2 – if Westerfield didn’t watch porn on his computer, who did?

On 05/13/02 the office of Marcus Lawson was contacted by the law firm of Feldman regarding assistance in reviewing certain computer related discovery.
Mr. Feldman’s office had received images of computer hard drives and loose media which had been sized from Mr Westerfiel’s residence following the execution of search warrants.
The images had been prepared by law enforcement in the San Diego based Computer Forensic Laboratory.
The State of California alleged that the media contained child pornography images which it intented to introduce in Mr. Westerfiel trial and as a result, the images could not be sent to the forensic laboratory in Spokane necessitating the travel of Marcus Lawson in San Diego for review of the media.

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…

Extract from Marcus Lawson preliminary report :

HP computer 1 (office)

The first HP computer recovered from the defendant contains files that were accessed on the internet in the afternoon hours of 02/04/02.
Many of this files were pornographic in nature and may have included both legal teen and anime site visits.
David Westerfield was with law enforcement authorities in the afternoon and evening of 02/04/02 thus eliminating him as the source of these pornographic visits.
Should another family member be responsible for this web surfing, and especially should this surfing involve anime or teen web sites, we believe this would seriously call into question the use of any of the sites, images or video movies in any ot these computers or media used against the defendant as motive theory.
[…]
HP computer 2 (office)
We were able to recover several items we felt were relevant.
We found files using the e-mail address dnwest@hotmail.com.
At first we believed this e-mail address to possibly belong to the defendant however some of the e-mails seemed to be more associated with the defendant son.
[…]

Conclusions

The two HP computers from the defendant office may call into question the use of any images in this case to show “motive theory”.
There is very good indications that someone other than the defendant was, at the minimum, accessing pornographic web sites and be responsible for the anime and “teen” images recovered by law enforcement.

None of the images in the computer themselves or the loose media are of the type normally presented for prosecution for child pornography cases.

We feel certain that the law enforcement personnel of San Diego laboratory are aware of this, which in our opinion, calls into question the governments initial refusal to allow the defense to have copies of the media.


  1. Prosecution’s motive for the crime was based on a babysitter that did not exist
  2. Prosecution’s motive for the crime was based on David Westerfield being a child pornography addict, but no child pornography was ever found…
  3. What’s left? …. Brenda van Dam’s declaration….

 
To download the full Marcus Lawson report on the analysis of David Westerfield’s computers, click on the link below.
This is a .pdf file of 28 pages.

Related Posts :