Posted on 03/28/2002 7:54:29 AM PST by FresnoDA
DAVID WESTERFIELD TO FACE JUDGE AGAIN
( 03-28-2002 ) - A Sabre Springs man accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam and leaving her body in the East County is scheduled to be arraigned Thursday on charges of murder, kidnapping and possession of child pornography.
Along with entering a plea, David A. Westerfield, 50, may get a trial date at the hearing and find out if prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty against him if he's convicted.
Most likely, the judge will set a trial date within a 60 day timeframe. Otherwise, Westerfield's right to a speedy trial will be violated.
Attorney Bill Nimmo says it's probable that Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, will waive this right.
If that happens, it could be six months to a year before the Westerfield's case goes to trial.
There could also be a possible plea bargain by the self employed design engineer to avoid a possible death penalty charge.
"The way I read the state's evidence, it's very powerful. And rarely do they bargain unless they have problems with their evidence. If they had some problems with their evidence, like there was a faulty DNA test, or if one of the witnesses had actually more contact with Westerfield... watering down the presence of the DNA... and that brought a fear in the prosecution that they could lose this case, then they might try to plea bargain," explained Nimmo.
After a three-day preliminary hearing, Superior Court Judge H. Ronald Domnitz ruled back on March 14 that there was enough evidence for Westerfield to face the charges at trial.
Superior Court Judge Peter Deddeh may assign the case to another judge for all further hearings, including the trial.
Westerfield -- who lived two doors down and across the street from the van Dam family -- is currently held without bail.
Thursday's arraignment set for 2 p.m. Stay tuned to LOCAL 8 for live coverage.
Just because one uses apologist and apologize in the same post, doesn't mean one is using the same definition for both. I really wanted to hear another point of view as to WHY people who don't attack the VD's are apologists ..that's really all I wanted to know. Sorry it was too complicated.
http://www.thesaurus.com/cgi-bin/search?config=roget&words=apologize
2. Moral sentiments--apology, gloss, varnish; plea [more]; salvo; excuse, extenuating circumstances; allowance, allowance to be made; locus paenitentiae.
Why do you guys insist on calling those who aren't attacking the parents apologists? I've yet to see ANYONE apologize for their behaviour.
Look, lady. Anyone reading this statement will quickly come to the logical conclusion that you think "apologist" means someone is apologizing for something. I don't see that anyone has to prove anything--you've already proven (with your own words, which makes it all the more delicious) that you haven't a grip--on the definition of the word "apologist", anyway. Perhaps using smaller words would help?
Questioning the questionable activities of the parents in my opinion is not attacking them. I find it questionable that those who have problems with child molesters don't wonder (at the very least) about the questionable climate and activities going on in the Van Dam home. To be so convicted that Westerfield is guilty because he had child porn on his computer and not to be disgusted with the shocking lack of parental protection of Danielle and her brothers by allowing shady people in their very home in the dark hours of the night is quite hypocritical in my book. That is a big disconnect.
Boy, you've got that right!
Fres, you are a little rascal, wink, wink.
sw
Questioning the questionable activities of the parents in my opinion is not attacking them.
I agree with you 100% on that point
I find it questionable that those who have problems with child molesters don't wonder (at the very least) about the questionable climate and activities going on in the Van Dam home.
I completely agree that parents need to be ruled out first of course....even Klaas and John Walsh agree with that. I would have agreed with you on this point even further if the original rumors were true. THe original rumors were that the van dams were swingers bringing strangers into the home including that night. I've yet to see that proven. I was told that swingers make it a habit to not bring strangers into the home so go figure..??? The people they did bring in the home were long time friends.. (yeah I know...not respectable friends..drug dealer etc--was the drug dealer charge admitted by vd's in court? I can't remember) I guess my bottom line is that there is a risk in all areas...from small time drug users to catholic priests...does this make us feel our kids our safe? :(
To be so convicted that Westerfield is guilty because he had child porn on his computer and not to be disgusted with the shocking lack of parental protection of Danielle and her brothers by allowing shady people in their very home in the dark hours of the night is quite hypocritical in my book
I think most of the people that you call(ed) apologists which in my opinion is incorrect...completely agree that their lifestyle was deviant, was immature, were bad choices and most of all, risky. I have a serious problem with selfishness..alcoholics and druggies, ESPECIALLY addicts and users that are as old as the vd's. It's unnatural, sinful and just plain wrong. I can't say enough negative about it. BUT..the police have ruled them out as suspects at this time. IF the investigators get new evidence against the parents, or charge the parents with neglect....I'm on the laws side unless the law enforcers ABUSE their power. But, for some people to assume that these parents don't care about their kids, or hate them, or are draining public sympathy for selfish purposes or are faking their grief..that would be a darn big assumption. Walsh and Klaas both agree that it is common for parents to get trashed in such situations...so what is the answer? I don't know. Heck, alcoholics can grieve, and so can druggies...so I'm not understanding why someone would jump to that conclusion. I'm not saying you have, but others..
As far as the child porn or large collection of porn...Val posted an article on another thread...that talks about how some pedophiles do collect large amounts of porn, both legal and illegal porn. It's just a piece of a puzzle...not the convicting piece. To me, the handprint and dna are strong indicators of something and the prosecutor did not have to reveal everything at the PH hearing..so maybe we will learn of more evidence in the future trial.
So..for me, it's not that I believe he's guilty, I believe the current evidence revealed to the public leans towards westerfield and not the parents. In my personal opinion, if he is guilty, westerfield was probably stalking danielle for a long time,found an opportunity and exploited it. I don't think the vd's lifestyle increased the chances per say..mainly because pedophiles don't care if the parents party on weekends or not. All they care about is getting their 'fix'...
DW: She was with, uh, two of her friends.
MM: Girlfriends, right?
DW: Yeah, girlfriends.
MM: And so, they came in and they stayed about how long?
DW: Ummm...I'm guessing that they were there until at least after I left, you know, I was there until about 10:00, 10:30, something like that, so...
MM: What was their mood like?
DW: Oh, they were having a good time, you know, just playing pool with people and joking around, so...
MM: Did the detectives say why they searched your house with dogs, did they tell you any reason?
DW: I was gone all weekend...
MM: You have children?
DW: Yeah, I have two
MM: ....friends or the age of the girl? Do they know the girl?
DW: No, no, not at all. But umm.....I'd say I left here about 10:30 and there was nothing going on when I left and when I came back that evening at about 3.....30,
MM: A.M.?
DW: Everybody was around, yeah....... (is interrupted and starts walking back toward front door, talking to someone else.
Another cheap shot at our friend, Golitely, ~Kimmie~...Don't worry, she's lurking...LOL!!!
sw
Hi Lurking Golitely! I didn't think it was a ''cheap shot'' to suggest that you relax and enjoy the fr posting privilege...rather than getting upset and personal. What is this now...3 banned times in 35 days or so?? Have you set a record yet?
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.