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.
sw
Sure is. Based on all the news accounts, there is just too much evidence against him. Not only the blood and fingerprints of the victim, but also his trip to the vicinity where the body was found, his suspicious behavior when he got stuck and needed a tow, his equally suspicious behavior at the dry cleaners where he took the bloodstained clothing right after his weekend junket, his large collection of child images (some of which the police have characterized as "pornographic"), his admitted interest in cultivating Danielle's mother (an interest he acted on).
I heard somewhere that one of his fingerprints was found in Danielle's bedroom. If that report was not just loose talk, I would think the case against him is a slam-dunk.
Of course not! Those types of pictures don't fall within the legal definition of child pornography. And neither do the "erotica" collections of pedophiles. The difference between your collection and a pedophile collection is huge. Their collections will be organized around their fantasies, and contain cut and paste scrapbooking and journaling, desriptions of sexual acts real or fantasized, "trophies" from victims, etc. Even a bonehead cop (or a bonehead jury)can spot the difference.
That is why the "legal" collection can be far more condemning than the illegal images.
Slam dunk bump! An interesting interpretation of his actions. But he asked for an intro to her friends.
I thought along those lines for some time now, like maybe he and Brenda would allow Danielle to play in the big doll house so he and Mom can "talk".
Of course anyone can express whatever they want - that is not the point. The point is why you choose to express what you express. If you want to have a "worthwhile" contest regarding a national sports championship versus a sordid murder story - ok. What is worthwhile and positive about the van Dam story?
Athletic competition is the epitome of what this country is all about: excellence under pressure; hard work; pure competition; all out effort; application of intelligent strategy; outcome based upon talent, effort, preparation, etc.
It isn't enough for defense to say little girls love hide and seek and love RV's to play in.
They are going to have to show it was well known and habitual. And if it was, why so few prints? Children playing would have left prints all over and under every surface.
My question is, how many surfaces had prints at all. Were all the prints found on the same surface, or one here, one there.
If you have an RV where kids played, there should be numerous prints everywhere, even after a good cleaning. But if this RV was detailed clean of prints on all surfaces, except one surface that held all the various prints (the two Danielle's and allegedly Jennifer)then there is no reasonable explanation except a criminal one.
Again, it is not the quantity,or even illegal content of the collection (although it makes it a no brainer), but the overall arching thematic nature of the collection. Also, they do not just collect photoghraphs, they scrapbook them, alter them, write detailed fantasies, or descriptions of actual events around them. Often a particular prideliction or fetish is obvious. It is unmistakeable and unmistakebly sick, but not necessarily illegal, under the child pornagraphy laws.
The average heterosexual adult doesn't keep scrapbooks of non sexual children's images culled from various media arranged/designed/restyled into erotica. Pedophiles do.
We don't know the nature of Westerfield's collection, only that "less than 100 questionable images" factoid. Meaning less that 100 might fall into the illegal pornographic definition. That's bad for the defense, but what's in the "legal" portion could be even worse if it is indicative of an obsession or fetish with children.
OTH, the rest may very will be adult pornography or landscapes for that matter, in which case the prosecution will have a difficult time proving its case for a sexual motive. IMO
sw
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.