Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Valpal1; NatureGirl
Let's let people decide for themselves. Did they say what they said, or did they say what you imagined they should have said?

Officer: During the course of our investigation, the resident here, his name came up, as someone who had contact with the family. We've talked to him. He is cooperating with us. He's talked to us yesterday, he's talking to us today. We had some things we wanted to check in his house. He allowed us to go into his home and we are doing some things to process the scene and possibly eliminate him as a suspect." Source

Second, there was an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune the same day, where another officer says something quite similar:

"This is a process of elimination," said Dave Cohen, a spokesman for the San Diego Police Department. "We have gotten some information and we wanted to take a little closer look at his vehicle and his residence." Source

And from the motion filed in court last week:

"Detective Alldredge's affadavit was relied on to establish probable cause for search warrants 2783D and 27818 to search Mr. Westerfield's home. 27813 for Mr. Westerfields clothes. In his affadavit, Alldredge misrepresented statements by Brenda Van Dam that were relied on to supply probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. Because the affadavits were sealed, documents may only disclose the specifics of the misrepresentations in camera."

So, from this, it appears Brenda said something, but that Alldredge might have altered it or exaggerated it. Bottom line, it looks like someone did point the police in a certain direction.

116 posted on 04/09/2002 7:23:13 PM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Valpal1; NatureGirl
More clues as to why he became primary suspect. Also, testimony from police officers to investigators etc., can also be a reason to see a person as being the primary suspect.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/634811/posts

Westerfield became the main suspect within days of the girl's disappearance when he consented to, and failed, a polygraph test, several sources have said


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/644715/posts?page=56#56
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/
Neighbor: Scratches and sweating, overly cooperative Posted: 6:19 p.m. PST March 11, 2002 SAN DIEGO -- A scratched-up David Westerfield was "overly cooperative" when detectives questioned him two days after 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was discovered missing, according to preliminary hearing testimony Monday. Detective Johnny Keene said Westerfield had numerous small scratches on his hand and arm when he was interviewed on his front porch the morning of Feb. 4. Keene was the final witness on the first day of the hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to send the girl's accused killer on to trial. "In my opinion, he was overly cooperative," Keene said. "I've been doing this for 16 years. Typically, when we search people's houses, they don't point out places to look. Usually, they ask why we're searching their house."

129 posted on 04/09/2002 7:59:37 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson