly after authorities said that DNA test results showed Danielle's blood on an article of his clothing and in his motor home and other DNA evidence on an article of Danielle's clothing in her bedroom." (February 26)

I am having difficulty finding the article I read. I find it curious, however, that I CAN FIND THE SENTENCE what I previously read on a google search, but THE LINK NO LONGER WORKS:

"the desert on February 2. His fingerprints were found in Danielle's bedroom. The ... motive. "I must conclude that Danielle van Dam is no longer living and ...
www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,3858532%255E912,00.html"

This is strange, indeed. Perhaps they took it off to avoid poisoning potential jurors, I don't know. But that is the exact sentence I had read, and it wasn't only on the "www.theadvertiser.news.com" website. Your thoughts?

[rolling_stone]

It is interesting no more reports of the Grand Terrace abduction. Since Danielle was selling girl scout cookies house to house if someone had been watching they could have seen where she lived...even if they did not live nearby and just happened to be in the neighborhood...

[Amore]

I guess your question should be directed to your legislators. I hope you do ask. I've just looked it up and seen that in Florida it IS a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison, Thank Heavens. In California, you get, so to speak (though not literally), one free possession of child pornography. That is, your first possession is a misdemeanor, but your second is a felony. Here's the exact California statute:

§ 311.11. Possession or control of child pornography; Persons previously convicted guilty of felony

(a) Every person who knowingly possesses or controls any matter, representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, the production of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 years, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by both the fine and imprisonment.

(b) If a person has been previously convicted of a violation of this section, or of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 311.2, or subdivision (b) of Section 311.4, he or she is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for two, four, or six years.

[There is also, in another statute, an enhancement of penalties if you try to use the child porn to show to a child to entice them into a lewd act.]

[spectre]

Also, the child played outside, anyone could have seen her, including Westerfield, for at least two years! The Girl-Scout cookie angle is meant to connect her to Westerfield. I don't see the relativity, he's probably seen her on a daily basis coming and going from her home.

As John Walsh pointed out, there are 13 registered sex offenders living in the van Dam neighborhood. Westerfield wasn't one of them.

sw

[scholar]

It's strange that no one is mentioning the Castro case or how he got into the house at 3:30 am to take her?

I acknowledge that there have been real child abductions such as the Polly Klass case. However, how many of us here really think that someone would be able to come into our home and take our children?

[spectre]

I'd say the odds of that happening are very slim.

.sw

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I'd say the odds of that happening are very slim.

......not to mention the odds of all things just smoothly falling into place in this instance to allow such a difficult thing to be pulled off without a hitch and the likelihood of the discovery being delayed for hours.

[scholar]

Maybe the situation would be different if I lived in a mansion, however my children's bedrooms were always in proximity to mine. Just can't imagine not waking up while someone was wandering in my home, much less trying to kidnap one of my children.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Just can't imagine not waking up while someone was wandering in my home, much less trying to kidnap one of my children.

Ditto.

[rolling_stone]

No mansion here: Van Dam House

Anyone able to explain the alarm lights flashing but no alarm? Was the alarm set when one or both parents were in the house or do they only use it when they are out of the house? Or were the lights noticed when they went to set the alarm at 3:30 am and it indicated open doors? What happened at 1:30 am when Mr. VD let the dog out?

[FryingPan101]

"They" won't let it work because it works. Many years ago my little five year old brother was killed by a drunk driver. They held him but let him go because it was only his third offense. When he came out, my dad was waiting for him. He ran back inside the jail and begged to be locked up. "They" obliged. He went on to kill a 82 year old lady the next year. His punishment was death by heart attack a few weeks later.

[Lanza]

Too many questions there! I have wondered too, why did he not wear gloves (there are claims his fingerprints are on Danielle's bedroom door). Who did he think would investigate the crime, Barney Fife? The only scenario I can think of that he would take these kinds of risks is if he was totally out of his mind on drugs or drink. And if that happened, I can't believe no one heard or saw anything.

[Valpal1]

I can imagine it. If you look at model home floor plans these days, most have floor plans that put the children's bedrooms on one end seperated from the "master bedroom suite" on the other end, with all the main living area in between the two. And frequently with a back door accessing much closer to the children, than to the parents.

Also, home invasion burglaries are completely common. Why is so hard to believe someone can take a child as easily as they take the electronics?