SEX OFFENDER PROFILES: (Westerfield and the van Dam case!)

Missing Kids.com ^ | March 22, 2002 | MK.COM

[FresnoDA]

SEX OFFENDER PROFILES

---

 
For the purposes of  NCMEC, child sex offenders are divided into the two categories of Preferential and Situational Child Molesters. 

Preferential Child Molester 

Preferential Child Molesters have a definite sexual preference for children.  Their sexual fantasies and erotic imagery focus on children.  They have sex with children not because of some situational stress or insecurity but because they are sexually attracted to and prefer children. If this individual does not act on his urges, then he is not a child molester. 

Situational Child Molester 

Situational Child Molesters do not have a true sexual preference for children, but engage in sex with children for varied and complex reasons.  This type of molester may engage in sex with a child, ranging from a once-in-a-lifetime act to a long-term pattern of behavior.  The more long-term the behavior is, the more difficult it is to distinguish from a preferential molester.  Members of lower socioeconomic groups tend to be over represented among situational child molesters. 

Adolescent Offenders 

An area of increasing attention is that of adolescent offenders.  This type of offender can fit the characteristics of the preferential or situational child molester.  Adolescent (or younger) offenders should always be viewed as past or current victims of sexual abuse.  This may include psychological sexual abuse, inappropriate exposure to sexually explicit materials, and/or the repeated or inappropriate witnessing of adult sexual activity. 

Question:      Are all child molesters pedophiles? 

Answer:        No.

A pedophile is an individual who prefers to have sex with children.  A person who prefers to have sex with an adult partner may, for any number of reasons, decide to have sex with a child.  Such reasons may include simple availability, curiosity, or a desire to hurt a loved one of a molested child.   The sexual fantasies of these individuals do not necessarily focus on children. 

Question:     How does the abuse occur? 

Answer: 

Abuse occurs in a wide range of situations and settings. For long-term abusers, often, the child molester will “court” the child with attention, affection, and gifts.  Just as one adult courts another during a dating process, the pedophile seduces children over a period of time by gradually lowering their sexual inhibitions.  Sometimes the molester will tickle, wrestle, or hug the child in the presence of others first, adding legitimacy to the activity that will occur later in private. Often a child feels guilty or ashamed of the abuse.  Children may feel that a short amount of uncomfortable feeling is worth the amount of attention and affection and perceived care they receive from the molester. 

Excerpted from Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis by Kenneth V. Lanning. 

---

Westerfield does not fit into any of the groups listed above, at least certainly not in the "classic" sense.

* DW has no history of sex offenses and displays none of the traits of the serial or preferential child molester. The serial child molester will molest again and again until they are caught. The preferential child molester has a long pattern of preferring sex with children and is fixated on the child as sex object.

* DW has no history of going to extraordinary lengths to befriend, seduce or associate with children, as a pedophile would do. No family members or other victims have disclosed any abuse in the past. He is not child-like nor does he prefer the company of children.

* DW does not fit the composite profile of a sociopath, who characteristically have histories of adjustment problems and character disorders. Sociopath's tend to victimize friends and family over long periods and may never resort to criminal acts.

* DW does not fit the composite profile of a psychopath, who characteristically have long-standing problems in relationships; whose defining traits are manipulation of friends and family, compulsive lying, and shallow emotions with no conscience.

Actually....how would Damon do when analyzed by the same criteria.....just wondering.....

[spectre]

You are correct. First, let me say that the majority of us feel like you do. We want whoever did this, to be guilty beyond OUR reasonable doubt. If Westerfield did this, it will be glaring and he will FRY.

But you hit on the most troubling part of this whole picture. "How can DW prove his where-a-bouts"? Maybe he can. We don't have the trial yet. WE do know he was stuck in the sand, and the hounds were off and running with "she's buried in the sand, we'll never find her"....uggggh

But let's take a look at Damon. HE can't prove what he did between the time he claims he put the children to bed and the time Brenda and friends came back.

If this had been an ordinary family environment, none of what could have happened to Danielle in her own home would have EVER been given the time of day.

BUT....I don't think DW will get off IF he really did do it. OTOH, maybe Feldman and his team have already solved the mystery for us. Going to be a great trial!

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

Just more questions to throw out..Does anyone know the times the boys went to sleep? Maybe the detectives know, and they're keeping mum about it? If you guys know of a time when they boys went to sleep, that'll void this idea..but if the boys were up playing videos till say, 1am..(it does happen in some families on weekends)that'd tells us damon's where-a-bouts until then. btw, how can any parent prove where they were after their kids go to sleep? Yes, I do realize that parents can and do sneak out of their house when the kids are asleep. If he did, would he have locked the door before he left?

[Freedom2specul8]

Never mind..I thought you were referring to damon. Too many Initial D's to keep track of. (Ok, I'm waking up now)

[spectre]

Damon testified, several different times, he put the boys and Danielle to bed at the same time, around 10 to 10:30pm, depending on which version you want to believe.

He had plenty of time before wifie got back to do "whatever" without a witness.

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

K, I had it in my head that only danielle went to bed at 10..thanks

[Freedom2specul8]

Yep, this is why...the first three reports/articles state that Danielle went to bed at 10 or 10:30--but didn't mention the boys. That's why I got confused.. Dern details.. LOL

[Freedom2specul8]

Fresno gave me this to help a couple of days ago...verifies the bed time.

[Jaded]

The Pierce thing... It's at the capitolgrilling web site. Page 9 about 2/3 of the way down. It has links to the Union Trib version and some others. Pierce

Hey, my first attempt at ADVANCED HTML. WooHoo.

[MizSterious]

Interestingly enough, at the PH, towards the end, Feldman said something about wanting to bring in testimony from alibi witnesses, but was not permitted to do so. Perhaps this trial is not a slam-dunk, after all? Does anyone else remember hearing this, or have a transcript handy?

[MizSterious]

Just for the record, it will depend on how the reward offer was worded. If it said (as many do) "...for the safe return of Danielle" or words to that effect, the reward offerer would not be obligated to pay off. I believe the bail bondsman worded his offer like that. Anyone have a link to Pierce's reward offer?

[MizSterious]

"Brenda had to have know about the porn or suspected, it's just too easy. "

That is certainly my suspicion too. IF they were in fact having an affair, they might have talked about a lot of things, maybe including what he found on his son's computer? One post on the SDU-T site actually stated that the zip disks were the son's--but I can't verify that on the web, so I relegate it to the "theory" pile. (Apparently, the U-T publishes more in the print version than they do on their website--I've seen maybe 6-7 articles referenced as being in the U-T that are NOT on the website. Ah, to have the paper version....)

[MizSterious]

" But THIS IS NOT THE VEHICLE that contained any prints, dna, or other evidence of Danielle/Brenda van Dam. "

So many flaws in this case, but this one is a biggie. How did she end up where she did? Why (that word again!) were there no traces of Danielle, nothing, not so much as a skin flake (apparently) in the SUV if that's how he transported her?

[MizSterious]

"I don't think Danielle was killed on purpose. How she died is going to remain a mystery, unless someone confesses."

Unless toxicology comes up with something. I know some have postulated that perhaps someone drugged her, and od'ed her accidentally. I don't know that they've released the reports yet? Might not release them to the press in any event, because of the gag order, though. In any event, since the child seemed to have no wounds, etc., you're right: it looks more accidental. It would have to be an OD or suffocation, I'd think.

"OR they just think we all are stupid."

I don't know about Brenda, but I thought Damon seemed arrogant enough to think that he's smarter than anyone else. (Bet he's a liberal--liberals often make that mistake!)

[MizSterious]

"Note how like Clinton she barks and rails when someone like Pierce breaks the party line."

Yes, I did notice that! In fact, so much about these two people remind me of the Clintons! (Including their lemming-like apologists! No matter what ugly new fact comes out about them, there's always someone who will have a rationalization for it--just like Clinton!)

[spectre]

I recall the judge didn't want this to become a "mini trial".

I pray that Feldman is able to interview the two boys in the house. They were witnesses, weren't they? Even to the point of when they were put to bed.

Golitely, do you remember which poster used to put a "Lemming Alert out, complete with a big picture"...? Was it Don Morgan or Doug from upland?

I never felt part of FR untill I was issued my VERY own "Lemming" alert post...~sw~

[crystalk]

My evidence suggests that there was a list of persons whom Mr Feldman would have liked to call, but the judge said he would only allow them if

(1) They were definite alibi witnesses who could place DW elsewhere when crime committed; or

(2) some other category such as persons who would flatly contradict, falsify, and impugn what had already been said by Van Dams or other persons who DID testify...

Apparently the witnesses in question were not very clearly in those categories, and the judge quickly wrapped it up, before perhaps it could be determined whether the witnesses proposed would or would not, fit one of those two.

[crystalk]

A lot of this case is going to come down to Reasonable Doubt that DW did it. Law requires that if there is "RD," Mr Westerfield cannot be convicted and must be acquitted.

Unless the prosecution can present VASTLY more incriminating info against DW than we have been told they have...and Unless the doubts arising inherently from the various stories of the VDs and the wide-open opportunities for anyone at all incl their other guests, to have committed whatever was committed...

AND UNLESS THE VERY SERIOUS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE CRIMES WITH WHICH DW IS CHARGED WERE EVEN COMMITTED AT ALL can be resolved, ...

Then this case is over before it begins, and ought to be dismissed.

Again I say, there is as far as any of us sharpies knows, far more than enough reasonable doubt that the crimes WERE EVEN COMMITTED AT ALL, to require the judge to simply dismiss the charges against some specific fall guy who has been picked up.

[MizSterious]

I don't recall who started the lemming alert posts, but I think others copied them.

I rather think the judge already had his mind made up, in any event. Amore has said the way he worded his statement about being convinced of Westerfield's guilt was probably according to the law. However, we watch quite a few of these trials on Court TV, and I don't believe the judge said that even in the OJ trial--and everyone including the judge thought he was guilty. (Speaking of the judge before Ito, who was, at best, kind of flaky.) I do agree with Amore, though, that if he deviated from form, it could be devastating to the prosecution.

I've posted some interesting articles over here, including one wondering if a fair trial is possible. (The columnist gives opinions on both sides.)

[Jaded]

AND UNLESS THE VERY SERIOUS REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE CRIMES WITH WHICH DW IS CHARGED WERE EVEN COMMITTED AT ALL can be resolved, ...

Then this case is over before it begins, and ought to be dismissed.

Given the climate of hysteria in SD, this seems very unlikely. The only way DW would be released would be if the fingernails yielded someone else's DNA based on the 6 markers that are ususally done. (Remember in OJ, one of Marcia's arguments was that they didn't have enough blood to allow defense to do all of their OWN more detailed testing. Racial profiling aside, this was part of the doubt.) IMO, if it's not his it will be inconclusive. The six markers can and will be challenged. They will not trade David unless there is someone else.

After reading on a different forum, there are apparently more than a few parents in SD that think SDPD doesn't have the right guy and are worried that some one's still on the loose.

Now for the rumor mill. There seems to be people of the opinion that the reason SDPD zeroed so quickly is that there are some PD involved in CB's. Birds of a feather. No to the extent that it's a "conspiracy" it's more just ignoring stuff. Exculpatory 3rd party evidence.

[Jaded]

Do we know for sure if this judge will be the trial judge. In OJ, the PH judge was not the trial judge. Then again, if there's a change of venue, which I would imagine there would be, then it's the luck of the draw.