January 12th 2003. The (not so new) release of sealed transcripts in David Westerfield murder trial brings up interesting points. What follows below was sealed, not admitted in court, and it is relatively easy to understand why secrecy was needed for these statements: this investigation, paid by tax-payer money, reveals stories that not only are totally irrelevant to the case but … completely grotesque when it comes to demonstrating that Westerfield kidnapped and killed Danielle Van Dam.
MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT LIFESTYLES
The night of Danielle’s disappearance, Barbara Easton ended up in bed with Damon Van Dam. If they were not engaged in sexual relations, I wonder what else they were doing, but in any case, the door was open and the children were supposedly present. Any of their three children could have shown up and seen daddy in bed with a woman other than their mother. Could a child realize that daddy was not having intercourse but, instead, telling Barbara a bed time story? I doubt it very much.
Could it be that none of the children were home that night?
Where were the three children usually when the parents had admitted sexual relations with third parties? Who was taking care of them?
II – The Defense is unable to establish a motive for an unknown, unamed “swinger” to kidnap, kill and then dump a nude seven-year-old girl along the side of the road.
When was the prosecution able to establish a motive for Westerfield to do just that?
III – Neither logic nor common sense help prove that an adult male involved in consensual non-monogamous relationships with consenting adult females would be sexually attracted to a four-foot, 58 pound, seven year old girl.
This matches perfectly the description of David Westerfield, except that Westerfield was not exchanging his partner with friends. Prosecution logic and common sense seems to be working only one way. The sex life of the Van Dam’s is perfectly acceptable, Westerfield’s sex life is not. Why? Because Westerfield only engaged in monogamous relationships with adult females instead of holding ferocious orgies in his backyard. This is a highly suspiscious behavior.
IV – The Van Dam’s sexual history has no legal or logical relevance to the murder of their daughter
Where is the relevancy between Westerfield’s sexual history and the kidnapping and murder of Danielle?
MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
David Westerfield’s second wife told police that on maybe ten occasions she would awaken in the middle of the night to find Westerfield not in bed. He would be outside their residence with binoculars. She thought he was looking into neighbor’s homes. Westerfield confirmed the story and said he was checking on neighbor’s property for safety reasons.
The safety reasons are as convincing as Damon Van Dam claiming he was not having sex while in bed with Barbara Easton. Looks like Westerfield was spending some outdoor night-time watching the non-monogamous activity going on at the Van Dam’s house but, in any case, from where he was, it was not possible for him to have been watching Danielle Van Dam. According to this same motion, in order for Westerfield to see the Van Dam’s backyard (and Danielle’s window), he had to be upstairs in the master bedroom.
One of Westerfield’s female neighbors told police she suspected Westerfield was watching her exercise in her upstairs bedroom. While searching Westerfield’s home, police seized 8 mm home made tapes. One tape shows the bathroom window of a neighbor’s residence, a female is seen apparently preparing for drying off after a shower. There is a second homemade videotape of the defendant filming a woman through a window inside her residence. A third homemade tape shows the defendant secretly filming himself involved in sexual relations with a woman.
With the above stories, prosecution proves one thing: Westerfield was strongly interested in adult females. At the time of Danielle’s disappearance there were 13 registered sex offenders living right in the Van Dam’s backyard, plus an international child porn ring operating in Poway & San Diego. Makes perfect sense to suspect ONLY ONE PERSON: a male interested by women…
This motion mentions miscelleanous highly suspiscious items that cannot be linked to Danielle Van Dam. Among them: scissors and knives, a showel, a baseball bat, a bathroom window screen, stained bedding.
What about the toilet paper? Is it possible that there was no toilet paper in Westerfield’s bathroom? This would be even more suspiscious than all the above.
CONCLUSION: the purpose of the police investigation was supposedly to show that WESTERFIELD KIDNAPPED AND KILLED DANIELLE VAN DAM. If there was, somewhere, a document, a testimony, anything showing Westerfield did that, why not reveal it by now?
Probably because there is none.
According to an article published on kfmb.com on September 9/17/2002, Barbara Easton took THREE polygraph tests. Could it be that police had trouble with the result of the first two ?
Barbara Easton never testified.
Of course there is probably no relationship between the investigation of Danielle’s murder, directed by the D.A. Paul Pfingst and the fact that at that time, Paul Pfingst was already fighting for his re-election. The mess of the Stephanie Crowe case, handled by Paul Pfingst, surely didn’t look good in his campaign. Arresting a killer, any killer, in the Van Dam case before the election, would have looked better.
Paul Pfingst was not re-elected.