Wow, I never have heard of this case. Poor litlte girl. That is amazing that you got his rv on tape.
Wow, I never have heard of this case. Poor litlte girl. That is amazing that you got his rv on tape.
This was a local case, San Diego. I find myself interested in cases within Ca and SD, (Chelsea King, James Arthur Ray, Scott Peterson, etc.)
If interested you can scroll back and find a post by someone who mentions he saw Westerfields RV in the desert and was interviewed by police.
I feel so much sorrow for this child whose end could not have been pleasant.
I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman ... Arnold Schwarzenegger
Any trial transcripts or anything?
"I will be buried in a spring loaded casket filled with confetti, and a future archaeologist will have one awesome day at work."
Glad I could help, and thanks for the welcome.
Quote: "One of the things that really haunted me was that when her body was found, she had been punched in the mouth so hard that her teeth were down her throat."
There werenít any teeth down her throat. You are obviously thinking of the one tooth which was found in the back of her mouth. The forensic odontologist (the renowned Dr Skip Sperber), testified there was no trauma to her lips, mouth, oral cavity, teeth or the surrounding bone, so itís most unlikely she was punched in the mouth. You are probably thinking of his explanation of an unfavorable root/crown ratio, and the examples he gave: being hit with a softer object and a playground accident. But he didnít say this had happened to Danielle: he believed that her teeth were missing because of decomposition.
Quote: "I also think it was disgusting to drag the parents through the mud because of their lifestyle choices ... it was nobody's business how they lived their personal lives."
The intruder gained access to the house through the unlocked side garage door. It was unlocked because the parents and their friends had been in the garage that night, smoking marijuana. Once inside the garage, the intruder had free access to the house, as the lock on the house-garage door had been reversed. It had been reversed so their children wouldnít walk in on them while they were smoking marijuana. I donít want to upset anyone, but there is therefore a clear link between the parentsí lifestyle choices and the loss of their daughter.
This case has haunted me for years. Does anyone know an update on the family or anything? I wonder if they moved.
"Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will." ~Mahatma Gandhi
As parents we all make stupid mistakes. Did Danielle's parents cause her death? I say not. I think the killer would have found a way to get to her sooner or later.
I agree, Pepper. They lived a much different lifestyle than a lot of people and did things that I wouldn't do, but they loved their children and provided well for them and were devastated by Danielle being kidnapped and murdered by that disgusting pervert. There are plenty of horrible parents that cook meth with their children in the house and neglect and abuse their children and those children don't end up brutally murdered. I don't agree with the pot smoking, but at least they were discreet about it and fixed the door to where the children wouldn't walk in and catch them smoking it. I'm sure they go through the "what ifs" everyday of their lives.
One of Westerfields atourneys was my client for many years (Robert Boyce). I had no idea until I ran into Stephen Feldman one day while meeting with Boyce. I added a photo (guy with glasses) but it looks like you have to click on it to see it.
Their swinging could have led a lot of strange people into their house, but they apparently only did a limited amount. That being the case, I would be more concerned about the drunken and provocative behavior of Brenda and her two girlfriends at the bar that night (including propositioning strangers). Brenda told her friends the previous week that they were probably making everybody horny. But again this was apparently not typical behavior.
I donít know of any claim Westerfield had ever taped their house. The suspicion was that he spied on them because, if he stood in his bathtub, and pushed out the window screen, he could have seen part of their back yard through the trees. But there was no evidence he had ever done so.
Iím not sure what value this video had for the prosecution, as it merely provided visual confirmation of what Westerfield had told the police at his first interview. But it was valuable for the defense, as it showed the RV curtains were open, so anyone could see inside and some people did. It was also valuable for me in that the media had reported that the RV was stuck in sand dunes, whereas this video shows that the area was flat.
The evidence is consistent with that explanation. There was only a small quantity of the "questionable" images (thatís the term used by the prosecution expert). Most of the images shown to the jury were in one folder on just one Zip disk, while the worst images, the video clips, were on just one CD-ROM. And based on the trial testimony, most of the "questionable" images were downloaded in 1999, and they had been seldom viewed since being downloaded, nor had they been recently viewed.
Beside the simply facts what really makes me mad about this entire event was that his lawyers were permitted to lie in court. Many have argued with me that the lawyers can not lie but I disagree and I use this case as an example.
To avoid the death penalty Westerfield agreed to tell the police where he buried her. That is, he admitted that he killed her and was trying to cop a plea by using this as his only bargaining tool. Luckily her body was found before there was any agreement. All an around about way to note that his lawyers knew he did it.
O.K., I understand (but disagree) about why his confession could not be used at trial. His lawyers did use the argument about the parents lifestyle and proposed the argument that it could have been one of the parents swingers friends that had done it. The lawyers knew that it couldn't have been, that it was their client.
The lawyers should have been charged with perjury or whatever they legally would call their lie.
There was an outcry at the time, but it soon died down as it was determined that his lawyers hadnít broken any rules, they didnít cross the line. It is an adversarial system, and the job of defense lawyers is to make the prosecution prove their case.
The vast majority of cases are settled by plea deals, so it is very likely that there were negotiations in this case. But the balance of evidence indicates that it was the prosecution that made an offer to the defense, and not the other way round. We do know that he didnít tell the police where the body was. (By the way, she wasnít buried.)
He does have a propensity to sweat (perhaps because heís a bit overweight), but even if not, he had just been trying to dig his RV out, which is heavy work.
koolstrikeís friend testified to going to sleep at about 11:00 p.m. (on redirect examination he changed that to 11:30), and Westerfield hadnít yet arrived. He (Westerfield) had made a cell-phone call at 10:26 from the vicinity of Imperial Valley, which is about the time he would have arrived at Glamis based on his timeline, so itís not unreasonable to suppose that he had just arrived at Glamis and made the call before going off into the desert. He then spent some time driving up the various washes in an unsuccessful attempt to find his friends, so he would have arrived at koolstrikeís wash (Wash 14) after 11:00.
That 1:50 a.m. wasnít mentioned during the trial. On the contrary, although koolstrikeís friend said he is not a sound sleeper, he didn't remember hearing another vehicle pull up, even though Westerfield had passed within about fifty yards, and he did not come in while they were awake.
The prosecution argued that the dog hairs got onto Danielleís pajamas, and were carried to first his house and then his RV on those pajamas when he kidnapped her. The weakness in that argument is that there would undoubtedly also have been dog hairs on her daytime clothes when she visited him earlier that week selling cookies. And on her motherís clothes and her younger brotherís clothes, as they accompanied her. And just as some of those hairs would have been shed from her pajamas, so some would have been shed into his house from the daytime clothes of those three people. Itís also perfectly possible that a few of those hairs now in his house, would then have been transferred from his house to his RV. They might have been transferred on his laundry, or on his clothes - or even on the clothing of the two detectives who went from his house to his RV on the Monday morning. And one of those detectives had been in the van Dam house on the Sunday, where she might have picked up more dog hairs.
Even having just one image of child porn, or just one movie, still is TOO much and a man or woman should not have any thing like that. I dont care if he hadnt watched the video since 1920. Why did he have it?? It was not to help congress get child pornographers. Thats the excuse that all child porn watchers say. Come on. LOLThere was only a small quantity of the "questionable" images (that’s the term used by the prosecution expert). Most of the images shown to the jury were in one folder on just one Zip disk, while the worst images, the video clips, were on just one CD-ROM. And based on the trial testimony, most of the "questionable" images were downloaded in 1999, and they had been seldom viewed since being downloaded, nor had they been recently viewed.
Im just wondering, Curiosity, are you the preacherfordeaf person that was on the youtube comments? I just cant imagine too many people sticking up for this guy.
He didn't tell because she was found before the negotiations were concluded.The vast majority of cases are settled by plea deals, so it is very likely that there were negotiations in this case. But the balance of evidence indicates that it was the prosecution that made an offer to the defense, and not the other way round. We do know that he didn’t tell the police where the body was. (By the way, she wasn’t buried.)
These "questionable" images were introduced by the prosecution as evidence of motive for kidnapping and murder, and they are seen as motive by the members here. I gave facts which show that these images are weak evidence of motive.
The fact that some people think revenge was the motive is confirmation that there is only weak evidence for sex being the motive. And the childís own mother was uncertain if he was after her (the mother) or the babysitter. So even she must have had doubts as to the relevance of those "child porn" images. And their babysitter was a boy, so she (the mother) must have suspected Westerfield was actually gay.
I presume you mean the defense lawyers lied. But in that case, the legal experts who supported them or declined to take action against them, were lying when they said they (the defense lawyers) hadnít done anything wrong.
It is suspicious that the most compelling item of evidence, the bloodstain on Westerfieldís jacket, wasnít seen by the dry-cleaners, even though it was on a prominent part of the jacket. Making it even more suspicious is that one of the two suspect detectives (with a questionable history and who attempted to violate Westerfieldís constitutional rights) was also a customer at that dry-cleaners, and his name was apparently on the "chain of custody" for that jacket, and near the top of that document. Worse, the crime lab didnít examine that stain for blood spatter, and they sent extracted DNA, not the actual stain, to an outside laboratory for confirmation testing. (And even though that was the "smoking gun", the media didnít publish a photo of that stain, just a photo of the entire jacket, and the stain canít be seen on it.)
And the second most compelling evidence item, the drop of blood on the motor home carpet, wasnít photographed or measured (so they didnít follow procedure). And when first tested, it didnít give a result for one of the DNA markers (so it might have been an old stain, starting to degrade), but the second test did give a result for that marker (even though you canít undegrade biological material).
Iím not saying there was any "messing with the evidence" - I donít know, the above evidence isnít conclusive - but there is cause for concern.
[SIZE=3][/SIZE][SIZE=3]Video where Pfingst states he was minutes away from tryingto work out a deal [/SIZE]