Posted on 04/25/2002 9:15:24 AM PDT by FresnoDA
By J. Harry Jones
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 25, 2002
A San Diego Superior Court hearing has been scheduled for 9 a.m. today for David Westerfield, the Sabre Springs man accused of kidnapping and murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.
The attorneys involved in the case are prohibited from discussing it because of a gag order, but it is possible that prosecutors will announce whether they will seek the death penalty against the self-employed engineer.
His attorneys have insisted on Westerfield's right to a speedy trial, which is scheduled to begin May 17. He is being held in County Jail without bail.
After Westerfield's arrest Feb. 22, prosecutors filed special allegations in the case, accusing him of committing murder during a kidnapping, which gives them the option of seeking his execution if convicted.
District Attorney Paul Pfingst has a protocol on reaching a decision that usually takes several months; the case is reviewed by a panel of senior prosecutors. Defense attorneys also have the option of meeting with Pfingst.
It has been just over two months since the charges against Westerfield were brought, and because of the gag order it has not been possible to determine whether the panel made a recommendation or if Westerfield's attorneys met with Pfingst.
The district attorney makes the final decision. If he chooses not to seek the death penalty, Westerfield would face a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.
Danielle's family lived two doors from Westerfield. Her parents reported her missing Feb. 2, and police quickly focused on Westerfield as the prime suspect.
Prosecutors said DNA testing proved that blood found on some of Westerfield's clothing and in his motor home was Danielle's.
Volunteer searchers found the girl's body Feb. 27 east of El Cajon in a stand of oak trees just off Dehesa Road. The cause of death has not been determined because of decomposition of the body, officials said.
And don't forget clothing! Remember she left Danielle alone in the mall that day. The miracle is that she wasn't kidnapped at that time!
It couldn't have happened this way...could it? Why is this case so full of holes?
Why is every piece of evidence open to speculation?
Why are there so many conflicting timelines, inaccurate media leaks, and strange coincidences surrounding this story?
Why did the accused, a highly intelligent man, a man who had no criminal record, other than a D.U.I., suddenly become a violent predator?
I have a theory that may not be true, but it would explain everything if it is. WHAT IF...Let’s take a purely hypothetical case almost identical to this one, where a 7-year old girl is abducted in the middle of the night from her bed, and the eye of the media is suddenly on the police department and DA…
The investigators in this case are thoroughly stumped as to what happened to this poor little 7-year-old girl. They have their suspicions about one or two individuals, but their investigation has not yielded a good suspect.
We know that the pressure on a Police Dept and a District Attorney is immense in a case like this. I think we all will stipulate.
The DA, keenly interested in being re-elected, and trying to overcome increasingly negative publicity, MUST make an arrest quickly in this case.
A television interview with one of the victim’s neighbors gives the DA an idea. He can take advantage of a very tenuous connection between the neighbor, and the mother of the victim.
Police publicly begin to focus in on the neighbor as the primary suspect, but the evidence they have really does *not* point to him. They find some porn images on his computer, and "accidentally" leak to the press that they are of under-aged girls, so as to prejudice the general population. The man is a pedophile, they intimate, one of the most despised of all criminals. The neighbor is already as good as guilty in the eyes of many. Subsequently, several other inaccurate leaks begin to surface to further implicate the neighbor, such as the "overpowering" smell of bleach in the neighbor’s RV, etc.
Just to add spice to the soup, the media begins circulating rumors of a “swinger” lifestyle predominant in this particular community. The victim’s parents are part of this lifestyle, the rumors whisper. Gossip begins to spread. The police, under orders from on-high, are told to “grill” the neighbor.
One of the detectives, who’s privy to the game and knows the neighbor is not really guilty, recommends a really good attorney to the neighbor, one of the best in the region.
Why?
Because the neighbor is NOT guilty.
And they don't really intend to convict him.
They will forge a little evidence, evidence that can easily be refuted or overcome by the highly competent defense attorney they themselves have just recommended.
They don't really want to convict him. They just want to look like they are trying.
Looks good to the electorate, and makes the “people” feel safe.
Police actually find the body days prior to making an arrest, but are unable to extract any valuable evidence from it. They are able to extract some DNA from the body, for future use. They leave the body where they found it, because they want to set this thing up correctly. First, they will arrest the neighbor, even though they have no body, in order to convince the people that he is so guilty they need no body, and to rivet the peoples’ attention to the case once again.
Then, the day after arresting neighbor, (now The Accused), the private investigator working with the search teams, who has a working relationship with the police department, receives his instructions to direct searchers back out to the area where the body still lies. This wraps the whole thing up nice and neat, you see.
The only *real* evidence to be found anywhere is the blood / DNA evidence planted by investigators, again, to firmly implicate The Accused in the public's perception.
But they don't really intend to convict The Accused, and they know the highly competent trial lawyer they themselves recommended, the trial lawyer who perhaps owes the DA a favor or two, will get The Accused acquitted. The DA is confident of this.
The DA knows that people, in general, don't really understand the judiciary process. He knows that half the evidence he will present will be deemed inadmissible. He knows it will be impossible to win a conviction with an inadmissible motive, an extremely shaky timeline, a murky window of opportunity, and no cause of death. Still, just to be certain, he asks for the death penalty. He knows for a certainty that the jury will not find The Accused guilty with shaky evidence if it also means sentencing him to die. It is a "slam-dunk."
The Accused will be freed by a hung jury, or else will be acquitted by that jury.
The Trial Lawyer will be perceived by the masses as a brilliant, if slimy attorney, contemptible, certainly, but very desirable to those who find themselves in trouble with the law. Able to command top-dollar on the open-market, he becomes famous, highly sought-after--a CNN interview.
The DA gets to play the martyr. After all, he HAD his man, but that slime-ball attorney, that SNAKE, got the killer off using smoke-and-mirrors in the courtroom. The DA is re-elected and accrues great political capital. Strangely, despite complaining vehemently about what a grave injustice it is that The Accused "got off," the DA will not pursue a retrial.
The police will take a minor public relations hit for screwing up the investigative process. In order to fix the problem, of course, the police department lobbies the City Council and the state for millions more taxpayer dollars.
The Accused, freed but not exonerated, leaves his home city and moves far away. Acquitted, yet knowing he will always be The Accused, he is doomed to live out the remainder of his days as a marked man, a social leper, an outcast.
The DA and all those involved are better able to sleep at night, knowing they did not *really* convict an innocent man. In fact, they laugh privately at their own cleverness, and how easy it is to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.
This, of course, is a completely fictional account, and should not in any way be perceived as an accusation of any individual or individual(s), public or private.
But if you listen to some people--not just on FR--you come away with the impression that there is nothing (or at least very little) untoward about their lifestyle, what they did on the night of the abduction, and what they did and said on the days following the abduction. There's an excuse for every last sleazy lie and bit of bad behavior, including, but not limited to: grief, nervousness, shyness (don't laugh, someone did say that), parental concern (again, the "don't laugh" notice).
In the midst of all this, if someone didn't know anyone from San Diego (and indeed California), one might come away with the opinion that this is all standard ops in that part of the world. It's a terrible disservice to the good people there that this impression is left by the vD supporters here and elsewhere.
Feldman not only has to exonerate Westerfield, but actually do a Perry Mason and tag the real killer in court. (I'm not even betting this is possible).
We could use the DNA factor to get DW off. There HAS to be traces of his DNA somewhere in that house for him to have kidnapped Danielle. (The visual mind-scene of DW lurking in her closet as stated, would certainly provide skin-cell DNA...AND let's not forget how DW "sweated profusely" under stress...LOL!)
But wait, didn't Damon vacuum the house? Whoops! Nevermind the DNA...Damon is a real "Mr. Mom" with the house-cleaning...isn't he?
sw
sw
I must have misconstrued this from something I heard early in the case (probably press misinformation). Sorry, I stand corrected.
See Jaded's post #66. Short version, "Because DW wasn't BARETTA !"
You mean she didn't keep dirty laundry in a close hamper? She never threw her dirty clothes on the floor so she could put her pj's on?
So what you are saying, is that she took off her dirty underwear and put them in her dresser drawer? Going with that, then Westerfield couldn't have his DNA on her underwear, now could he?
No, I think the discharge on her underwear happened before she was abducted. ...DW would have been too smart to stash the evidence in a drawer. A man who leaves no DNA or fingerprints in that house, wouldn't botch it by hiding underwear...no, no..
Then again, IF someone raped her and removed her underwear, {NO TIME TO ALLOW FOR A DISCHARGE STAIN} then they would have had to put her pajamas on her AGAIN...to take her out of the house. (Remember, we have to go with the Van Dams story about how Danielle was such a heavy sleeper, and possibly thought Damon was carrying her).
Do you think she slept thru a rape????
Tell us, Kim...how is this likely?
sw
The good FriarT stated that not all of the elements are required to make his theory doable. (I didn't include that in my post because I thought 6 pages on a Word.doc would be too much.) On the finding the body part of his scenario, remember the area had been searched AFTER DW was arrested and then they returned on a 'hunch' and presto!! Boggles the mind does it not?
Things like stained underwear being removed from a dresser drawer is serious business. IMHO, and it's only that, it would appear there may have been some fooling around with this kid way before the name David Westerfield was known...
Nothing that happened in that deviant household should surprise anyone. The authorities should be suspecting the Van Dams of foul play as much as anyone else....no, I take that back...more so.
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.