Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

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

[Bug]

Plea deal 'minutes away' when body found

By J. Harry Jones
STAFF WRITER

September 17, 2002

Minutes before Danielle van Dam's remains were found Feb. 27, David Westerfield's lawyers were brokering a deal with prosecutors:

He would tell police where he dumped the 7-year-old girl's body; they would not seek the death penalty.

Law enforcement sources told The San Diego Union-Tribune yesterday defense lawyers Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce were negotiating for a life sentence for the 50-year-old design engineer, a neighbor of the van Dams in Sabre Springs.

The deal they were discussing would have allowed Westerfield to plead guilty to murder and be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, said the officials, who spoke on condition they not be identified.

Prosecutors were seriously considering the bargain when Danielle's body was discovered off Dehesa Road that afternoon, nearly four weeks after she disappeared from her bedroom.

"The deal was just minutes away," one of the sources said.

It was aborted, but details were confirmed yesterday soon after a San Diego Superior Court jury recommended the death penalty for Westerfield.

The officials outlined this chronology:

Feldman and Boyce were at the downtown San Diego jail discussing the final arrangements with Westerfield when volunteer searchers found Danielle's remains beneath trees along Dehesa Road east of El Cajon.

When the lawyers left to meet with prosecutors, they noticed members of the news media gathering in the street and asked what was happening.

After being told a body had been found, they went directly to the nearby Hall of Justice and met with prosecutors. The defense lawyers were handed a copy of a Thomas Guide map of the Dehesa area on which a circle had been drawn indicating the location of the body.

Feldman and Boyce took the map back to Westerfield and later telephoned to say they no longer "had anything to discuss regarding a plea bargain."

Neither Feldman nor Boyce could be reached for comment last night.

Danielle was reported missing from her home the morning of Feb. 2, and Westerfield, who lived two doors away, quickly became the primary suspect. He was watched closely by police for weeks as authorities and volunteers searched from the Sabre Springs neighborhood to the Imperial County desert.

After DNA results linked Westerfield to the crime, he was arrested Feb. 22 and charged with kidnapping and burglary.

Three days later, even though Danielle's body had not been found, District Attorney Paul Pfingst announced murder and kidnapping charges would be filed that could carry the death penalty.

Many law enforcement officials feared Danielle's body might never be found. Then, on Feb. 27, volunteer searchers combing the Dehesa area, far from where police had focused, found Danielle's badly decomposed remains.

At that point, the official sources said yesterday, any opportunity Westerfield and his lawyers had to win a plea bargain evaporated.

---

J. Harry Jones: (619) 542-4590;

email

Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

[let freedom sing]

He can write a book, he just can't profit from it. Proceeds would be attached to the state's victim fund I think.

The Ca State Supremes struck that law down this year-- he can write as well as profit, but expect he could be attached.

[John Jamieson]

"knowing that the man tried to confess"

Where did that come from? That's a giant leap from a rumor of a possibly one sided negotiation between lawyers. DW could have confessed anytime.

[Valpal1]

Whoa! That's terrible. Guess if he writes and sells a book, he can expect a civil suit pronto.

CA voters need to get themselves a new Supreme Court. I remember when they got rid of that liberal Rose Bird, if I remember the name correctly.

M

[Amore]

I can see how you might not be able to see how both can co-exist, but in fact they can.

Kim seems to like you. Why don't you go talk to her for a while? I'm tired, and I don't feel well.

[John Jamieson]

I don't think we know yet who downloaded which porno. We heard Neil admit that he looked at some of it. Why no fingerprint checks on the CD cases? Why are you so sure Neil was not involved?

[John Jamieson]

Sorry you don't feel well. I enjoyed the sparing.

[itsahoot]

--The DA was up for re-election ....that is what all this circus was about.....--
-----•-----•-----

---

Sad, but probably true.

[Valpal1]

Not involved in what? The murder - he has airtight alibis for the times in question.

The porn - it was on his Dad's computer's and zip disks and CD's. Even the one in his room was a hand me down from his dad.

I think if Neil was responsible for the kiddie porn, he would have admitted it, for his father's sake. It's a misdemeanor in CA for the first offense. A wrist slap in exchange for his father's life? He told the truth. IMO
It wasn't his.

[John Jamieson]

"A wrist slap in exchange for his father's life?"

Why didn't he just lie and save his father, then? The answer is, it wouldn't have any difference to the jury.

[itsahoot]

--With only 17 days passing between the death of Cermak and Zangara's execution.

Wow.--
-----•-----•-----

---

Used to just chase them down and find the nearest tree, guess progress slows justice down. Unless of course they chaased down the wrong guy.

[John Jamieson]

Many of the talking heads yesterday said the judge is very unlikely to overthrow the jury's sentence. They said it had only happen once or twice in CA. What they didn't say (or maybe didn't know) was that Judge Mudd was the one that did it several years ago.

[Freedom2specul8]

I like a lot of folks on these threads..there are more civilized folks than non-civilized thankfully. Unfortunately, the meanest ones were the loudest.

First of all, what types of evidence is involved? Aside from BLOOD, which was shown JJ...See below. (the blood, the child porn was stronger than you are giving it credit for..and I've never understood why that was so subjective)

TYPES OF EVIDENCE

1. enough evidence to convict
2. not enough evidence to convict
3. removed evidence
4. hidden evidence
5. destroyed evidence
6. obvious evidence
7. not so obvious evidence

What have I forgotten??

[Freedom2specul8]

from an earlier post...I forget which thread..sorry if it was this one.



Take the blood on the jacket for example. Some say it wasn't blood..if the dna was from something other than "blood"...it would have tested negative, see? The dna matched. The only way it could have tested a false positive is if it was from a potato or horseradish. That theory was negated by the fact that the DNA was there. SO...it wasn't spit, it wasn't snot, it was blood.

---

http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-152281920020620-130651.html
Three stains tested positive for the presumptive presence of blood, the criminalist testified. They were on the front right middle, the front right shoulder and the neck portion of the jacket, he said.

---

The Kastle-Meyer Color Test uses a solution of phenolphthalein and hydrogen peroxide on a piece of filter paper, and when blood of any quantity is present, it turns pink. However, it also turns pink in the presence of potatoes or horseradish, so care must be taken at the scene.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/serology/3.htm

[cyncooper]

Why didn't he just lie and save his father, then?

Because he swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Valpal1]

Neither Neil or the defense attorney's had anyway of predicting what would or would not affect the jury. Geez.

Neil denied responsibility for the kiddie porn because it was the truth, maybe because truth telling is what you're supposed to do? Especially under oath!

[John Jamieson]

It all makes sense, unless you allow for the possibility that a dna containing substance was wiped over the "Stain" by persons unknown. Why weren't the serology tests done?

Drool or spit can also cause the presuptive test to react. I know it's splitting hairs, but "Drool found on DW" does sound a little less ominous than "Blood found on DW"

[UCANSEE2]

It was interesting to see the split (not the DW guilty/not guilty split). There were two sides. One side was the open-minded but suspicious group. The side that tested ALL possibilities, no matter how far out, as they might lead somewhere. The reason they looked for those possibilities was because normal logic and reason said something was wrong with the way the evidence was presented. Something was wrong due to the fact that the victims and the victims witnesses continually lied to police. Something was wrong because witnesses for the Prosecution repeatedly told the COURT that police did not copy down STATEMENTS correctly. Maybe DW really killed Danielle but why was everything being done wrong? Why were people lying? Why the police lying?

This side believed that there was some corruption involved. That there were external reasons, such as the DA's need to win the re-election bid, that caused such chicanery in this trial. This side believed that justice was being perverted and that members of Free Republic were in a fight to prevent this perversion.

A side that believed that the JUDGE should not be allowed to give TESTIMONY during a case. A side that believed that the term SHE IS DEAD, THEREFORE HE DID IT, is not the way our justice system should be run.

The other side seems to believe that it doesn't matter about the METHOD, only the RESULTS. The other side made a decision at the beginning based on what the media told them to believe and they have stuck with it no matter what. They got their RESULTS and that is all they are interested in.

Now they are cheefully being massaged by the media , ensuring them that all is right in the world, and the BAD guy really is the bad guy, and he is behind bars. Go back to sleep, nothing to worry about.

This case had nothing to do with loss of your freedoms. The precedents set will never be used against you. Our justice system is not being eroded. Go back to sleep.

[John Jamieson]

Did we ever find out exactly which witnesses the judge considered to be known liers? He said there were some.

[Amore]

Gee, that's funny! According to your division, I started out in the suspicious Group A but ended up in the DW-is-guilty Group B. But that's impossible according to you :- )

I think your theory is deeply flawed by your personal bias.

[John Jamieson]

Totally agree. I also don't think it's over. Lots of new information to come about this case.