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.
Maybe those weren't the underwear she had on that day. Maybe they were from the day before. (remember, this was a weekend).
Maybe Danielle was supposed to put dirty clothes somewhere, but was too lazy to do it, so she stuffed 'em back in the drawer.
Remember, her body was found nude. Where were the pj's she was wearing ? My guess is they are with the underwear she had on.
NO, you say, they showed her PJ's on TV.
If I remember correctly, the PJ's they showed belonged to the neighbor kid that slept over once in a while, and Damon (or grandma) admitted when stating "These are just like the one's Danielle was wearing."
Also, they could have gotten her DNA from HER hairbrush. The DNA is in the hair follicle, unless she shared her brush with others, then it would be contaminated.
Here's some more:
Who was in the house with Danielle?
Who was the last person known to have seen Danielle alive ?
Who could have moved inside and outside the VD household without attacting attention of being suspicious?
Who had time to murder and then get rid of the body of Danielle?
Who has lied, and changed the story of that night's events, repeatedly?
Who has tried to control the testimony of the other main household person (Brenda),by coaching, telling her what to say, what not to say?
What other 'responsible' adult/parent did not come home until late, late at night, and was most likely in an incoherent condition to be a witness to anything?
1. The officer was confused about where the underwear came from. The collecting officer was Dorrie ?, the conclusion was that (don't flame me here)men would make that mistake and not know the difference between in the dresser and near the dresser, not women, they would remember where they found it.
2. That the perp sexually assaulted her and hid the underwear in the drawer because somebody was coming.
The officer testified under oath about them being found inside the dresser drawer. They have not determined if she was sexually assaulted or not. That, IMO, is why it is so important to keep the "illegal child porn" story alive, legs intact, and the judge either helped it along, or really didn't think it was worth 2 days in court over. Who knows, my mind reading skills aren't what they used to be, heck sometimes I can't even read my own mind.
They may have wanted to use the underwear, rather than a hair brush because they susupected the stains were not normal.
That if they got the DNA from the underwear accepted as being Danielle's at the PH, then at the trial can prove the stains have DNA (or are semen) from DW or DVD, then they have a locktight case.
Were they to get DNA from a hairbrush, and DNA or semen from a pair of underwear, but the underwear DID NOT HAVE DANIELLE's DNA (or they had not established that), they could not prove anything, except maybe that Damon (for instance) used a pair of Danielle's undies to wipe himself off after sex with one of his swingers.
See what I mean ?
And that, dear boy, is something the SDPD won't even consider. In fact, it seems to be out of the question. We beg to differ with them. Just look at the facts.
sw
There has also been speculation about the pj's as well. Off another forum, though, that the grandmother asked about the pj's and Damon got really weird about it. Who knows what the heck the truth is with this bunch.
Hey Punkeroonie...I'll save you some hassle. DON'T post to me...got it?
ROFLMAO.. and you are such a little sweet, kind, sensitive, mannerly old lady.
It was Danielle's DNA in the underwear. If it had been DW's or anyone else's the DA would have been doing the Happy Dance Without Duct Tape in front of the full press contingent. That's really sort of a mute point since the body was found.
sw
You don't want someone posting to you, then stay off these threads or start a Van Dam fan club thread of your own. I promise not to post on it...
We are seriously trying to discuss this case, even if you don't agree with what we are saying, we are still going to get it out. I promise you.
sw
sw
I'm not buying the abduction scenario...
Many of our members (and apparently the District Attorney,) maintain that it was possible for DW to abduct DVD from her room, carry her downstairs, and out of the Van Dam house without rousing anyone.
Fine, let's say that it happened like that.
Here's how it would've happened, in your scenario.
Overriding logic, DW threw caution to the wind and decided to abduct Danielle...
He is somewhat intoxicated, feeling slighted by Brenda, and he believes Damon is away for the night. He sneaks into the VD residence, never noticing the alarm system that, fortunately, is not armed. Upon entering the house, he is not in any way alarmed by the blinking lights and beeping from the security box. It's kind of dark in the house, but luck is with him, and he doesn't bump into anything or stumble on his way up the unfamiliar staircase. In a brief flash of sobriety, he is suddenly and painfully aware that the house is *not* empty as he stealthily proceeds upward, step by step. (Where is Damon while this is happening?)
Soon, he finds himself on the upstairs landing, still in shadows, yet he can clearly see the pink and purple flowers on the door, identifying Danielle's room like a beacon. Wondering if this really was such a great idea, he moves slowly toward the door, extends his trembling hand, and turns the door knob.
Keeping in mind that while he is *still* intoxicated, this 50 year old, overweight man sneaks upstairs and finds Danielle's room *without awakening anyone.* He opens her door, sneaks inside, and sees Danielle sleeping in her bed.
At this point, DW has to make a decision. He knows the house is not empty, and he surely *doesn't want to awaken anyone,* so, he PICKS UP DANIELLE and puts COMPLETE TRUST in the possibility that she is like so many of our UTForum members' children, and that she won't wake up and raise a ruckus. (??) He *knew* she wouldn't wake up, of course. We can all safely rely on the fact that a sleeping child will remain asleep any time a stranger picks her up, right? Westerfield's engineer's mind would comfortably take that gamble, yes?
Now, he hefts Danielle out of bed--or does he sexually assault her now? If so, where is Damon during all this? He hears nothing? No cries from Danielle? No sounds from the bedroom? Is this when DW tears off Danielle's underwear and neatly stuffs it in the drawer? If so, did he carry her out of the house nude? Wow, he took the risk that somebody who happened to be driving by wouldn't take note of a grown man carrying a nude little body over his shoulder? Oh, wait, that's right, Danielle had the pajamas on. Nobody would notice a grown man carrying a little girl in her pajamas out of the house! And the Van Dams just coincidentally happened to have an identical pair of those pajamas to show the press! WOW!
That DW, he sure is a clever schemer, leaving nothing to chance, as befits an engineer's mentality. Of course, he is lucky just to get out of the house.
Keep in mind that he is *still* intoxicated as he carries this child--adding her 60 lbs of weight to his own--down the stairs. For this entire time, he is *still putting complete faith* in the hope that she will not wake up and raise a ruckus--OR--perhaps he has shown some foresight, and gagged her in some way. Of course, if he has gagged her, then she is surely awake now, and probably struggling, trying to cry out. Or is she dead? Bleeding? He assaulted her and killed her in her room, yet no one heard a thing AND DW left no genetic evidence behind in her bedroom? Or is she alive?
Now, he is *still* fat and drunk,has either a blissfully sleeping 60lb child in his arms, or a 60 lb gagged child who is struggling, yet he makes it all the way downstairs and out of the house without waking anyone.
Now, assuming the child he is carrying is sleeping blissfully, she somehow does *not* awaken in the cold air outside, OR else, she is gagged and struggling, yet DW boldly carries her out to either the street to his waiting SUV, or else all the way down the street to his house.
Westerfield, of course, is an intelligent man, yet this abduction belies all rational thought. Tonight, he has decided to rely on his LUCK. And lucky he is, too, becuase he has pulled it off! Now, he drives away in his SUV to where his RV is parked with either a still sleeping / or gagged / and struggling / or dead Danielle in his SUV? Which is it, still sleeping, or gagged and struggling / or dead? If she's dead, then why take her to the RV? O
Or did he take her to his house? Really? He walked across the street with a dead or else struggling or else miraculously still blissfully sleeping Danielle, in her pajamas or else nude, all the way down the street to his house, trusting that no one would drive by and see him? WOW! He IS lucky!
As I have said many times, I don't think Danielle was "abducted" from her home. As I have also said many times, this does NOT exonerate DW, it simply moves the circumstances of her disappearance elsewhere. Danielle either left the house on her own two feet, in the presence of someone she trusted or obeyed, or she was not IN the house when Brenda and her friends came home. IN MY OPINION.
Here is one other possible scenario: Perhaps DW had access to some sort of a knock-out drug. Ether, perhaps? On a rag? He would have been able to render DVD unconscious with such a substance, and thereby she would have *behaved* as a sleeping child. This makes the transfer of Danielle to the RV in the SUV easier, and it eliminates the problematic struggling, BUT it still doesn't make it much easier for DW to get into and out of the house without waking anyone, and it STILL does not explain why DW would have suddenly decided to do this. Remember, pulling off this abduction would have been a cognitive excercise on DW's part. If he was so intoxicated that he was ignoring his rational mind, it does not hold that he would also have been spry and stealthy enough to get into and out of the house without awakening anyone. If he was not intoxicated, he would NOT have rationally come to the decision that he could pull this off. There were too many obstacles, and he overcame ALL of them.
Is it more logical to suppose that DW took a HUGE risk and broke into the VD residence to abduct DVD, or that it was a crime of opportunity? Perhaps she was outside and DW saw her and pounced OR...
Perhaps she was victimized by someone else...someone closer to her both physically and emotionally, someone who would NOT have had to overcome the same kinds of obstacles that DW would have had to overcome.
Who, in fact, had the greatest opportunity of ANYONE to assail Danielle on Feb 2nd?
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.