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

To: UCANSEE2
a bit of updating...

John Jamieson and Valpal1's comments

Combining your excellent posts...along w/some extra comments




Here's what I think the prosecution has proven "beyond a reasonable doubt":



1. What.. Homicide and kidnapping

2. Who - deceased victim Danielle Van Dam

3. When - Sometime between 2/1 and 2/17 (Exact date and time of death and date and time of dumping both unknown)

4. Where removed from her home-, and killed somewhere within the area between her home and body location on Dahesa Rd.

5. How - Exact cause of death unknown. More than likely suffocation, determined by elimination method Danielle van Dam is dead, her pajamas were removed and her nude body was illegally dumped off of Dehesa Road Person(s) who dumped her is also unknown, But a suspect was arrested and charged. Manner of death is also unknown, posion, drugs, stabbing, strangulation and bullet have been elminated. ME could not elimate suffocation.
Young girls don't just die, she's seven, not seventy-seven. Accidental suffocation of seven year olds generally involve appliances like refridgerators or accidental asphyxation by caught clothing. Course, it's highly unusual for children to disrobe for hide-n-seek or for corpses to shed clothing that strangled them, so nudity in an accidental suffocation is a red flag to investigators and most manuals will tell you in such cases to look for pornoghaphy and autoerotic paraphanalia. Although that would also be highly unusual behavior in a seven year old as well.

There is ample proof that she had no organic desease or defect (natural causes). Claims that she could have died by her own acts of misadventure do not explain the location of the body. Claims that her nude body was placed there to cover up an accidental death that no one caused lack basic logic.

Either the minimal forensic evidence in DW's home and RV was left there through prior casual contact (cookie sale) and transference or it didn't. But it most certainly did not get there by Danielle wandering over and accidently suffocating in the nude while no one was around


6. Why - Criminal intent or to prevent discovery of other crime (felony murder).
7. Defendant --David Westerfield, neighbor of Danielle.

8. Known previous contact--Danielle van Dam was once in David Westerfield's home to sell him girl scout cookies. Brenda and DW had spoken in a bar and grill called "Dads" on 2 separate occasions.. Stipulated by both sides.

9.Known evidence --Danielle's dog hair, her hair and blood found in motorhome. Blood from both Danielle and David Westerfield on DW's jacket. DW had scratches on his arm and possibly legs. Fibers with common source.. found on or near Danielle's body and David Westerfields home. Child pornography, both legal and illegal found in DW's home office. Danielle was found nude, with her necklace on. Various fibers, hairs vegetative growth located on and around her body.


Special Notes

722 posted on 07/10/2002 1:18:57 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies ]


To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Why did you post this? Most (if not all) of the evidence the prosecution has introduced per your post has turned out to be false or was rebutted by defense witnesses. I think that what you posted (I know it's just a compilation) confuses people because it's full of info that is old and out-of-date. I think you should update if you're going to post, that's all.
735 posted on 07/10/2002 1:25:28 PM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies ]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
For what it's worth I'd like to express my extreme disappointment with the prosecutor's case-in-chief.

If I were charged with determining whether or not a person is GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT of kidnapping and murder, by this point in the case I would expect to know:

(1) When and how that person kidnapped the victim.
(2) When and how that person murdered the victim.
(3) When and how that person disposed of the body.

The prosecution has rested and I still don't know the answers to any of the above. In fact, except for the idea that Danielle MAY have been suffocated, I don't even know what the prosecution thinks are the answers to the above.

I do not know if DAW is innocent or not, but I certainly would have a tough time finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
758 posted on 07/10/2002 1:41:50 PM PDT by bolthead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | 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