Talk:Murder of Danielle van Dam/Archive 1

message: No sources, unnerve tag added.--FloNight 18:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No references

message: This article needs sources. Keep in mind the standard here is verifiability, not truth. This isn't a court of law, so nobody should be proving any cases here. We should be summarizing others' reports of what happened, not creating our own. Unreferenced statements should be removed from the article along with information that is not important to this case. Fagstein 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been out to do way more then just correct flaws.  Your version of the article clearly looks like you believe Westerfield was wrongfully convicted.  If all you were concern about was mistakes you would have corrected them once or twice and be over with it.  But, instead, you added details every single day.  The article was convoluted; you challenged each piece of evidence as if we were in the court room. It was like you trying to retry the case.  You gave your own analysis about why the jurors didn't go to the dump site or the Van Dam home. Did the judge tell you that? How do you know? You mention it like it was fact.  You make moot points like the children being unsupervised, so that's why there was blood on the RV's carpet.  That's an example of spin.  TripleH1976 1:24 a.m., 15 May (2006)
Reply to TripleH1976:
The flaws I was referring to were not just errors but also the lack of neutrality (which I know you dispute).  And I was adding details every day because there were so many flaws.  If I was just pointing out where the flaws were, then that would have been quick and easy, and I could have done that “once or twice and be over with it”.  But I was CORRECTING the flaws which meant that, to maintain a high standard, I had to check my sources to ensure my facts were correct and then word my changes carefully.
I don’t agree that this made the article convoluted.  I’m sure an experienced copy editor could make small improvements here and there, but I don’t believe that major changes are necessary.
I was merely presenting the evidence.  If that makes it look like Westerfield was wrongfully convicted, then so be it: you are free to dispute the accuracy or neutrality of anything I have written.  However, I would point out that I did not dispute that there WAS evidence consistent with guilt: I was just showing that it is WEAK evidence - I’m sure some people would still consider him guilty.
That may make the article look like it is retrying the case in a courtroom, but it also makes it look like a balanced article, presenting both points of view, as one would expect in an encyclopedia.
I would argue that some of my changes had little, if any evidentiary value, one way or the other: I was concerned merely with accuracy.  Such as the date the body was discovered.  Or the time she was discovered missing.  Or that he arrived home in his SUV not his RV.
I only challenged evidence I thought needed challenging.  I didn’t dispute that Damon put Danielle to bed around 10:30, though I have also seen an earlier time: 10:00 (Damon Van Dam, trial testimony, March 14, 2002).  (It was someone else who removed that statement.)  I haven’t disputed the length of Westerfield’s RV, even though I have seen different figures: 33 feet (Neal Westerfield, July 24); 37 feet (Harriet Ryan, Court TV, June 17).  I was tempted to change the description of Westerfield’s children from “adult” to “college”, for greater precision (Neal Westerfield, July 24; Lisa Westerfield, September 4).  And I was certainly tempted to change the statements that he first said he drove around the county (implying aimlessly), then said he drove around the desert and the beach (implying he changed his story) - but I didn’t feel like searching through reams of pages trying to determine if there was any truth in those statements.  In any case, no record was made of his initial statements.  If you think the article convoluted, then changing that section would help simplify it.
I don’t know whether the jurors went to the dump site or not: they might well have done so individually before they were selected as jurors: I was referring solely to the Van Dam home.  Did the judge tell me why they didn’t go there?  Actually, yes, he did.  Not me personally - I’ve never met him.  But he stated this in court (on June 24, page 5905 of the trial transcripts).  Admittedly not open court, but that document was subsequently unsealed, along with many others, and it is available on the Union-Tribune website to anyone who wants to see it for themselves (Greg Moran, “Mudd given time line to unseal transcripts”, September 24, 2002, Document No. 14, westerfield12.pdf ).  So it IS a fact.
I didn’t say there was blood on the RV carpet BECAUSE the children were unsupervised.  In fact, I didn’t attempt to link the two together at all - and there are two paragraphs in between.  Had I linked them, I would have said that, because the children were unsupervised at times, and the RV door was unlocked and open at times, they had the opportunity and COULD have entered the RV (even Nancy Grace of Court TV can imagine a little girl doing that (Larry King Live, July 15, 2002)), and while inside it, they COULD have left behind a drop of blood (and other evidence).  I might have added that this is “reasonable doubt” that the blood was left there the weekend she went missing.  I wouldn’t have phrased it the way you have, partly because I am trying to be neutral (so I’m trying to present the evidence WITHOUT drawing conclusions), and partly because I’m not convinced that there was a drop of her blood there: I find it suspicious that it wasn’t properly documented (Annette Peer, June 20) - I also find it suspicious that the forensic specialist was told there was something interesting in that area of the carpet (Karen LeAlcala, March 12).  I could understand that a police officer might notice a large blood stain and direct the forensic specialist’s attention to it, but this one was TINY.
196.15.168.40 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: Ok, so, this is what I've been thinking.  To make the article neutral I think the following should be added/deleted.
In the first paragraph remove the entire stuff regarding the cookies, since it's hard to prove if he bought cookies once, twice, or three times.  Westerfield and Brenda might have forgotten how many times they sold/bought cookies to each other. However do mention that, as a neighbor, he was acquainted with Brenda and Damon Van Dam.  The rest is ok.  The length of time his RV was parked is highly POV and doesn't deserve to be mentioned.  To state the RV was sometimes locked or unlocked and the Van Dam children having access to it, is misleading.  It is what I like to call "spin".  That's what defense lawyers do, wikipedia is NOT A COURT ROOM.  Another good reason for removing the cookies sales is the fact that the kidnapping didn't happen on a day they sold cookies to him. 
The second paragraph looks pretty good.  The rest of the stuff concerning when Westerfield entered the home and if he was trapped in a closet or not is way too detailed and unnecessary.  The article is designed to summarize the case.  And should a person want to know these details they can follow the links and/or read the court transcripts.   
On the third paragraph, it should be stated that Westerfield and another neighbor were not home when the police started interviewing the neighborhood.  The rest is ok.  I agree that, currently, the article makes it seem like Westerfield was the only one and fact is he wasn't.   
On the fourth paragraph, it should be stated that police found one blood stain on his jacket and another drop on his RV's carpet.  The statement about the blood stain being faint is highly POV and doesn't belong in the article.  The stuff about the blood not being photographed or measured should be included only IF you can provide proof law enforcement did not do those thing.     
It should be mentioned that the autopsy report showed moderate decomposition and superficial mummification, but extensive postmortem animal feeding. It could not be determined if she had been sexually molested, nor could a cause of death be determined.  It's a moot point to say there was no semen, because sperm doesn't survive on a death body for over 25 days.  And if you can't tell she was sexually molested then it goes without saying that there wasn't any semen.  You need one to prove the other and vice versa.  In addition, Danielle was found nude and partially burned.  
Include a paragraph 5, or extend paragraph 4 for information regarding the site where Danielle was found.  It should be mentioned that the only links, between the dump site and Westerfield, were one dull orange fiber tangled in her hair and necklace, which was otherwise microscopically indistinguishable from many bright orange fibers in his house and SUV; and a number of blue fibers which were microscopically the same as ones in his house and RV.  However, they were not tested.   
Now the topic of the child porn.  He was convicted of having child porn; end of story.  You glossing it over by saying police only found 1%  of the porn questionable is highly POV.  If he got charged(and convicted of possession) for it, it's because he had a massive amount of it.  Hell, he even had CD's of it. 
Your paragraph regarding entomology is good, so state that entomology was a major focus of the defense; mention that 4 entomologist testified that the flies on Danielle's body laid eggs, sometime by mid February while Westerfield was being watched.  But that's it.  The stuff about Danielle - being alive or dead in his RV - so the dogs should have detected her is simply your interpretation/analysis.  It is clear evidence that you want to try the case in here.  How do you know the dogs would have found her scent?  What if Westerfield preselected a site he could take her?   I believe you're trying to cram your version of evidence to a reader.  And don't accuse me of trying to do that either, this is the discussion area.  I do not put my interpretations into the main article.   And no kidding that the parents were cleared as suspects.  You aren't telling people anything new here.  They never got charged, so it's moot; keep the focus on Westerfield.  The sex offender information is also needless.  
Now to the notes.  The note about Westerfield being a conservative is not something I put in.  However, I do know for certain that Westerfield told the cops the suspect who murdered Danielle should be put to death.  The second note about the defense trying to link the child porn to his son is true and shouldn't be altered.  The third note should say something like: "During the trial, the prosecution portrayed Westerfield as a "peeping Tom" spying on his neighbors with binoculars".  Statements from the neighbor or his former wife does not need to be included.  The fourth note regarding suicide it should be mentioned that Westerfield later said he was joking about it.  And that the police were depriving him of sleep.  
The fifth note about the civil suit should be kept as it is.  The sixth note about the Van Dams and their lifestyle should stay as well.  For the seventh note, I propose that at the end it should be stated that neither the defense or the prosecution confirmed or denied this to the media.  In the very last note it should be stated that Westerfield placed his finger in his niece's teeth and rubbed them when she was seven years old.  And to even things out I think one of your notes should be included.  Law enforcement were unable to find any evidence that Westerfield had been in Danielle’s home - no fingerprints, hair, DNA or fibers.  However, your POV statement that that's why the judge didn't take the jurors anywhere(Van Dam home, dump site) doesn't belong in the article since you aren't the judge.   
That's how, I think, the new article should look like.  Many of your notes are verbose.  For example, it doesn't need to be mentioned that Danielle and Westerfield were NEVER seen together during the weekend of the murder.  Normally kidnappers don't walk around with a child they abducted.  Also mentioning that his RV and home showed no signs a murder took place indicates very little if anything.  The cause of Danielle's death was very likely suffocation or smothering.  That's the easiest and cleanest way to kill someone.  So, because the cause of Danielle's death was undetermined, it is safe to assume she wasn't shot or stabbed to death; both methods tend to leave an awful mess.  Next, you say Westerfield didn't clean his RV as well as the police claim.  How do you know?  Did you inspect it too?  Are you privy with regards to what the police examined when they tested the RV?  Then you try to say some of the pictures on the computer were linked to Neal, which one's?  The adult photos, or the photos of children? State which ones you think they were, because you make it sound like Neal looked at the kiddie porn.  Well, until Neal Westerfield goes to jail for possessing child porn I don't think you should go around linking him to that type of garbage. Neal stated he looked at adult porn only. The scope of the child porn charge goes way beyond just the pictures from the internet.  His father was the owner of the CD's containing child porn and he was the one who viewed the video of a girl being raped.  That's not MY opinion it is a fact; a court of law determined that.
And finally, James Selby.  I think it should be noted that he did write to the police and confessed to Danielle's murder in 2003. It should be mentioned that he has a violent history of sex offenses, but police don't believe his claim that he murdered Danielle.  Selby's arrest warrant being granted on the day Westerfield was convicted is not important to the article.
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, in the external links include the link to the San Diego Union Tribune special coverage of the Westerfield trial.
That's how the new unprotected article should look like.  TripleH1976 Sun 10:56 p.m., 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Acknowledgment:
Thank you for your positive and constructive - and comprehensive - suggestions.  You obviously put a lot of thought into them, which I appreciate.  I will also put a lot of thought into my reply, which will therefore take a few days.
196.15.168.40 04:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the new article should look like.   

message: Oh give me a break!  Just because you invite someone into your home doesn't mean you're buddy-buddy with the person.  The Van Dam's have never said anything to suggest they were more then just an a neighbor/acquainted with David Westerfied.  He didn't come to there home for dinner every night.  He didn't spend weekends and holidays with them.  You're making a big deal out of Brenda wanting to see the remodeled kitchen.  It's something done between two acquainted people, because they live so close by. How is it evidentiary value, when it never convicted him or exonerated him? The RV stuff is defense spin. To include that stuff in makes the article a mouthpiece for the defense.  To say the kids may have had access is leading. I don't go out of my way to say he's guilty because a droplet of Danielle's blood was in the RV.  I kept it neutral(the proposed version I suggest above)  What more do you want? You want Westerfield to come out nice in everything?  Don't pretend that you don't.  I believe you are a family member of his, otherwise you wouldn't be doing all of this.  You once mentioned the Danielle Van Dam article had the date of the body discovery wrong.  You did nothing to correct it, however, you have done EVERYTHING to alter the David Westerfield article.  I look at your contributions and almost all of them is invested in the David Westerfield article.  Enough stuff is mentioned about his personal life.  The article is about the David Westerfield the convicted child killer, not David Westerfied the engineer, a father, blah, blah, and blah.
Reply to TripleH1976:
You are exaggerating what I said.  Westerfield and the Van Dams were only acquaintances, yes, but HE hadn’t been in THEIR house, and your revised wording is silent on the fact that THEY had been in HIS house - which even the protected version clearly states.  That was the extent of my objection.  It is important because hair that could have come from Danielle, and fibers that could have come from her house and bedroom, were found in his environment - house and vehicles (e.g. Rochelle Steinhaus, Court TV, June 26, 2002).  How did they get there?  If she and her family had never been in his house, it would be very difficult to explain, and would almost certainly mean that he was guilty of the crimes.  But they HAD been in his house, recently and more than once.  That’s why it’s so important that the article INCLUDE this - if it is to be neutral.
The importance of this evidence can be gauged by the following extract from a Court TV article (Matt Bean, June 25, 2002):
“According to police criminalist Melvyn Kong, who also specializes in trace evidence, none of the fibers found in van Dam's bedding and home matched the orange acrylic fiber. That the key fiber did not likely come from the most likely source - van Dam herself - could further link Westerfield to the crime in the eyes of jurors.”
That extract contains an ERROR.  Kong (June 25) DIDN’T test fibers from ELSEWHERE in Danielle’s home, he ONLY examined her bedding (but curiously NOT a flat sheet - I believe that was used to scent the search dogs - Howard Labore, June 3, 2002, page 3256, document westerfield2.pdf, linked to the article by Greg Moran, Union-Tribune, September 24, 2002, Document No. 4).  (Kong also examined the contents of their vacuum cleaners, but curiously he was looking for the earring backing and hairs, NOT fibers.)
This can also be seen from Court TV’s list, “Witnesses for the Prosecution” (the link to it is on their “Full Coverage” page), which ALSO contains an error, albeit a different one - and I’m not referring to the misspelling of his name.
So he did NOT exclude the possibility that the KEY fiber came from her own home, and the Court TV article was NOT justified in drawing that STRONG link between Westerfield and the crime.
And we also can’t exclude the possibility that those many distinctive orange fibers in Westerfield’s environment actually came from the Van Dam home, and were deposited in his house by them during the cookie sale.  Remember, the SOURCE of those fibers was never found: if it was in the Van Dam home, and the criminalists weren’t looking there for it, then that would explain it not being found.
Trace evidence (hair and fibers) can be powerful in linking a STRANGER to a crime, but it has LITTLE value when there was known and recent CONTACT between the victim and the suspect, and I DON’T get the sense from media articles that the reporters took this into account (one would hope that CRIME reporters are at least aware of this factor).
Including ONE sentence about Brenda wanting to see Westerfield’s remodeled kitchen is hardly “making a big deal”.  If you know of any evidence showing him actively seeking out victims - such as hanging around schools or participating in online chat rooms - then please inform us.  The total absence of such evidence casts considerable doubt on the belief that he is a pedophile.  Did the jury take this into consideration?  I don’t know.  But if they didn’t, then why not?
The “RV stuff” is FACT, not spin.  I included only one-and-a-half sentences in the article, and this did NOT include stating that the children may have had access (in fact, they DID have access but I didn’t SAY so), and it did NOT include stating that Westerfield was innocent.  In other words, I DID handle it in the same way as you handled the droplet of blood in the RV.  If your argument is that readers can follow the links, then my response is that, by drawing attention to the children being unsupervised at times, and to the RV being unlocked and open at times - neither of which is mentioned in the protected version - the readers will realize the existence (and hopefully also, relevance) of these factors, and will then look them up in the links, where they can decide for themselves if that evidence creates reasonable doubt - otherwise it would likely never occur to them.
You may not have SAID he was guilty, but I don’t see how anyone, reading the protected version of the article, could come to any other conclusion.  Neither would they be inclined to follow the links to learn more about the case - unless perhaps they were left scratching their heads wondering why the jury took so long to reach a decision in what appeared to be an open-and-shut case.  Admittedly, the suggestions you have now made are a step in the right direction, and I thank you for that.
The fact that I left IN the porn - unlike you who removed everything - disproves your allegation that I want him “to come out nice in everything”: I am content with the truth, whatever that is, whether nice or not, whether I like it or not.  Incidentally, I do think it was nice of you to include his explanation that he was accumulating it for the authorities: a lot of people would not have done so.  (I haven’t checked old versions of the article to confirm it was you who included this, but even if it wasn’t, you at least allowed it to remain in.)
I am NOT a family member of his: I just have a passion for truth and justice.  And I enjoy a debate: I think I’m rather good at it.
I had my hands full without also correcting the article on Danielle.  I haven’t even studied that article, I just had a quick read.  And with the strong adverse reaction to my corrections to the Westerfield article, I was not inclined to risk the same happening with Danielle, with consequent waste of my time.  I suspected that someone else would correct that error in the body discovery date, and that is what happened: you fixed it.  If that hadn’t happened, then I might well have corrected it myself, AFTER I had completed my improvements to the Westerfield article.
As I have previously pointed out, I have NOT done “EVERYTHING” to alter the Westerfield article: there are NUMEROUS other additions I could have made (I mentioned some in the Neutrality section), but didn’t make and didn’t even intend making.
I have already given (in the Length section) some arguments for a longer article, such as reviewing the use of entomology in court if it’s really as unreliable as it would HAVE to be (a 100% error!) for Westerfield to be guilty (unless he had an accomplice).  Here’s another argument for a longer article:
How strong should the evidence be for the state to execute someone?  (Or even imprison them for the rest of their life.)  In the Westerfield case, there was public outrage over the crime, the police jumped to conclusions, they ignored evidence pointing away from him, and there is objective scientific evidence of his innocence.  (None of that PROVES he is innocent, though it certainly points to it.)  If the defendant were someone you knew, would you consider that sufficient to execute them?  This debate therefore has far wider implications than just the Westerfield case.
It’s not true that “almost all” of my contributions are invested in the Westerfield article: ALL of them are.  You make that sound a negative; I view it as a plus: I know the case very well.
The title of the article is “David Westerfield”, NOT “David Westerfield the convicted child killer”, so one CAN justify including more about his personal life.
196.15.168.40 06:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reply about first paragraph

message: Just how long do you wanna make this article then?  My God! This isn't a persuasion article.  The evidentiary value is for the court.  It doesn't have to be in here. We are not trying the case in here!  What don't you understand about this?  This case didn't get enough attention to warrant an additional article about evidence.  And when I said the second paragraph is "pretty good" I meant the protected one.  The fact you don't see a regulation restricting length isn't permission to make a long article because YOU think it deserves one.  You are just using this to further your agenda.  It is wrong.  You're trying to lead and persuade people with statements like he had to take Danielle to his house on foot.  This is clearly a leading statement.  No one knows how the actual kidnapping took place, not even the police.  It is speculation and it isn't correct to make one up for people.  A wikipedia article is not intended for that.  You speak of the article not being a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but understand the same goes for the defense.  
I've suggested ways to make the article more neutral, and yet it is still not satisfactory for you.  I clearly believe we will NEVER agree on what an appropriate article should look like.  Therefore, the article should stay protected until you realize that you can not spin or make subtle persuasions so people can think Westerfield was wrongfully convicted.(personally, I think he was rightfully convicted)  Till then Cya!
TripleH1976 SAT 10:24 p.m., 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to TripleH1976:   
When I began this, my sole goal was to correct factual errors.  And I’m a stickler for accuracy.  Then I realized that there were major omissions (specifically related to neutrality) which ought to be rectified.  Both of which I did.  (Put in other words, initially I was being totally reactive, but later I became partly proactive.)  Once I’d had a chance to review the revised article as a whole, I might have made a few more changes or additions (or I might not).  But basically, I was finished.
But by then you had intervened.  And it was while replying to your points that I had more ideas.  I don’t believe I have said that I WOULD implement those ideas, merely that they COULD be justified.  I may or may not implement them, and even if I do, it won’t necessarily be straight away, that would depend on my other commitments and my priorities.
Just think: if you hadn’t suppressed ONE page of facts - only some of which you didn’t like - I wouldn’t have added a DOZEN pages of facts you don’t like (and I haven’t yet finished responding to your points).  Not just facts about the case but also facts about the poor quality media coverage - something I’d been wanting to do for a long time, but hadn’t got round to.
In a recent response, I referred to the article on child sexual abuse.  Study that.  After listing the activities which constitute abuse, it states “The majority of experts believe that CSA is innately harmful to minors.”  Then follows a long paragraph justifying that statement.  The next paragraph begins with “Some studies have reached other conclusions about CSA.”  That is followed by a long paragraph justifying the OPPOSING point of view.
Two paragraphs further on, the male/female victim experience difference is discussed, albeit much more briefly, and again TWO differing points of view are given.  A little further down, TWO views are given about regressed offenders.  And there are MORE examples.
That article was NOT about a court case, but it nevertheless gave a detailed presentation of DIFFERENT points of view.  Which is all I am trying to do.  A tabloid article would give only ONE point of view; Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I am aiming for a higher standard.
What you see as retrying the case, I see as high quality.  Encyclopedia quality.
Evidentiary value is relevant to article length: something of high evidentiary value (whether for or against) should be included; something of low evidentiary value should be excluded.
The justification for extra length or an extra article would not be - or would not be primarily - the amount of attention the case got - though that was considerable in the Westerfield case - but would be the other factors I have mentioned, particularly the weight of evidence required to justify execution (or life imprisonment).  And I would add another reason.  The mere fact that the verdict is disputed SHOULD be sufficient reason to discuss the evidence in more detail.
You might consider the second paragraph of the protected version “pretty good”, but it contains factual errors (related to the number of friends), which I corrected, as well as information NOT about Westerfield, which someone else removed (for that reason).  So you appear to be in a minority of one on that score.
This article shouldn’t be short just because YOU think that’s all it deserves.  Your opinion would carry more weight if you would only address the REASONS I have given for it to be longer.  To quote your own words, you are just using it to further your agenda: which is wrong.
If Westerfield didn’t take Danielle to his house on foot, then HOW did he get her there?  Are you arguing that he parked his SUV outside the van Dam house, and neither Brenda nor any of her four friends that night noticed it there?  Or do you reject the Prosecution scenario, and believe, for example, that she was only kidnapped several hours later?  And/or was not taken to his house at all?  The Prosecutor himself seems to suggest my “on foot”, when he said “and then walk to wherever you have to walk, and then take her down to Dehesa ” (Jeff Dusek, closing arguments, August 7), especially coupled with his statement “he goes out the back door, out the side gate back to his house” (August 6).
If the Prosecutor can make up a scenario, when the defendant’s LIFE depends on it, then why can’t I “make up” a scenario when all that will happen is that it will go on a web page as a very small part of an article?  What I “made up” is purely a logical consequence of the Prosecution’s scenario.  If you find it implausible (I’m not clear if that’s the reason you are objecting to it), then you should consider how plausible or otherwise the Prosecution’s scenario is.
You are quite right that no one knows how the kidnapping took place.  That’s one of the things that disturbs me.  It would have been far easier for a FRIEND of the van Dams to have kidnapped Danielle.  They would have been more comfortable moving around inside the darkened house at night, they might have known about the alarm system, the dog might have been less likely to create a disturbance, and Danielle might have gone willingly with them.  I would be much more willing to believe that Westerfield was the culprit if the Prosecution had argued that Danielle had gone outside early Saturday morning and then been snatched.
It troubles me when the Prosecutor ADMITS that he doesn’t know (and can’t prove) how, where, why and when (Jeff Dusek, closing arguments, August 6).  It troubles me even more that the jury returned a guilty verdict, and decided on death, when it was so obvious that there were such ENORMOUS gaps in the evidence.  I can’t help wondering if the community anger had something to do with their verdict.  Little evidence, angry crowd, killing: what does that remind you of?
I have already said that I appreciate your constructive suggestions (though the fact that you were basing them on the protected version means they are not as positive as I thought).  But I would point out that this is a DISCUSSION.  Just as you found fault with my edits, you can’t expect me to just automatically accept your ideas.  It is quite possible that we will never agree on what the article should look like - but it’s too early to come to that conclusion.
But one thing is certain: the article CANNOT stay as it is - I am of course referring to the protected version.  There are factual ERRORS in it and that cannot be permitted to continue.
I am just presenting the evidence, without drawing conclusions.  If that points to Westerfield having been wrongfully convicted, then so be it.  We must face up to the truth, whatever that may be.  If you cannot refute the evidence - as appears to be the case - then it is wrong for you to suppress it in an attempt to persuade people that he was rightfully convicted.
I had already guessed you believe Westerfield guilty - and are passionate in that belief.  But I would have more confidence in your conclusion if your knowledge of the case were better.
196.15.168.40 04:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: reply about second paragraph

message: You are a Westerfield apologist.  If you are so concerned about accuracy you would have corrected the date Danielle's body was found in the article about her. Your sole concern has been with the Westerfield article. Why don't you check other articles, on subjects you know so well, and check them for errors? If you care soooo much about accuracy <sarcasm>.  But, hey, maybe you edit other articles with another IP(LOL).  Who says the verdict is disputed?  You seem to be the only one disputing it or family members, which in all likely-hood you are.  You probably came to wikipedia entered Westerfield's name and decided, since anyone can edit a wikipedia article, that you can use it as a platform to defend his unjust conviction <sarcasm> <sarcasm>.  You turned it into a verbose article.  Laced with your POV that only 1% of his porn was objectionable.  Another of your POV statements that the Van Dam children were unsupervised.  You know that for a fact?  Not only that you place it right next to the statement his RV was sometimes locked or even opened.  As if saying only the naughty Van Dam children could get into it then.  A more neutral approach would be, "the RV was sometimes unlocked or even opened".  It suggest the same thing, but in a neutral way.  The blood stain being faint is POV, because you didn't provide a picture of it.  Therefore it should be seen as your opinion that it was faint.  If it was indeed faint, back it up.  How did Westerfield get around the darkened Van Dam home?  Ever heard of a flashlight?  Night vision goggles????  Joseph Duncan had night vision goggles and used them to stalk the Groene family last year.  How did Westerfield know which room was Danielle's? Who says he went to it directly?  Maybe he opened each of their rooms, and found that the one painted pink must be Danielle's.  It's not rocket science.  As for the dogs; the Van Dams' owned Weimaraner dogs.  Although intensely loyal they are not overly aggressive.  Maybe Westerfield took time to pet them, give them a treat - there are lots of ways to get a dog to think you're a good guy.  Yes, the dogs barked but how was Damon Van Dam to know they barked because an intruder was in the home?  It's common for dogs to bark even for no reason at all.  And let me also add, that just because the family dog didn't tear apart an intruder doesn't mean an intruder WASN'T there.  Danielle's hair and fingerprints were in his RV. And don't tell me the RV was unlocked and accessible to the children; that is spin by the defense and setting up smoke screens. Did they find the other neighborhood children's fingerprints in the RV?  If it was sooooo likely the neighborhood children sneaked into the RV lots of their fingerprints should be there.  But, oh wait, of all the neighborhood children Danielle's fingerprints show up.  And now she's missing.  Danielle was 7 years old it would take a considerable amount of strength for her to open the door.  Remember Elizabeth Smart?  She was twice as old as Danielle and she went with someone, whom she barely knew.  So you are erroneous to say a family friend is the likeliest that abducts a child.  Like Elizabeth, Danielle was most likely threatened(with a gun or knife) to believe her family was going to be harmed if she screamed.    
Anyhow your responses, much like your edits, are verbose and tired-some.  I suggest you type less.  You are wrong in saying the article was not neutral.  I know of many users and administrators alike, who've read it and never found a reason to put an NPOV tag to the article.  Until you came along that is, you, a Westerfield apologist.  The article didn't mention anything blatant or derogatory about Westerfield.  It was not sensationalized like a tabloid.  The article never says Westerfield is a pedophile.  The article states he had no criminal record. The article mentions he was a successful man. It never says Danielle is an angel and Westerfield is the big bad wolf. Furthermore, the article suggest it wasn't a quick verdict.  Do the math; the trial ended August 8 and a verdict was announced August 21.  I agree, the article should change but not to the extend you want.  Yes, mention Westerfield came driving in his SUV.  Mention that the RV was unlocked(unlikely that Danielle had the strength to open it and climb in but, whatever, if it makes the article more neutral put it in).  Mention that someone did testify Westerfield and Brenda danced.  Drop the word "intense" and just say he cleaned the RV.  And add all the other stuff I proposed.  But I will fight tooth and nail to see the article isn't laced with your commentary and spin on the evidence.  TripleH1976 Mon 01:43 a.m., 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply to TripleH1976: first paragraph
Your edit begins with a long personal attack, most of which I have already answered and denied, so I will ignore that.
You said I seemed to be the only one disputing the verdict, so I posted links to FIVE websites disputing it.  So SEVERAL people spent a LOT of time and energy casting doubt on the verdict.  This proved you wrong, but you promptly deleted those links.
I didn’t say that 1% of his porn was “objectionable”: some people find ALL porn objectionable - like Juror No. 38 (Juror Profiles, Court TV).  I said 1% was “questionable”, in other words, POSSIBLY illegal (“What the new article should look like”, “Fourth paragraph”).  And I presented evidence - including the professional opinion of two members of law enforcement - that NONE of it was illegal - or even close to being illegal (see “What the new article should look like”, “Fourth paragraph” and “Notes in revised/extended version”).
It’s NOT my POV that the Van Dam children were unsupervised - in fact, I said “sometimes unsupervised outside” - I was relying on testimony by Brenda herself (March 14) and neighbors Julie Hennes (June 4), Barbara Crum (June 12) and Mark Roehr (July 2), while Janet Roehr (July 2) testified that she had seen Dylan alone outside AFTER Danielle’s abduction and death.  Apart from the last-mentioned, this should not cause any surprise, as this was considered a SAFE neighborhood, one with lots of children.  And Brenda admitted to leaving Danielle alone in Mervyn’s early that Friday afternoon (and the boys alone at the toy shop), and to leaving all the children at home alone later that afternoon when she went out to get pizza (March 14 and June 6).
I discussed the question of the children’s access to Westerfield’s RV in the section “reply about first paragraph”.  I don’t want to repeat myself here, so I will just say that I have already proved that my approach IS neutral, whereas leaving out the bit about the Van Dam children being unsupervised would NOT be neutral.  Coupled with the Van Dam’s attempts to claim that their children were very closely supervised - for example, Brenda stated that, when Danielle visited her friend Taylor, “I stand at the corner and watch her go up, and then I call to make sure everything's okay” (June6) - that would make the evidence of Danielle in the RV explicable only by Westerfield being guilty - which I think is what you want.  (I am referring to only the blood spot and the hand print; the hairs and fibers could be explained by Locard transfer.)
I did not say that ONLY the Van Dam children could get into the RV.  Many other, unidentified prints were found in it - 16 cards, presumably representing several dozen prints, were lifted on April 17 (Jeffrey Graham, June 19) - and these COULD belong to other neighborhood children.  The Van Dam children may be more likely simply because they lived closer to the RV, while the Roehr’s children, for example, were too young - the eldest was only 4 (Mark Roehr, July 2).  Or maybe the other children weren’t as “adventurous” as Danielle - to quote Damon’s description (video clip, Larry King Live, August 28, 2002 and December 3, 2002).  On February 2, Damon had told Officer Steve Flores “my kids are playing out front all the time” (Steven Feldman, June 5), so maybe they just had more freedom (less supervision) than the other neighborhood children.
This highlights another reason for including this aspect in the article.  At the beginning, the Van Dams were happy to acknowledge that their children played freely outside; later, they did all they could to downplay this.  Why?  Because Westerfield was now a suspect/defendant, and the children’s freedom could explain the evidence of Danielle in his RV, which in turn could result in a jury having “reasonable doubt” as to his guilt, whereas they were determined he be convicted?
I did not describe the Van Dam children as “naughty”.  Even if they did explore the RV, I think they were just being normal, ordinary children - and curiosity and playfulness are characteristic of children.  One of the links I added - and which you promptly deleted - in fact contains a survey of 27 children, aged 6 to 21
http://users3.ev1.net/~2ntense/RV%20Survey.htm
When asked, “if you saw an RV in your neighborhood, that was just sitting there, would you try to go in, even if you didn't know the neighbor?”, nearly ALL of them said they WOULD do so.  (This shows how much knowledge you are missing out on.  Instead of removing the information I add, read it, study it, think about it, learn from it.)
With regard to the blood stain on the jacket being faint, I have already given both the relevant testimony and instructions to where a photo can be found on the Court TV website (see my response in the section “What the new article should look like”, “Fourth paragraph”).  I think the link to the photo is:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/westerfield/photogallery/evidence26.html
I didn’t say it was IMPOSSIBLE for a stranger to have kidnapped Danielle, merely that it would have been much EASIER for a friend of the Van Dams to have done so (section “reply about second paragraph”).  And this is not merely MY opinion, it’s ALSO the opinion of the FBI profilers who were consulted on the Monday, February 4: “it is highly unlikely this abduction was completed by a stranger because of the high risk of entering an unknown residence to take a victim. The profilers believe the abduction was completed by someone familiar with the interior of the residence of the victim” (May 7, page 44 of document SCN_20030109152845_001).  It is also the opinion of Officer Steve Flores, who on February 2 told Damon that someone knew the layout of his house, knew how to get in and out, knew where Danielle’s room was, knew they had a dog, knew the dog wasn't going to bite him or bark, and in the officers’ view the dog would have been familiar with whomever might have been in their house earlier in the day (Feldman, June 5).  I’d have thought that any dog would have been LESS likely to tear apart an intruder it already KNEW.
I would also mention the article “Rarity of abductions outside family raises interest in such cases” (Anne Krueger, Union-Tribune, February 10, 2002), in which it is stated: “In San Diego County, of the 6,342 children reported missing in 2000, two were kidnapped by strangers”.  That’s a VERY small percentage.
I can’t find any mention that a flashlight (much less night vision goggles, let alone a gun) were seized from Westerfield.  Perhaps law enforcement didn’t think of those possibilities: the prosecutor argued instead that he found his way around inside the house by the light of the TV in the master bedroom (Jeff Dusek, August 7).  (Damon must be a very heavy sleeper.  Not hearing the kidnapper with his door closed is bad enough, but with his door open, as Westerfield tried each room!)  (That’s the problem when you start with the suspect and then try to make the evidence fit.)
The Van Dams did NOT own Weimaraner DOGS - they only had ONE, and she was more likely to be over-FRIENDLY than aggressive, jumping on all visitors (Denise Kemal, June 10; Richard Brady, June 10), like she did on Keith Stone, one of the visitors that night (Brenda, June 6; Keith Stone, June 10).
And their dog DIDN’T bark (Brenda, March 14; Damon, March 14).  That was one of the strange aspects of this case: a dog that hardly ever barks - or so we were repeatedly assured.
It’s interesting that you suggest - but without any proof - that Danielle might have been threatened with a knife or a gun.  I’m sure Westerfield had knives - kitchen knives if nothing else - but a gun?  An old shell casing was found in Danielle’s bedroom (Dorie Savage, June 18).  If Westerfield didn’t have a gun, then that points to a third party being the kidnapper - or would do if it had been found straight away.  (That’s another strange aspect of this case: it seems that the crime scene wasn’t secured.)
Yes, I remember Elizabeth Smart.  Her abductor HAD been in her house before, the abduction was WITNESSED, and they DIDN’T have a dog.  Nor did they have guests in the middle of the night, while the kidnapper was still there.
Only ONE hair of Danielle’s was definitely found in the RV (Item 77 from the motorhome sink (Mitchell Holland, June 26)).  Another hair MIGHT have been hers, but was only mitochondrial DNA tested so it could have come from ANY “maternal” Van Dam (Q8.1 from Item 80D the bathroom rug (Catherine Theisen, June 20)).  (There may have been a third hair: the testimony is unclear.)  And NONE of these were from the bedroom, where she supposedly spent most of the time.  Such a small number is NOT consistent with anything like a two-day stay, but IS consistent with a very much shorter visit - OR Locard transfer from his house after the recent cookie sale.  As Danielle’s hair was changing color from blonde to brown, any all-blonde hairs of hers were likely OLD hairs left over from an earlier visit.  And hair 77 was blonde (Tanya DuLaney, June 24).
Law enforcement did testify to having found her fingerprints in the RV.  This consisted of one hand print - which curiously was the ONLY print they took TWO lifts of - the only portion of which that could be used being the pad between the palm and the first knuckle of one of the fingers (Jeffrey Graham, June 19).  This is NOT what is normally meant by a fingerprint, and is the ONLY case I’ve been able to find of THIS area being used.  So the question arises: is there as much individual variation in this area as there is in the fingertips?  Because, if not, then that print might have come from someone ELSE - such as one of her brothers.  And remember, they had to cut off the skin, rehydrate it and then flatten it in order to make a match.  That hand had been exposed to the elements and dragged around by feeding animals for supposedly nearly a month: how fortunate law enforcement were that it hadn’t suffered any damage.
And I WILL tell you the RV was unlocked and accessible to the children: that is NOT defense spin, but witness TESTIMONY, as I have quoted above.  And the testimony was not just that the door was sometimes unlocked but also that it was sometimes OPEN (Christina Hoeffs, March 11 and June 12; Barbara Crum,, June 12; Angela Elkus, June 13; Janet Roehr, July 2; and Susan L., July 10).  So the supposed difficulty in opening the door becomes IRRELEVANT.  Hoeffs’ testimony is interesting.  At the Preliminary Hearing, she merely stated she had seen the RV door open (and the garage open, while the trailer doors were open “most of the time”); at the main trial, she qualified this, and without being asked: she THOUGHT it was open when people “were out there loading”.  It was as though she, too, WANTED Westerfield convicted, so she was trying to play down the children’s prior access to the RV.
If you think it can’t be a coincidence that, of all the neighborhood children, only Danielle’s prints were found in the RV, then I can reply that it can’t be a coincidence that, of all the neighborhood children, the only one kidnapped was the daughter of the only known swingers there.
I would add that Danielle L.’s fingerprints, and Jennifer L.’s fingerprints, were ALSO found in the RV, and NEITHER of them is missing.
The difficulty in opening the RV door is just prosecution spin, and is too reminiscent of OJ Simpson and his gloves.  Only SOME of the jurors had difficulty opening that door: “some of you had to pull once or twice” (Dusek, August 6).  Which ones: the 83-year-old?  (Juror No. 65)  “Once or twice” doesn’t sound like it was THAT difficult.  And that was 5 MONTHS after February.  A lot can happen in that time: had the door suffered any damage in the interim?  When Westerfield opened the door for Detectives Keene and Parga, NEITHER mentioned him having any difficulty (both testified on June 11).
It is also reminiscent of the gate.  Brenda (March 14) denied that Danielle had opened the gate to their back yard and walked away from their house, saying she couldn’t open the gate.  Damon (March 14 and June 5) also denied she had done that, and said it was too difficult for a child to open, the wood was tight and swells, and a child was too small to reach up (about four feet) and pull it open with the force needed.  But on February 2, 2002, both Dylan and Derek had told Detective Gene Bojorquez that Danielle COULD open it and HAD opened it (Robert Boyce, March 14).  Also on February 2, Damon told Officer Steve Flores that Danielle had gone out that gate when it was left open (Damon, June 5).
You really don’t have a good knowledge of this case - yet you are CONVINCED that Westerfield is guilty: WHY?  Because the jury found him guilty?  Read the Innocence Project article.  A claimed 180 wrongfully convicted people exonerated.  The Department of Justice itself estimates a 5% failure rate in the justice system, which suggests 100,000 falsely convicted prisoners.  How can you be so SURE that Westerfield isn’t one of them?
The fact that you, with so much erroneous information about the facts of this case, considered yourself qualified to write an encyclopedia article on it, is yet another reason for the article to contain extra information.  I’m sure a LOT of other people are also seriously misinformed.
196.15.168.40 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 196.15.168.40

message: This article has been protected for a ludicrously long period. I'm going to hazard a wild guess and rule that any differences that could possibly be sorted by mere discussion must have been resolved long ago.  Accordingly there's nothing for it but to let people, you know, edit the article.  Am I crazy?  Posssibly, but that's the way wikis are supposed to work. --Tony Sidaway 07:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you best be careful with user,196.15.168.40, this person is a big apologist for the convicted child-killer.  They will push their agenda that he was wrongfully convicted.  I had to request an administrator to protect the article, otherwise 196.15.168.40 would have made a novel on the case. Added things every single day, if you don't believe look into the history file.  TripleH1976 Thu 1:20 a.m., 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been reading over this discussion for a few weeks now, and I'm still wondering why at least some of the obvious errors have not been corrected. I do have one suggestion however. Perhaps a footnote should be added that not everyone at the end of the trial was convinced Westerfield was guilty. I've got links to sources if you want them. Resorting to name calling, certainly never worked on me, and I doubt it works on anyone who cares about the truth. As far as I am concerned, the Westerfield case is the definition of...
Tunnel vision is a metaphor for narrowmindedness, particularly in describing those who pursue an investigation with their conclusion already decided and proceed by only accepting evidence that supports their conclusion and excluding any evidence that contradicts their assumptions.
Source: Wikipedia
I guess this can apply to anyone who has their mind made up.
The preceding comment was added by Currious1, June 23.
Reply to TripleH1976:
Vandalism is what we must beware of.  The truth is something to be welcomed, not resisted.  Removing content is not the right thing to do.
196.15.168.40 04:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: 'Well, you best be careful with user,196.15.168.40, this person is a big apologist for the convicted child-killer. They will push their agenda that he was wrongfully convicted. I had to request an administrator to protect the article, otherwise 196.15.168.40 would have made a novel on the case. Added things every single day, if you don't believe look into the history file. TripleH1976 Thu 1:20 a.m., 22 June 2006 (UTC)' 
From the above post TripleH has long since proven he is not caple of giving a neutral opinion on this case. Those who have responded have tried to correct the mistakes that have been made in his posts. No one is pushing an agenda but you TripleH1976. You obviously wanted to show your guilty opinion and others have shown how it is entirely possible that there was a wrongful conviction in this case. 
Brenda van Dam received a phone call on February 15, 2002 stating that "Danielle was alive but abused." She had also received a handwritten letter which caused SDLE to request a handwriting sample from Mr. Westerfiled...guess what it didn't match obviously or it would have been admitted into court. I would like to see the handwriting compared to the Selby confession letter. What if that also matched? The jury was never told that and David Westerfield was under 24/7 surviellence by that time. Which also was consistent with the entomologists opinions. Why was this never followed up on? James Selby wrote to SDLE saying that he was the one responsible for Danielle's death. Why wasn't this followed up on? Why was EXTRACTED DNA from the jacket sent to Bode labs? Why was the carpet stain never photographed or written in any report? How can the area of Danielle's hand be called a FINGERPRINT except to mislead the jury? The hair supposedly found in the sink drain MAY have been transfered through locard transfer from his home because Danielle, her brother and her mom had all been in his home a couple of days before. I could go on and on but these are the reasons so many of us are still having questions regarding this case. There were too many questions left unanswered in this case and in my opinion it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Even Judge Mudd stated that there was NO evidence that David Westerfield had ever been in the van Dam home....the CRIME SCENE of which the jury was not allowed to visit because the DA said that "the van Dam's didn't want that evil in their home." Our constituion allows for a fair and BALANCED trial and that was not the case in this trial. No one is condoning the death of this beautiful child so get off of your soapbox.
It is too bad that you had to get an administrator to protect the article to begin with. All 196.15.168.40 tried to do was correct you and you should have been grateful for that. If I have misspoken here I hope that someone will correct any mistake I have made. But don't delete my post just because it is not what you want to see. FreedomRings 20:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbelievable