1 – Computer and porn evidence found on David Westerfield’s

Computer and porn
Marcus Lawson report is clear : there was NO child pornography on Westerfield’s computer and no evidence that Westerfield even watched pornographic images and videos ever…
The full Lawson report on Westerfield’s computers analysis can be downloaded here.

Police started looking at Westerfield as the prime suspect based solely on Brenda Van Dam’s declarations.

This is the reason why, on February 4th 2002, Westerfield becomes the only suspect.

Danielle Van Dam is reported missing on February 2nd 2002, Westerfield came back home on February 4th 2002 and became suspect the same exact day.

The warrant police obtained to search Westerfield’s computers, Zip, CD, e-mails and any data storage is dated February 5th 2002 but actually, police arrived to Westerfield’s house a little after midnight the night of February 4th 2002 to February 5th.

When exactly did they got the warrant?
Extract from the warrant: “Proof by affidavit having this day made before me by Georges R. Alldrege, a peace officer employed by the San Diego police departement that there is substantial cause for the issuance of the search warrant pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524″

My question: What is the substantial cause?
Three days after Danielle’s disappearance, few hours after Westerfield is back home, with 13 registered sex offenders living in the very next neighborhood, how does the police officer know that they will find pornography on Westerfield’s computer ?
What was the basis for the search warrant to be delivered?

My answer: Westerfield became suspect because Brenda Van Dam declared to detective Alldredge that “the only persons who are aware of the dance are the immediate family members and one neighbor next door, not Westerfield”
But at trial Brenda Van Dam had another version, in fact she had told everybody, Westerfield included, about this dance…
That’s the substantial cause for a search warrant but, who suggested to police Westerfield could have pornography on his computer, zip disk and CD?

WHERE ARE THE ZIP DRIVE AND CD BURNER?
Watkins, the expert, testified under oath and related the computer operation in details.

In his testimony there is no mention of a zip drive or a CD burner on any of Westerfield’s computers.

How did Westerfield create the zip disks and CDs where police said the porn was stored?

Whoever distributes pedophile material doesn’t advertise in newspapers or on search engines. Anyone downloading binary files from newsgroups can end up with child porn without having any knowledge of it.

I wish Westerfield’s attorney had brought a computer expert who has made tests with a software which is used to download pictures from binary newsgroups.*

Trial testimonies will show that 8,000 to 10,000 nude photographs and several hundred digital videos were on Westerfield’s home computers and disks. The vast majority of those images depicted adult women. 85 images were questionable as whether the girls depicted were under the age of 18.

An expert testified that some of the photos could have been of adult females who look younger than their ages.

In reality, among the 8,000 to 10,000 photographs and several hundreds of videos there was NO porn child images or video-clips and the most recent file was three years old.

Extract from the pornography motion:

“Pornographic images created up to three years ago have slight if any probative value on proving a motive on the part of Westerfield to kidnap/or to murder Danielle Van Dam”.

What was found proves Westerfield had porn items stored on his computers, but according to the Lawson report, there is evidence another personn did use Westerfield’s computer to watch porn.
There is no evidence Westerfield had porn child, watched porn or was a pedophile…


* These software are called “Newsreaders”, they automatically download and decode binary posts to Usenet newsgroups. In other words, you do not see what you download and the software cannot tell the difference between any graphic / video it selects.

Related Posts :