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.
With all due respect, Kim, READ THE BLEEPING TRANSCRIPT before you start spouting off. The urls to a couple of official court transcript sites have been posted. If you want to pretend to know a lot about this case, you really have to start there. Many of the stories in the media were completely knocked down by the court testimony. Two different people testified about the panties. It was mentioned twice, then (count 'em).
sw
Time for you to take some of your own medicine.
According to the Transcripts there was evidence of a stain found on Danielle's underwear.
It was not determined to be semen, or vaginal discharge from abuse, or infection.
It was decribed as YELLOWISH STAIN. Yellowish as in urine.
DNA samples were taken of it and compared to some blood stain samples from a jacket and some carpet.
If it was SEMEN or signs from ABUSE, then Damon has a problem, cause the DNA matched DAMON VAN DAM, and BRENDA VAN DAM. None of it matched Daniel Westerfield at all.
Anyway, you have jammed Kimmy for not reading the transcripts, yet I find that you and others apparently either
(1) have not read them either, or
(3)Read what you wanted into it, or
(3)Skipped through them so fast you misunderstood the testimony and evidence.
Would you like to be directed to the testimony so you can READ IT FOR YOURSELF ?????? Or do you just want to talk about other people to make yourself feel better ?
How about this. Prove what I said is wrong. From the testimony. Or have you really not read it as you say?
March 14, 20002, AM Brenda and The Demon
March 14, 2002, PM Brenda and The Demon
Or are you only capable of being a smart-aleck and making personal attacks on others ?
Now I know what the DA in your screen id stands for.
Uhmmmmm.....I will take smart-aleck for $1000 Alex......
Do you have anything that supports your conjecture that the stain in Danielle's underwear was more than normal urine or other vaginal discharge ? (i.e. not from sexual abuse).
I am not saying Damon is innocent, as I am a proponent of the belief he is guilty as hell (of what exactly, I don't know yet).
I don't think David Westerfield (wanted to say Daniel again) has anything to do with it.
What I want most is to get the facts straight. I have contributed to some incorrect spiel here on FR, but I have admitted and corrected it.
So, I ask again, prove what you say, or admit you are mistaken. It's pretty simple.
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.