Skip to comments.Police tried to talk with Westerfield without his attorney! (Big No No!!) van Dam Case Update
Posted on 03/06/2002 6:27:23 PM PST by FresnoDA
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 Westerfields 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.
Thanks...wrt:desertion..is that the same as awol? Does it mean he's awol now?
10 USC Sec. 885 01/02/01
-EXPCITE- TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES Subtitle A - General Military Law PART II - PERSONNEL CHAPTER 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER X - PUNITIVE ARTICLES
-HEAD- Sec. 885. Art. 85. Desertion
-STATUTE- (a) Any member of the armed forces who - (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion. (b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
-SOURCE- (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 67.) In subsection (a), the word ''unit'' is substituted for the words ''place of service'' to conform to clause (2) of this section and section 886(3) of this title. The word ''proper'' is omitted as surplusage. In subsection (b), the word ''commissioned'' is inserted for clarity. The word ''before'' is substituted for the words ''prior to''. The words ''its acceptance'' are substituted for the words ''the acceptance of the same''. The words ''after tender of'' are substituted for the words ''having tendered'' for clarity. The word ''due'' is omitted as surplusage. In subsection (c), the words ''attempt to desert'' are substituted for the words ''attempted desertion''.
-SECREF- SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in sections 882, 937 of this title.
I think it's not logical that Westerfield would have deserted the child in some forsaken place, leaving her to wander naked in the wilderness. He would have risked that she could have been found alive and identified him, assuming he did this.
OTOH, maybe they found her hands and feet bound and since they can't come to a finding "how she actually" died, think she was still alive when she was dumped, and that would mean "desertion"?
Amore, the man said "NOT GUILTY" and we are trying to understand perhaps WHY he might not be NOT GUILTY.
So, basically, we are conducting a mock trail, it's tough since only the Prosecutor has presented his case...:~)
Especially knowing that in so many of these cases, searchers and volunteer searchers would be all over the places he'd been--and remember, he did voluntarily disclose his whereabouts on his weekend trip.
"... and that would mean "desertion"?"
See Quimby's post #240--it appears to be military-related.
"Amore, the man said "NOT GUILTY" and we are trying to understand perhaps WHY he might not be NOT GUILTY. "
People do this very thing on almost every single thread. Click on one of the terrorism related threads, and people speculate about why this terrorist did that, or why the FBI did something else. Click on one of the elections threads, and people are speculating about why this guy said that, or why another guy voted on a bill in a certain way. And remember the Chandra Levy threads? And the Florida election threads? No one ever thinks twice, and almost everyone indulges in a little speculation of their own. Why are these Danielle threads different, I wonder?
Yes, some of us have. And so have you, when you rely on the undocumented and possibly self-serving statements of the van Dams, some of which fly in the face of their previous statements and/or other known facts. And I'm not talking about all the (so far) unverified stories, but going by "the record" such as it currently is.
Some people, and you can count me among them, judge a person by their truthfulness and whether or not they are forthcoming. Neither of the van Dams, thus far, has given me much reason to trust what they say, since they change it so often. And again, this is just my opinion based on the official record.
We won't get into my feelings about how much we can trust people who break their marriage vows so easily. These people remind me a lot of the Clintons, and their casual treatment of oaths and vows. That adds to my sense of distrust, too, but I wouldn't want to seem as though I'm "speculating and portraying it as fact." I do believe those rumors, however, and--please note--I have every right to do so.
Yes, and they are entitled to it. You know, I think some of the wildest threads we've had going have been the Clinton ones. I see a double-standard in a few people here..some of very same people who judge Clinton on rumor and inuendo, are suddenly becoming "appauled" at the rumor mill concerning the van Dams life style, and OTOH, label Westerfield a perverted child porn molester, because he has been "charged".
DW may well be guilty, and if he is, should pay the penalty. Then again, he may not be guilty. Someone is. We're for truth, justice and the American way. I dare anyone to take that right away from me. The "cheap shots" and sarcastic little "LOL's" do nothing but take away from the seriousness of the discussion.....
Everyone's opinion is important, even if it sounds far-fetched or off the wall. Could be one of the far-fetched theories just might be the case.
How are we going to get answers if we don't ask questions?
End of rant.
I agree..there is no excuse at all for having extra-maritial affairs..
Depends on who you ask the question to.
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.