TOW TRUCK DRIVER CLAIMS WESTERFIELD TALKING TO SOMEONE: Phone Records Trace Westerfield's Movements

KNSD NBC ^ | June 13, 2002 | KNSD NBC

[FresnoDA]

TOW TRUCK DRIVER CLAIMS HE HEARD WESTERFIELD TALKING TO SOMEONE!!!

Phone Records, Witnesses Trace Westerfield's Movements

Witnesses On Day 7 Show Movements

 

POSTED: 12:56 p.m. PDT June 13, 2002

UPDATED: 2:41 p.m. PDT June 13, 2002

 

SAN DIEGO -- The prosecution in the David Westerfield murder trial called on a cell phone company employee and several campers Thursday to verify the defendant's whereabouts the weekend Danielle van Dam disappeared.

A series of calls from Westerfield's cell phone in early February appeared to mirror his rambling motor home trip to the beaches of southern San Diego County and the Imperial Valley deserts, Verizon Wireless representative Greg Sheets testified.

But on cross-examination, Westerfield's defense attorney, Steven Feldman, sought to show that the cell phone calls were not a reliable record of Westerfield's locations that weekend. Under questioning by Feldman, Sheets admitted that the records don't give precise locations and don't identify the user of the phone.

Westerfield is charged with kidnapping and murdering Danielle. He could face the death penalty if he's convicted.

The prosecution also called a series of witnesses who were at Silver Strand State Beach on Saturday, Feb. 2. Westerfield said he drove his motor home to Silver Strand that morning.

Beverly Jean Askey of El Cajon testified that her family was already at the beach when a motor home that she later learned was Westerfield's pulled into a nearby space sometime before 10 a.m. It was a nice, sunny day she said, yet no one came out of the vehicle.

"He just pulled up, he pulled the front window closed and I never saw anyone again," Askey said.

Two other campers said they saw Westerfield's motor home and noticed that it appeared closed up.

Earlier, Angela Elkus, a resident of the Sabre Springs neighborhood where the van Dams and Westerfield lived, answered questions about the motor home. She said she had seen children playing around the vehicle three or four times when it was parked on the street, but she said they were mostly older children. She also talked about a visit to the van Dam home after Danielle disappeared.

  Elkus said she had never been to the home before, but she brought food over for the family on the Sunday after the little girl disappeared. She said that the family's dog appeared "scared, shy, confused and perfectly still" when she came in the house, and it did not bark, she said. Legal analysts say prosecutors want to convince the jury that a stranger could have come into the house and taken Danielle without the dog barking.

[Jaded]

Actually, according to his ex-brother in law(with whom I have corresponded), rambling was not all that unusual for him, since his kids were grown. It's not like he had a family to pack up. Go to one place and if the atmosphere or people were not to his taste/mood at the moment he would go else where. If it were a matter of looking for a good fishing spot, would this behaviour be viewed in such a sinister light?

[cyncooper]

Forget the voices. It is undeniable that DW was well off the road and got stuck and had to be dug out. He then took off forgetting his ramps. That is the objective truth of the guy's testimony and referencing Miz's article about him getting the date mixed up it doesn't matter. I have doubt about the voice testimony----that is, I think it happened but I would not draw a conclusion that Danielle was in the MH. But, we are left that DW hightailed it out of there for whatever reason.

[John Jamieson]

Nobody seems to like my Barb did it and Dave cleaned it up theory, but it sure fits their personalities. Barb is the no holds barred aggressive female messmaker and Dave is cleanup man.

[MizSterious]

Mash this for Nancy Grace thread.

[spectre]

Don't make ME mash that Nancy Grace thread....please don't! GAG!

sw

[theirjustdue]

"That could be why no evidence of Danielle in DW SUV and no evidence of DW in VD house. Barb took Danielle after dropping off Denise. She knew door wasn't locked, dog knew her etc. Took her to Ramona. Westerfield met them there. Then something worse than kidnapping happened......

It was Barb DW was interested in, in the first place.

I don't know that Barb would have called someone she apparently had just met, rather briefly at a bar, to get involved, but it wouldn't surprise me at all, to find out that Barb knows much more than she's let on.

[Shermy]

Good points and thanks for the insider info, a treasure I find only on FR.

[NatureGirl]

John, that's one of the few ways (to me, anyway) in which I can see DW involved in this - as "clean up" man.

But why?? What did he owe all these strangers, that he would take such a risk? Doing clean-up still makes him an accessory, does it not? What could the VDs or Barb offer him in payment for this? Or - what information could they have on him, presuming they were in a position to blackmail him, if he didn't do as they asked?

The idea of "loyalty" just doesn't work for me.

[UCANSEE2]

Most of the witnesses we have seen so far have had conflicting (meaning conflicting with the supposed statements they gave to police, or conflicting with each other) statements. Most have also been supportive of DW's statements as to his whereabouts and actions.

We all know how people are too. When something exciting occurs in the neighborhood, everyone wants to be the bigshot that has some exciting 'detail' they can tell the press or police. They want to be helpful to the victim or victim's family. They are basically good people.

Do they embellish? Many do. Why? Their 15 minutes of fame. Their chance to make a difference, their chance to put away a criminal, to get back at all the injustice in the world. You can tell witnesses that embellish or have creative memories from fairly reliable witnesses. They only had one fairly reliable witness today. They snoopy neighbor witness type will get on the stand and have absolute answers. On cross, they can get mixed up and start making excuses. The fairly reliable witnesses will answer in a calm but responsive manner, and will admit whether they are reasonably sure, or whether they can't say yes/no because they aren't sure.

Don't people remember things exactly as they happened? Almost Never. People change their memories to correspond with current situations. If they get involved in a situation like this, being asked about some minor details during a high profile death case, and they have bought into the guilt of a certain party, their memory will adapt to provide the answers to support that guilt.

I know, I get arguments against this all the time, but tons and tons of personal experience has proven I am right. I have been in counseling with married couples, where they say things to each other and 5 minutes later, when asked about certain statements, swear to GOD they never said them. 5 minutes folks. And we are supposed to depend on these peoples rememberance of details, ordinary everyday details no one even pays attention to, from 5 months ago.

People also believe so much in eyewitness accounts. This is unreliable too. I can't do it here, but I have a little test for those that believe that what you see is real. We don't realize that what our eyes see is passed to the brain, and same with hearing. The brain evaluates the input in thousandths of a second, altering,discarding,adding whatever it wants to fit our preconceived attitude of the world around us.

They have done testing on hearing and vision and proven this over and over.

The simple test I use is one where I draw a circle inside a triangle and write a simple phrase inside that.

Then I ask the person to read the phrase. After they do (and so far 100%fail) I tell them they read it wrong, and show it to them and ask them to read it again.

I can do this repeatedly, even holding the paper in front of them for a long time, and they don't see it.

Eventually I tell them what is wrong, and INSTANTLY they see it. Sure is funny to see the look on their face.

[MizSterious]

People who can afford a motor home like Westerfield's probably have a nice teevee inside it, too. We used to see them with satellite dishes on top. I don't recall if I saw one on his rig, did anyone else notice?

[spectre]

Cyn...do you recall the testimony that DW tore up a few lawn chairs trying to dig himself out?

Do you recall how the whole country was darn near certain that the child's body was buried in the desert and she would NEVER be found?

I do.

sw

[UCANSEE2]

So, should we ping ~kim4vrwc's~

[theirjustdue]

"Missed you big time yesterday!!"

Yesterday!!! Seems much, much longer. Welcome back!!

[Rheo]

Conklin also said on crossexamination....many people get stuck where DW did unless they had been there before and knew the sands were that soft.

[MizSterious]

Also, I did notice the question asked of the volunteer host: had he been following the case in the paper or on television? He had. Did he perhaps change his statement in hindsight? I don't mean to railroad Westerfield, but because he believed that Westerfield did it (all the media says so) so it must have been him. That will come up again later, I'll wager.

[UCANSEE2]

OR could have been a phone call.

[spectre]

Good point. He also could have had a VCR with a movie on...:~)

sw

[John Jamieson]

Barb and Dave are the same age....I figure she may be his first wife or the girlfriend that killed his first marriage. Either way I think they have known each other for a long time and there is a coverup going on. Barb is not going to be called.

[spectre]

OK...ping..

sw

[theirjustdue]

I would not draw a conclusion that Danielle was in the MH.

If that's the implication Dusek is making, I find it very hard to believe that anyone could buy into a theory, that DW would be talking through the MH to Danielle (if he in fact had her at all), while a witness was standing right there to overhear it.