|
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 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.
I have a son-in-law that is LEO in the county of San Diego and another one (though currently in the USMC) also attending the police academy.
Needless to say they travel in the circles of law enforcement. Both told me some weeks ago that Pfingst is not very well liked or respected by the cops. Apparently he is known for getting tough cases moved out of the county and is often timid about some other prosecutions. It's only hearsay, but it is still what the talk is amongst LEO.
Screw OJ. I don't care what that murderer has to say.
Was just a sort of show, to make it look like yes, maam, we've got a hot suspect, we'll fry him etc.///but from his own point of view, he wouldn't have been safe in the public eye, look at the hideous posts on the VD threads about what they would do to him, and so far, what is he guilty of?
At some point, won't the case simply crumble, and then when he would be safe to go out on the street the charges will be dropped and he released?
I still think DW is guilty of no more than finding body and/or other evidence in his van when he checked it, probably after already driving it away, Saturday morning.
Yet, after all, we find now just in this thread that the mystery "male guest" Damon was entertaining, now is a FEMALE friend, entertained not at the home, but at a PAINTBALL arcade? All 3 kids alone for hours in an unlocked house? This isn't looking any better for the VDs, and the forensic evidence (and evidence of whether there was a sexual assault(s) and if so by whom) must not be yielding any conventional incriminating data on Westerfield, but must be pointing away from him!
Are you related to DW? An old friend of his? I tend to dismiss the rumours and the gossip and look at the facts. So far, the facts are pointing to DW as a guilty man.
Haven't heard what Damon and the kids did early Friday eve. Maybe they all went to the paintball arcade.
Perhaps they've found anomalies in the blood chemistry report - barbitutates, THC?
The FBI probably did a series of presumptive tests, to verify that the blood found was consistent with, but not necessariy exclusively from danielle. Would the blood in Danielle's body be valid for testing or would it be degraded?
Or did they just 'attempt' to talk to him?
Think it is pathetic that this makes for a 'crime' as serious as the one Westerfield committed. Danielle is dead; Westerfield OTOH. . .
Okay, I guess I can't resist commenting any longer.
One fact that escaped my attention until recently was that DW was NOT the next door neighbor. He lives a couple doors down.
All of a sudden the whole scenario seems extremely implausible. It means he walked down the street with Danielle or her dead body. Or through the middle neighbor's back yard. The VDs claim they don't really know him, but he apparently knew his way around the inside of their home, if he did it. Or he had cajones enough to just walk in and walk around, abduct a child and leave.
Think about it, just walked over there, grabbed a kid, went home, got up the next day and went about his business.
The improprieties in the investigation look fishier and fishier. Is he being set up so it can look like something is being done, only to have the case fall apart after the election?
I think I can say with confidence than noone hates a molester more than I do. But if an innocent person was labelled a molester and murderer, it is also a very despicable thing. It is very important that the CORRECT person be punished for this.
A spot on a jacket found after it was dry cleaned. Did the police know it had been dry cleaned before they "found" the spot?
Lie detector. Remember the 60 minutes expose? Several leading polygraph experts were set up. The 60 minutes crew posed as owners of a camera shop from which goods were being stolen. With each expert, they chose a different employee to identify as the person they thought was doing the stealing. All of the employees were tested by each polygraph expert. Each polygraph expert identified as having failed the test whichever person had been pointed out to them in advance, and everyone else as having passed. So much for polygraph tests.
The body turning up where it had already been searched. Where was the smell when it was searched before? Westerfield couldn't have dumped it, he was under surveillance.
Calling shaved-genital porn "possible child porn." Suddenly the police don't look like they are investigating, it looks like they are mounting a propaganda campaign. Once the cops' objectivity is corrupted, any evidence they "gather" is very questionable.
The DNA evidence being recovered so late in the investigation. It should have been found immediately, not after cops and neighbors had been all over the place for so long. Not after there was so much opportunity for it to be gathered and planted. *A* spot in a bleached motor home. *A* spot on a dry cleaned jacket. Will it turn out to be *a* single convenient hair in Danielle's room?
I have seen some pretty out-there theories on this board regarding the relationship between the VDs and DW, but I am inclined to think that the cops don't think the VDs did it, so they are framing the most convenient person they can find: a middle-aged guy who lived by himself nearby.
I hope I am wrong.
If you or I were this little girl's father, I daresay she would still be alive.
Yeah, Fresno; the cops (I believe) said there was like major bleach cleaning to the motorhome when they searched it.
 Attorneys contend his rights violated
By Alex Roth March 7, 2002 Attorneys for the man charged with murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam say two San Diego police detectives tried to visit their client in jail last week without telling the defense attorneys or prosecutors in the case. A San Diego police spokesman acknowledged the incident yesterday and called the detectives' behavior "inappropriate." "We're dealing with it internally," said police spokesman David Cohen. Cohen wouldn't comment on why the detectives would attempt to visit David Westerfield in jail or whether they might face any discipline as a result. Cohen said he didn't know whether the detectives spoke to Westerfield. In court papers filed Monday, Westerfield's attorneys said the two detectives went to the downtown San Diego county jail Feb. 28 "and attempted to visit Mr. Westerfield for the purpose of speaking to him. They neither contacted defense counsel nor the district attorney. At no time did defense counsel give them permission to contact Mr. Westerfield." In the court papers, Westerfield's attorneys said the attempted surreptitious visit violates their client's constitutional right to counsel. They labeled the incident "outrageous, impermissible conduct that has been condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court for two decades." Westerfield's attorneys are seeking a court order "demanding that law enforcement refrain from contacting him in any manner whatsoever, except through his attorneys and with their advance permission to do so." A hearing on the request has been scheduled for Monday. It was unclear yesterday which judge would handle the matter. Westerfield's lead attorney, Steven Feldman, didn't return a phone call seeking comment on the motion. A spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office said prosecutors would have no comment. Westerfield, 50, a self-employed engineer, faces a preliminary hearing Monday on charges of kidnapping and murdering Danielle, who lived two doors away in Sabre Springs. Law-enforcement sources say police believe Westerfield kidnapped the girl with the intent to sexually assault her. Westerfield also faces misdemeanor charges of possessing pictures of minors engaged in sexual conduct. During a court hearing yesterday before Superior Court Judge H. Ronald Domnitz, Westerfield's attorneys again requested a gag order preventing attorneys, witnesses and law-enforcement officials from talking about the case publicly. The judge delayed a hearing on the request until tomorrow to give several law-enforcement agencies time to be notified about the gag-order request. In court papers, Westerfield's attorneys accused police of leaking information to the news media that creates misleading, sensational coverage and jeopardizes their client's right to a fair trial. The attorneys noted in the court papers that "the coroner's office has not completed the autopsy, no cause of death has been determined, the police chief indicates no evidence of sexual assault has been found, and police officers – in one report – state they did not find child pornography on Mr. Westerfield's computer." Westerfield's attorneys added: "The police in this case have selectively disclosed information that promotes their view of this case to the press, neglecting to reveal exculpatory and third-party culpability evidence apparent from the discovery provided to date." During yesterday's hearing, prosecutor Jeff Dusek opposed the gag order, saying the defense request was too broad. "Basically, the entire San Diego Police Department is being asked to shut up about this case," Dusek told the judge. Dusek also accused Westerfield's attorneys of "attempting to put a muzzle on the parents of this child." At Westerfield's arraignment last week, Feldman made a similar request for a gag order. Superior Court Judge Peter Deddeh denied the request but told Feldman he could renew it later.
|
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.
