david westerfield
The content of this site is protected by Copyright Law. (Title 17, US Code) - July 2002 - P. Montgomery

Contact the author


Unposted.com: The trial of David Westerfield
CLICK HERE FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS

I kind of wished I played the Lottery that day to tell you the truth because maybe it was my day to win the Lottery.
Who the heck knows?
Brenda Van Dam
Extract from the Larry King Show - December 3rd 2002

david westerfield jacket blood
Trial: Westerfield's jacket
Feldman: "If any of the items would have had blood on it, you would've spotted it?"
Clerk: "Yes,"

April 30th 2005 - James Allen Selby
March 2005 - The confession
01/12/03 - MEET THE EXPERTS !
01/12/03 - "new secret" motions unsealed !
01/08/03 - The videotaped interrogation
01/06/03 - The others
1981 - Adam Walsh
1989 - Tiffany Sessions
1991 - Jared Michael Negrete
1994 - Amanda Dougherty
1999 - Michael Negrete
THE INTERVIEW
Intro
David Westerfied
My theory about DNA - I
Computer and porn
12/7/02 - CHILD PORN RING & VAN DAM CASE
12/6/02 - BABYSITTER & TRIAL DINNER
BRENDA VAN DAM on Larry King Live - 12/03/2002
DANIELLE VAN DAM killed at home
Danielle's discovery: WILL MEDIA TELL THE TRUTH?
Video rape: 1 LITTLE GIRL AND 2 MEN
Identifying Danielle's bedroom
Danielle's bedroom (2), Van Dams vacuuming
Danielle's last day

Blood on jacket (updated)
Fingerprints
DEATH SENTENCE
MEET THE JURY

WHY WESTERFIELD BECAME SUSPECT!!!
(updated)
PLEA BARGAIN
MY POINT OF VIEW

NEWS

TRIAL EVIDENCE
Neal Westerfield
Molestation in the family
Testimonies principal witnesses:
parents and sexpals

911 call
Damon Van Dam's testimony I
Damon Van Dam's testimony II
Damon Van Dam's cross-exam I
Damon Van Dam's cross-exam II
My comments of Damon Van Dam's testimony
Brenda Van Dam's testimony I
Brenda Van Dam's testimony II
Brenda Van Dam's cross-exam I
Brenda Van Dam's cross-exam II
Brenda Van Dam's cross-exam III
My comments of Brenda Van Dam's testimony
My comments of the Van Dams testimony
Barbara Easton
Denise Kemal's testimony
Denise Kemal's cross-exam I
Denise Kemal's cross-exam II
Richard Brady's testimony I
Richard Brady's testimony II
Richard Brady's cross-exam
Keith Stone's testimony
Keith Stone's cross-exam

What is a penalty phase - definition
Penalty phase and the niece
Niece testimony (transcript)
Niece cross-exam (transcript)
My questions
My comments

Events related on this site are not fictional and are available through public records, conclusions and comments are made by the author.

Ask media to tell the truth

On February 28th 2002, the San Diego Union Tribune published an article written by Steve Schmidt and Joe Hughes. This article is titled: "Parents of young girl in a great deal of pain" and relates the discovery of Danielle's body in Dehesa.

Extract from this article:
DEHESA – Volunteer searchers found the decomposing body of a girl believed to be Danielle van Dam yesterday among a clutch of oak trees, nearly a month after she disappeared from her Sabre Springs bedroom.
Searchers made the ghastly discovery in a craggy hollow used as a dump along Dehesa Road, a two-lane stretch east of El Cajon that leads into the backcountry.
"It is her," said a detective close to the investigation. "It's female, a young girl, the same size as Danielle. THE CLOTHING LOOKS LIKE HERS, and the body appears to have been out there three to four weeks, which is how long she's been missing "There's nobody like that missing in the county in that time frame that fits that description."

Since the publication of this article, everything ever published concerning the discovery of the body described it as naked, no clothing found but the "detective close to the investigation" is very clear about describing Danielle's clothing: "the clothing looks like hers".

What clothing is he/she talking about? Who is this detective "close to the investigation" who was interviewed by the San Diego Union tribune on February 28th 2002?

Where are the clothes? Who took the clothes when the body was found in Dehesa? Why? Were these clothes revealing something we were not supposed to know?

An "anonymous" phone call revealed where Danielle's body would be found. Following this call, the search team sent volunteers to Dehesa and Danielle's body was found 25 miles away from the Van Dam's house. Before the "anonymous" phone call, the same area had been searched without any result.

On February 27th 2002 the search team sent a group of 13 volunteers to Dehesa. From this group, two persons emerge; two very good friends: Karsten Heinburger and Chris Morgan. They will manage to "loose" the group and find the body by themselves. Karsten Heinburger was never part of the search team before. February 27th 2002 was the very first time he took part in the search. Very coincidentally (?), he had come with his camera and took photographs of the body. These photographs will not be shown to the jury and so far, we do not know what they show.

Do they show a body with clothing or not? What happened to these photographs taken by Karsten Heinburger?

Since February 28th 2002, the San Diego Union Tribune must know something we don't know for publishing an article in which a detective mentions Danielle's clothing. Will the San Diego Union Tribune publish the name of the detective close to the investigation who saw the body and clothing? Will the San Diego Union Tribune publish detailed information about the clothing?

WHO IS LYING ABOUT THIS CLOTHING AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE BODY ?

Extract from Chris Morgan testimony on June 4th 2002:
Dusek: Did you see any clothing?
Chris Morgan: I saw -- i couldn't -- no, i couldn't determine if there was clothing.

What did he see?