Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | September 17, 2002 | J. Harry Jones

[John Jamieson]

My orginal post said that assumming the 4 bug guys are right.... Please stay in context.

[Jaded]

It doesn't really matter. The UT can print what ever unsourced stuff they want. The actual evidence is irrelevant.

[John Jamieson]

"3) The Forensic Emtymologists are right and someone else was involved. This is just plain disturbing."

Yes, it's disturbing, but very possible in light of the known international child porno ring with member Brooke L. Rowland right in Poway. He was arrested 2/15, just after Danielle's body was dumped according to the bug guys.

We ought to find ALL the perps, it's entirely possible DW was a minor player. I know you're going to ask why he's not telling all? I don't have a good answer.

[Aquinasfan]

Someone has to represent the guilty.

So a verdict of "not guilty" can be returned? What in your mind is the purpose of a trial?

[Freedom2specul8]

I stand corrected. I walked in after it started.. Brenda seemed to be in control of herself, and communicated clear to me....but damon was kind of harder for me to follow when he spoke--at least towards the end of it. :)

[Jaded]

It's different from what's been going on here for the last 3 weeks, how?

[Amore]

In the other cases the bug guys support rather than contradict the physical evidence.

Good point bump!

[Aquinasfan]

That does not stop a lawyer from attempting a plea negotiation on behalf of his client. The lawyer attempts to get the best deal and communicates it to his client.

I understand and accept that.

If the client accepts, the he will have to place those facts on the record which support his guilt.

In this case, when his client accepted, the attorney had to know that his client was guilty. He then set about trying to prevent his client from being convicted. I don't accept that.

[Jaded]

There wasn't one. The DA said if you tell us where she is we'll give you life, boy. Feldman has an obligation to pass that offer along. When the answer is "I don't know" that's still the only answer, no matter how you phrase it. It all depends on what the meaning of is is.

[Aquinasfan]

Everyone deserves the best defense possible.

Not when the defendant is guilty and the attorney knows it.

A defense that could reduce the defendant's sentence? Fine. A defense that works to return a "not guilty" verdict? No.

[John Jamieson]

In some cases, the bug guys WERE the major physical evidence.

Where in the law does it say that it's alright to toss out evidence if it disagrees with the prosecutions case? Good scientific evidence should have the same value on either side.

[John Jamieson]

"when his client accepted"

When did DW accept the offer? I missed that too.

[Valpal1]

One of the problems is they don't have a lot of children's bodies on the "farm". Parent's don't generally donate deceased children to forensic research. In fact, they have a hard time getting adult bodies.

So they use pigs, which are a pretty good tissue match in many ways, except one. Their mass is heavily concentrated, unlike humns who are relativily enlongated.

I doubt seriously if the rate of cooling and decomposition and or mummification in a 50 pound piggie is the same as a 50 pound child. I would also guess that the difference in fat/muscle ratio throws things off a bit too. Just have this feeling that pigs and children have vastly different mummification rates.

And then there is the matter of pig scat, the most redolent scat of all, so flavorful and attractive to insects. Have these scientists been putting out clean, washed pigs, or barn fresh pigs that come with their own fly supply, including maggots stuck in the scat stuck on their hooves?

Forensic Entomology is not a complete science, I doubt there is any "complete" science.

The fact is, they have plenty of room for error, because they are still working on a lot of presumptive info rather than actual facts.

They don't have the exact temps for the exact area because none are available. They have no factual knowledge of what may or may not have been removed or disturbed by predator activiity.

And not one testified that they could conclusively exclude DW as the dumper base on their science. This is why it was unpersuasive to the jury, IMO.

[Freedom2specul8]

Danielle's parents satisfied with verdict

By JEFF DILLON
SIGNONSANDIEGO

September 17, 2002

LA JOLLA – A day after a jury recommended the death penalty for their daughter's killer, the parents of Danielle van Dam said they would have been just as satisfied with the alternative of life in prison without possibility of parole.

Brenda and Damon van Dam said they were prepared to accept either punishment for David Westerfield so long as he was found guilty of kidnapping and killing Danielle.

"In my eyes, love has conquered evil," Brenda van Dam said during a news conference at La Jolla Shores. "What mattered most is knowing that this monster could never again hurt another child."

A jury on Monday recommended death for David Westerfield, the 50-year-old neighbor of the van Dams who was convicted in August of killing Danielle.

Both Brenda and Damon van Dam said they were not aware that Westerfield had offered to plead guilty in February – just before their daughter's body was found on Feb. 27 – so long as prosecutors would not ask for the death penalty. The story was first reported in this morning's San Diego Union-Tribune.

They said they were not sure whether the offer was actually made.

"Just because it's in the paper doesn't mean it's true," Brenda van Dam said.

The van Dams said they held the 10-minute news conference at the sheltered beach because it was one of Danielle's favorite places. The family held a memorial to Danielle there in March.

"She loved this beach at La Jolla Shores," Brenda van Dam said. "We spent a lot of time here as a family, so on this day we remember Danielle fondly in her happy place."

Reading from a prepared statement, the van Dams thanked the citizens who turned out by the hundreds to help search for Danielle after her Feb. 2 disappearance and the police officers and other law enforcement employees involved in the investigation.

They reserved special thanks for the jurors.

"The evidence and images you were subjected to must have been heart-wrenching," Brenda van Dam said. "The only way we can possibly give back to you is to ask our angel Danielle to watch over you and your families. We don't know what power she has with her new little wings, but we know that she will take special care of you."

Asked later if there was anything she would want to hear from Westerfield, Brenda van Dam initially said, " I don't think I want him to tell me anything. I don't want to hear his voice."

But the discussion later turned to the enduring mystery of how and when Westerfield abducted Danielle from her Sabre Springs bedroom.

"If I ever have one question answered, it would be about how he did it," Brenda van Dam said.

The couple said it was painful for them when the focus of the case seemed to move away from Danielle, especially when they were questioned about their allegedly "swinging" lifestyle and their use of marijuana.

"It was difficult to actually answer all those questions, but we knew in our heart it was irrelevant to the case," Brenda van Dam said. "We wanted to get it out and get past it."

She also commented on the difficulty of sitting through the more gruesome parts of the trial, especially after Superior Court Judge William Mudd ejected Damon van Dam from the courtroom for allegedly threatening Westerfield.

"If Danielle was old enough and something like this happened to me, she would be there every day," she said.

Damon van Dam said he didn't blame the judge for acting on what the bailiffs told him had happened.

"What has been reported in the case of me being banned is being blown out of proportion," Damon van Dam said. "I did nothing other than to let (Westerfield) know I was there, but apparently the bailiffs think there was more to it than that."

[John Jamieson]

"Not when the defendant is guilty and the attorney knows it."

I understand your moral objection, but under our law, even in this case, only the jury can determine the facts. I think the bar says that the attorney has to quit the case.

[connectthedots]

I just checked the rules of professional conduct (RPC) for the state of Washington, and it is quite clear that an attorney cannot permit his or her client to take the stand who he knows is going to lie. If the client insists on taking the stand and lies, the attorney must either inform the tribunal or withdraw from the case. Of course the proceedure is a bit more complicated than that as a practical matter. That an attorney must inform his client of the obligation to not allow the client to commit perjury is sufficient to convince almost all clients who intend to lie to not testify.

The bottom line is that an attorney cannot permit a client to lie to the court, even though it does happen on occasion.

[BearCub]

Can this be considered tantamount to a confession

As far as the public is concerned, yes. But legally, plea negotiations are confidential and cannot be used against the accused.

-bc

[John Jamieson]

"not one testified that they could conclusively exclude DW as the dumper"

You don't have to prove innocence.

[John Jamieson]

"not one testified that they could conclusively exclude DW as the dumper"

You don't have to prove innocence.

[John Jamieson]

"not one testified that they could conclusively exclude DW as the dumper"

You don't have to prove innocence. "Probably couldn't have dumped her" is surely reasonable doubt.