Talk:Murder of Danielle van Dam/Archive 2

message: The Guilty? section is a total joke. Wow Westerfield must be innocent because no one saw him kidnap Danielle.  Sure!  How the heck did you arrive at that conclusion?  Do you think kidnappers have an audience??  Do you think they display themselves WITH their  victims for a show? As if they wanted to get caught red-handed?  What in the world have you been smoking man!?!? Pass me that joint. :) I shall clean up the mess you made later. TripleH1976 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  omg! omg! omg! ha ha  

message: TripleH1976 asked me to weigh in on this section. I know absolutely nothing about this case, so I'm not going to take any stand on his guilt or innocence. However, this section is too much like an opinion piece. It is not Wikipedia's job to argue that he was wrongly convicted. Instead, the section should focus on how OTHERS think he was wrongfully convicted. As it stands now, it reads like original research. Please keep in mind that an encyclopedia is a tertiary source, so the references you cite should be secondary sources, not primary sources. This means, take out anything that cites the court transcripts or police interviews. News reports are fine, but not op-ed pieces (unless those op-ed pieces are being discussed specifically). In addition, it's far too detailed -- this is not the "David Westerfield is innocent" web site. That's what external links are for.
The section should read more like:
"The verdict left many dissatisifed. Noted legal scholar Joe Schmoe stated in the San Diego Tribune that Westerfield had no history of sexual violence.[1] Additionally, Detective Chris Armstrong also admitted blah blah blah blah.[2] These and other apparent inconsistencies have led to a grass-roots movement to argue for his freedom."
--howcheng  {chat} 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Howcheng I completely agree with you. 196.15.168.40 came in here with an agenda and wants to use the David Westerfield article as their soapbox.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for anyone.  196.15.168.40 is free to believe Westerfield was wrongfully convicted, however, they have no right to come into wikipedia and try to change people's mind.  People,like myself, who believe he was rightfully convicted.  He received a fair trial.  He got what he deserved in the death penalty, because he committed two felonies: kidnapping and murder.  196.15.168.40 wants to retry the case in here, but I'm not going to let it happen.  Furthermore, 196.15.168.40 arguments are asinine at best.  To say, no one saw him take her or murder her so he's innocent is stupid.  Very rarely does a stranger kidnap a child in broad daylight infront of eye witnesses.  It's too brazen.  They know they will be caught easily.  Westerfield was not a total stranger to Danielle so it does not fall under those rare stranger abduction scenarios.  196.15.168.40 cites that the lack of the dogs barking or lack of noise makes him innocent.  That's a total joke.  Time and time, and time in again dogs have proven very little help in preventing a crime.  Some dogs if well trained can prevent them, but it is not common.  196.15.168.40 needs to get a life and leave the article alone.  TripleH1976 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct and I did deserved it.  I haven't done anything to the Jacob Robida article since then.  The only reason I went to you, in regards to my problems with 196.15.168.40, is because you're the only administrator I became familiar with and your user address was easily available on my talk page.  Do not worry I have not told anyone or given anyone the impression that we are friends.  TripleH1976 23:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Currious1, well, of course you agree with them.  That's because YOU ARE 196.15.168.40.  You don't think I can see that?  Every time I get into a new argument with 196.15.168.40,  Curious and Freedomring make a surprise appearance.  Interestingly enough, Currious1 and Freedomring just as 196.15.168.40 have shown no interest in any other article besides the David Westerfield article.  A coincidence??? I think not.  They came here with an agenda; that is crystal clear.   TripleH1976 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me also say that I removed the, "Guilty?", section because it reads like a spiel; basically a rant.  The tone and wording was not encyclopedic.  Your sentence that the blue fibers "can't be dated" reads like a lecture.  You can not cite editorial articles as references either.  TripleH1976 22:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already have it.  In fact, I got three.  Why don't you build up some guts and make a user profile of your own?  How interesting that you like reading up on others, but you don't let others read about you.  I wonder why.   TripleH1976 22:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Guilty?" section 

message: It is an extreme injustice to this case that misinformation is being allowed to stand all because one member "says so." Most of what ThripleH1976 has said is incorrect. It is obvious that his main concern is that he be right, not the information. To that degree the entire article needs to be revamped and where the items are sourced should remain. TripleH1976 has never really answered any questions with anything other than his spin and attack and personally a rather smart alec reply at best.
I feel the article is needed and for that I appreciate the fact that TripleH1976 felt the same and hence his writing of the original article. But once others started correcting his misinformation he became belligerent with name calling and personal attacks that have shown to me at least, that he will discredit any thing that is not to his liking and to the degeree that he removes others items. He should not be allowed to do this as it gives him too much power. If anything is to be removed it should be done so only by a qualified moderator of which he is not. Why is this allowed? He oviously enjoys the attention that he is receiving from the moderators while those of us who have studied this case in extreme detail are ignored. 
Because 196.15.168.40 has shown his desire for detail and correctness, I give him a lot of credibility. Name calling and irresponsible comments should not be allowed on a website like Wikipedia that is viewed and trusted as a place to get correct information, just so one person can claim "rights" to the article as it will only discredit the entire article and also Wikipedia's credibility. I hope that this will all end soon and a responsible discussion can ensue.
To my knowledge most of us don't go running to a moderator every time someone writes something we don't agree with as obviously has been the case several times since this article was initiated given the fact that it was first protected and now proof from the above item written by HowCheng that TripleH1976 has been reprimanded on another article. 
FreedomRings 19:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to Howcheng, because he's an administrator.  Perhaps, if you shown more interest in other articles, besides the David Westerfield article, you would have noticed that many users go to an administrator when they have heated problems with other people's edits.  FreedomRings, I know you are 196.15.168.40.  You are not fooling anyone, only yourself.  The article is meant to be a synopsis of the case.  TripleH1976 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bleeding hearts.  TripleH1976 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh go cry me river!!!  whaaaa!!! whaaa!!! whaaa!!!!  All criminals claim to be innocent.  They had a bad childhood.  The DNA lab was out to get them! whaaaaaa!!!!  TripleH1976 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reply like I do, because defenders for a convicted child-killer irk me to no end.  Now slowly scroll up and read the header that says: This page is not for discussion about David Westerfield's guilt or innocence.  I'm not going to let you apologist run this talk page amok again, like you did the archived one.  Go into the article's page history and you'll notice that no one said you can't give reasons for doubting his conviction.  But it must not read like an original research, or lecture, or promoting an agenda.  I know you have a hard time with that.  TripleH1976 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You're funny!!!  There is no incorrect information in the article.  If people don't believe any of it they can follow the links.  I haven't said anything the media didn't report.  And for FYI, wikipedia is full of Canadians.  It is not a requirement to be American to edit here.  Under our laws, Westerfield would have been convicted too.  Why don't you scrape some money and send it to him, so he can buy snacks at the San Quentin canteen???  Oh please!  The last thing I was looking for was praise when I made the article.  I made it, because I saw there was an article on Samantha Runnion.  So I figured there should be one on Danielle.  Then I made one about her murderer.  The murderer you like defending.  Afterwards, I received complaints that they weren't notable enough.  But me and several other people told them it was.  TripleH1976 03:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has an injustice been done? 

message: You have shown the world that you don't know squat about this case by the removal of all of the previous posts that we have made showing you are wrong. I know you state that you have gotten your information from the "MEDIA." Well that goes to prove you don't know the case except through that median. There have been many inacurracies printed and commented on, one of which was made by Lt. Collins, SDPD's statement in the SDUT, The chief said Westerfield's DNA was also found on an article of Danielle's clothing found in her room. Later proven to be incorrect. NOTHING of David Westerfield was EVER found in the van Dam home. There are others but you wouldn't be interested in anything that shows you just how incorrect your comments are. 
I agree with you on one thing however, anyone who wants to know the truth should read through the links that currious1 - 196.15.168.40 and myself have provided only because you have provided nothing to link to your comments. 
I will do my best to stop replying to you because you aren't worth the time and effort. I was originally under the opinion that Wikipedia was a Website for CORRECT information. I have however been given more insight into this and have decided on my own that you can't believe everything you read here either. That is a shame because it is people like you who have trashed what was originally supposed to be a site for research and information. 
I also hold the administrators accountable for allowing you to continually remove everything you determine you don't want to be known if they don't agree with your understanding of the case. FreedomRings 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, dear, does that mean you are leaving wikipedia?  If so, you know what they say, don't let the door kick you in the rear end on your way out, you never came here with noble intentions in the first place.  You are better off saving your money and sending it to Westerfield for his San Quentin canteen fund.  Tell him I said, hi and tell him not to drop the soap in the shower area.  If he hasn't already.  LOL LOL LOL  TripleH1976 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  It's not like anyone would have noticed you were gone, because you don't edit anything else besides the Westerfield article.  Which only reinforces my belief that you have an agenda to push around here.  You aren't anything I can't handle.  Just know that I'll continue to revert your salacious babble about Damon being in a bedroom with a woman.  As well as the price of the Van Dam's new home.  As if any of that has any relevance to the crime.  Victim bashing a great tactic used by the child-killers attorney to defend the pervert.  You think you know so much because you're on the same side as the pervert???  What kind of man has rape videos on his computer?  Does it feel good to be on the same side of a man like that?   Yeah, yeah, sure, it was really Neal who was into that stuff.  Either way someone in that home was a pervert, and even if it was only Neal who looked at the child porn and rape videos he picked up the habit from someone.  My guess would be by daddy-dearest.  TripleH1976 06:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You're right TripleH1976 

message: ENOUGH
It's time you all enter dispute resolution. I suggest starting with the Mediation Cabal or getting a third opinion. If that doesn't do anything, go to a Request for Comment followed by a Request for Mediation. This arguing back and forth between y'all has taken far too much time and space on this and other talk pages, and I've already been involved as much as I care to be. howcheng  {chat} 22:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FreedomRings I do not see where at all Howcheng is giving TripleH1976 control over the article.  The article, right now, is very neutral.  I don't know where you get off saying people are sockpuppet.  Contrary, to what you believe, there are many people in this world who believe Mr. Westerfield is guilty.  I think the article tells both sides of the case very well.  I don't know who TripleH1976 is, but from my point of view I believe he takes issue with you and 196.15.168.40 because you both want to monopolize the article.  You want the article to convey your feelings.  Those feelings being that you think Mr. Westerfield was wrongfully convicted.  You accuse TripleH1976 of not being neutral but the same can be said for you and 196.15.168.40.  Why do you want to include the price of the Van Dam's home? Or include information on their car.  Why do you want to include Damon Van Dam's sex romp with one of the girls.  How does that make Westerfield innocent? The adult female isn't a victim!  Why does 196.15.168.40 fail to mention the full details of the entomology reports?  The entomologist gave estimates - estimates do not make something facts.    Three of those entomologist and their testimony were bought and paid for by Mr. Westerfield's defense attorney.  Clearly the jury was not swayed by the entomologist, but 196.15.168.40 fails to mention it and why.  I don't believe you should be throwing stones at TripleH1976.  You have a lot more in common with him then you care to admit.  Only major difference is that you side with the defense.  This article is neutral enough.  203.160.1.52 03:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time out 

message: I added in the notes that locard transfer could explain the evidence of Danielle being in the RV.  Also stated that by in large most of his computer images were legitimate.  Fighting for Justice 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  196.15.168.40 

message: I unprotected the article.  Let's tread lightly and not get back to screaming in all caps here and in edit summaries.  Everyone breathe deep.  In...out...in...out...   —Wknight94 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do we do about the external links?  Should all 6 links stay, or go; divide them up? Fighting for Justice 03:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose one of the nicer-looking ones to keep.  I'm open to suggestions though.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the issue concerning the description of his children's age? College age vs. Adult? They were 21 and 18 in 2002. Fighting for Justice 03:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you like this edit?  Again I'm not sure what the difference is and I don't remember who wanted what but college student is more specific.  College student is true, right?  I don't see a source tied to that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's unprotected 

message: ...like I'm doing tonight.  That way, we can use the individual small diffs to refer to the exact edits we want to discuss.  —Wknight94 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I can do that, but my issue isn't with small edits or even large edits.  My problem is with 196's insistence on putting a defense spin to his edits and bringing in material that wasn't talked about at trial.  He is insist that its Wikipedia's obligation to have them here.  I don't agree with that. That's why these edit wars happen.  Fighting for Justice 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you.  My problem on this particular page is that I haven't been able to keep score of all the different issues - and certain people are only posting once or twice a day.  While that's their prerogative, it's unfair to keep the article locked from everyone for that reason.  That's the main reason I unprotected suddenly.  That and I can more easily focus on small article diffs than the fragmented discussion here which is very hard to follow without the context that you all have built up over months. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is now it is more then fair to David Westerfield and his defense.  This article could be far more scathing like all the other articles on child-killers.  Look at the Alejandro Avila article there's not a kind word about him. Fighting for Justice 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about small edits for a while?... 

message: Copied section from WP:BLPN to keep the discussion in one place – 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wasted your time bringing it up again BigDT.  I have no interest in conversing with 196.15.168.40.  He is a sad being who defends a murderer.  Another user tolerated him for a long time, but I will not.  He makes me sick.  That's all I gotta say.  You can archive this section again, if you wish.  Fighting for Justice 05:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll rearchive it, but please see WP:NPA.  Regardless of the correctness of this user's position, there is no reason to engage in personal attacks. BigDT 03:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A week after your reprimand, “Fighting for Justice” hurled the following rude remark at me (see Westerfield History page): “STOP EDITING THE ARTICLE TROLL”.  I suppose I should be grateful: this is MILD by his standards.196.15.168.40 08:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I called you that, because you exhibit the behavior of one.  You are constantly putting in information to make David Westerfield seem innocent, or wrongly convicted.  The article is already very kind to him.  Almost all the notes, with the exeception to the last one, put DW in a positive light.  Yet you still complain it is not neutral enough.  College age does mean adult age.  What do you have against calling them adults?  Link 8 is biased and YOUR original research.  Your other links is the same information as in link 8.  Link 8 is your soapbox, which was tagged as biased.  You saving it without the tag is deceptive.  Link 7 is hard to follow.  The replies are all over the place and your arguments with another user are not special.  Fighting for Justice 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You've been putting in information since March of this year.  How much more do you need to balance?  Who is the "many" that were unsatisfied with the verdict?  Did you count them?  Are they your friends?  How much is many? 15? 30? 100? 1500??  What?  Source-based research that's a term you invented.  Where does wikipedia tell you you can do this?  What other changes do you propose? That Damon got his back rubbed? That he kissed and snuggled with another woman who wasn't his spouse? Will that kind of stuff make the article neutral in YOUR opinion?  The smoking of marijuana? The fact that the family ate pizza?  The cancellation of the ski trip? If it weren't for myself and TripleH1976 I bet this type of stuff would be in the article.  The article would be a cry festival for Westerfield.  A good chunk of the article is positive to the child-killer.  I bet ALL child-killers would love an article like this one.  Fighting for Justice 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if we can focus on the article and not who is doing what to spin what, etc., maybe we can get somewhere.  BigDT, maybe you can weigh in on this - the line about Det. Armstrong appears to be from a raw trial transcript published somewhere.  The actual text is a defense lawyer who wants to hear Armstrong say that the material wasn't pornography but the judge refuses to let him say that.  That's it.  Apparently no one has ever reported on this anywhere.  I'm not even sure it's relevant and God knows a defense lawyer is going to be biased (he's paid to be biased!).  To me, allowing a line in this article saying that even Armstrong disputes the pornography based on that would be against WP:NOR, etc.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know wikipedia is not a place to push an agenda.  I've told User:196.15.168.40 this as well and he just doesn't get it.  He thinks this is a place to retry the case again.  He wants to right the wrongs he thinks happen.  Armstrong's statement should not be included, because the transcript is about a defense lawyer trying to get that statement in.  And you know what?  He was DENIED.  The transcript is hearsay and, not only that, we have no clue if Armstrong saw EVERYTHING Westerfield had.  It goes against everything we do know about the child porn conviction.  If this man didn't own child porn, why was he indicted for it?  Why did the jury convict him of it? His lawyers knew he had that's why they build a defense for it. They tried to pass it off to his 18 year old son.  Fighting for Justice 20:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to leave speculation as to 196.15.168.40's motives out of it - Wikipedia is about the product, not the personality.  It would be easier to resolve this problem if you guys would quit with the personal jabs. As for the question itself - Detective Armstrong - there are two issues.  One is whether he actually said it or not.  If he is quoted somewhere as saying it, ok, that's fine, but if the only source is the unsubstantiated statement of the defense lawyer, I don't know how useful that is because there's no context.  Did he say it just before the trial in a deposition? Did he say it the first day of the investigation?  There's no context there.  The second issue is what position he was in.  Was he one of 100 detectives working on the case or was he the lead detective?  If 100 people looked at it and one thought it was not child pornography, you don't want to give undue weight to the statement ... on the other hand, if he maintained from the beginning until the end of the case that there was no child pornography, then that's a meaningful statement. BigDT 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, will you agree with me the statement is poorly sourced?  According to the biographies of living people policy controversial or poorly sourced statements are to be left out.  You are right context is sorely lacking.  Did he see the same stuff that was shown to the jury?  If he did I find it very hard to believe he would say it wasn't child porn.  I don't believe he saw all the material.    Fighting for Justice 03:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Take it to an appeals court then.  if his conviction is overturned then come back here and we can include it in the article.  Until then it doesn't have to be here. Fighting for Justice 06:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BigDT asked for more information about Armstrong’s statement so I gave it.  I have proved that he DID say it, and that it’s a MEANINGFUL statement.  I now await BigDT’s response.196.15.168.40 19:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It matters squat that you proved it. It isn't the article's obligation to defend Westerfield against the charges he was convicted on. It's about time you understand that.  Fighting for Justice 19:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never said the article was obliged to defend Westerfield.  My goal is mirrored by the following comments made by Aaron Ford a few days ago in the “Sentenced to Death” section above: “It is fair to report defense responses to any prosecutorial allegation, even if the jury favored the prosecution arguments ... It is the narrator's job to accurately represent their [the defense’s] effort, the prosecutions effort, and the conclusions of the court and jury”.  That’s all I’ve ever wanted.196.15.168.40 09:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, Aaron Ford his timing was just perfect.  How come you Westerfield supporters ONLY edit things concerning the child-killer? Strange indeed how he arrived.  You never said it, but you certainly act like it.  Both you and Aaron are clueless.  You are not allowed to draw your own conclusion and interpretation on primary sources.  You love doing that.  Hopefully now that 2 people (3 if you count Howcheng) have told you you can't do original research here you'll find a new place to troll on.  Fighting for Justice 19:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WADR, Fighting for Justice, if you would cut out the personal attacks, things would go more smoothly.  You can be 100% right about an issue, but if you communicate your position using personal attacks, you are also 100% wrong. When you make an attack post like this, you put the other party in a defensive position where they may feel compelled to respond.  On the other hand, a calm, civil response where you focus on the issue, not on the user, can help to diffuse the situation. --BigDT 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, folks here need to realize that "the loudest person wins" does not apply here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Without taking a side, 196.15.168.40, I think you are drawing some conclusions yourself based on primary sources.  Wikipedia:Reliable sources frowns on this, saying, "Thus, primary materials typically require interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation, or corroboration, each of which usually constitutes original research. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources."  Drawing a conclusion that the defense lawyer was telling the truth based on the available facts, as opposed to either (a) citing a third party media report on the subject or, failing that, (b) reporing only the claim itself ("the defense lawyer says that the cop said ..."), is original research.  BigDT 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved section from [[WP:BLPN]] to avoid forking discussion 

message: Under the notes section about Mr. Westerfield's neice, I think what currently exists as this:
During the penalty phase of his trial, Westerfield's nineteen year old niece testified that when she was younger, her uncle entered Westerfield's daughter's bedroom where she was spending the night with her parents in the home, as she slept he rubbed some of her teeth using his finger. It woke her up and she bit him and Westerfield quickly left the room. Westerfield did not get charged for it.
Would be more accurately reflected as this:
During the penalty phase of the trial, Mr. Westerfield's nineteen-year-old niece testified when she was younger her uncle entered his daughter's bedroom where she was spending the night with her parents attending a party, to check on the kids, and woke up finding him rubbing her teeth using his finger. She bit him as hard as she could and went downstairs to tell her mother. Mr. Westerfield was questioned about the incident at the time by his sister and nothing ever came of it.
I would slip in her age at the time, but don't remember if it was 5 or 7, and it's been so long ago I don't remember if Mr. Westerfield was questioned by his sister or his wife.
Snidley W 08:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, by all means, if you want to add it in I think you should.  However, be aware that the child-killer has fans that will likely have something to say about it.  Unfortunately.  Fighting for Justice 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Overall, it looks good.  I'll only take out the "bit him as hard as she could" part.  I can see his fans objecting to that portion.  Fighting for Justice 07:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it has a reference.  Fighting for Justice 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference, she was 7, and I changed that note to reflect her age. Snidley W 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I feel 196 is Westerfield's appellate attorney.  I mean, look at the way he speaks and the stuff he wants in the article.  He's able to recite the date of court testimony and who made them.  He knows the numbers of the state evidence.  I realize many people followed the case and, at the time, of the trial would have known this information too.  However, 196 has managed to retain all this info for nearly 5 years now.  I don't think casual trial observers would still be retaining this information like he has.  Another possibility is that 196 is related to Westerfield, or knows a relative of his. JMO.  Fighting for Justice 21:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were placed into the rest of the article.  Fighting for Justice 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is a huge Westerfield fan on here and I was afraid he might object to that portion of your edit.  So I figured it might be best to leave it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fighting for Justice (talk • contribs) 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see what you're saying.  Add it in and let's see what happens.  Fighting for Justice 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: While reading through the original article I noticed it said Mr. Westerfield arrived home at 8:00 am, Saturday. 
This is misleading because it sounds like that's when he arrived home from the bar. If you think about this it would exclude the possibility that he kidnapped Danielle, because you'd think he was somewhere else. But it simply isn't true.
He arrived back home after he left the bar, and I don't remember what time that was but can find out; I expect it to be somewhere around midnight or so. 
Saturday morning he took his SUV out to where he was storing his RV, and I think he drove the RV back to the neighborhood and may have arrived around 8 am. 
From what I remember it was a little earler than that. However he messed around loading the RV up and didn't leave until about 9 am. Snidley W 14:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! I don't know who wrote that section, but I'm certain his supporters wish to overlook such things.  I have no doubt he had the time, motives and the means to abduct Danielle.  The police knew it had to be a neighbor.  They didn't go interviewing people just to pass the time.  Fighting for Justice 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I'm aware of that forum.  Court TV also had a forum during the trial.  Personally Westerfield and his supporters, which I like calling child-killer apologist, repulse me to no end.  Fighting for Justice 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crime 

message: Original note in article:
His lawyers say the evidence of Danielle in his RV was possibly transferred by virtue of locard considering that Danielle visited his home and was playing inside of the home with her little brother a few days before she disappeared. They also allege the police improperly collected and mishandled much of the evidence against Westerfield.
My addition a week ago:
For example, a San Diego police DNA expert failed to photograph and measure the bloodstain on the carpet in his RV.
Wknight94's response:
rm whole bullet point. The new part is non-NPOV: the source cited is 90% pro-prosecution but the only part used was pro-defense. The rest of the bullet point was uncited completely
I KNOW it was uncited, that’s partly WHY I added the example (with a source, the Union-Tribune, June 21).  And I would have added more when time permitted.  What do you mean “the new part is non-NPOV”?  It’s TRUE.  She ADMITTED to it.  I select information based on IMPORTANCE, not length.  And criminalists NOT following procedure IS important.  WHY didn’t they?  It means we CAN’T trust that evidence.  So those impressive “quadrillions” (at which “two spectators in the courtroom gallery gasped”) become IRRELEVANT.  If Westerfield and Danielle had been STRANGERS, then finding evidence of her in his environment WOULD have been “pro-prosecution”.  It would have been STRONG evidence of guilt.  But they WEREN’T strangers, they were near neighbors, she and two of her “maternal” family members had recently been IN his house, and the van Dam children often played outside, very close to his RV, which even prosecution witnesses testified to having seen with the door open, giving the children access.  So you would EXPECT to find evidence of her in his environment.  Proving there was such evidence therefore does NOT make the article “90% pro-prosecution”.  As the assistant prosecutor, George Clarke, admitted, this complicated any analysis.  If, however, law enforcement had found a LARGE quantity of such evidence (especially evidence of an assault), THEN the article would have been “90% pro-prosecution”.  But the small quantity found is consistent with an INNOCENT explanation.196.15.168.40 04:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only in your opinion.  There is no innocent explanation.  It is important to an appeals court, not a wikipedia article.  Correction, one witness said he found the RV unlocked and only one day.  Hogwash the suggestion that Danielle had access to his RV is pure defense spin.  A real easy accusation to throw at her because she's dead and can't defend herself against it.  No one found her there.  No one found other children there, so it is defense spin.  One witness said Westerfield told him he alarmed the vehicle.     Get your facts straight!  Fighting for Justice 04:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The physical evidence 

message: Here's my suggestion for changes to the article, which should hopefully make it more acceptable to 196.15.168.40, while still being neutral, and hopefully acceptable to Fighting for Justice.
With regards to the Trial paragraph, thinking about it, it would possibly be better to rejig this article slightly. As most of the evidence for the prosecution can be found in the 'The Crime' section, and repeating it seems a little unnecessary, I would perhaps prefer the Trial paragraph to be shortened to:
Westerfield pleaded not guilty, and went on trial on June 4, 2002. The trial lasted two months and concluded on August 8. On August 21, the jury found him guilty of kidnapping and first degree murder. He also received an additional conviction for a misdemeanor charge of possessing images of subjects under the age of 18 in a sexual pose on his computer.
Then have a seperate section, entitled 'Defense Arguments', as follows.
During the trial, Westerfield's lawyers charged that he was improperly interrogated for more than nine hours by detectives who ignored his repeated requests to call a lawyer, take a shower, eat, and sleep.[10]. Part of Westerfield's defense focused on the lifestyle of Danielle Van Dam's parents. It emerged that the couple were known for letting each other have sex with other people, and the defense claimed that this lifestyle might have brought a kidnapper to their home. [9]. Also, the defense argued that there were no traces of evidence that Westerfield had been in the Van Dam house, and none of his DNA was found on Danielle's body. [Link to Forensic Examiner article].
The Entemology paragraph, if cut down a bit (it's a little overlong at the moment), could also be included in this section. It seems a bit of a Chewbacca Defense to me, but as it was a major part of the trial, it deserves to be included.
Then, under the 'Pornography' section, I'd propose:
Some of the computers and loose computer media in Westerfield's office contained pornography. According to the prosecution computer expert, James Watkins, 100,000 images were found, including 8,000 to 10,000 nude images and 80 which could be considered child pornography. [16]. The material also included brief movie clips found in Westerfield's office which featured the rape of an underage girl by two men. These clips were played in the courtroom. [16]. Westerfield denied that this was for his enjoyment, and claimed that he was accumulating the images so he could send them to Congress as examples of smut on the Internet.[17]. During the trial, Westerfield's lawyers, Steven Feldman and Robert Boyce, suggested that the child porn might have been downloaded by Westerfield's 18-year-old son, Neal, who denied this. [8]
I removed the 'reported once finding no child pornography', as it seems fairly pointless - if Westerfield has admitted that there was child pornography on there, then there was almost certainly child pornography on there. It doesn't seem to be a matter for debate whether it was there or not. The comment on Neal makes more sense here. Also took the age bit out of the movie clips section, it's not important and adds nothing to the article.
Would both of you be happy with the changes put forwards there?
Girdag 12:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Girdag I think that is an excellent proposal.  The entomology section needs to stay as it is, because people need to know it is a science susceptible to mistakes.  It is not the set in stone, undeniably accurate, science that child-killer apologist(I'm not calling anyone that just a general term I'm saying) like to think it is.  You are correct about that sentence it is fairly pointless.  Westerfield did admit to having child pornography.  Why else did he say "it's not for my enjoyment"?  Most people download pornography for enjoyment.  Why is he trying to deny that if his pornography is legal?  Why was he planning to forward adult porn to Congress as evidence of smut on the Internet? Did he hope to turn them on sexually? Give me a break! Nothing but lame excuses.  I'll be very surprised if 196.15.168.40 accepts your proposal because he only wants the case to be told HIS way.  That's why I say his edits are in bad faith.  But I'll wait and see what he says.  He's got an opinion about everything.  Fighting for Justice 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <yawn><yawn> How much longer are you going to continue to beat this same dead horse 196.15.168.40? Seriously, GET A LIFE! This pervert had child porn!  He had 85 images of naked girls and young teens being raped by men.  Stop trying to gloss over that - you can't do it.  Clearly the people you speak about did not see these images, or if they did maybe they didn't think it was lewd and lascivious.  Unfortunately some child porn is legal to have as sick as that may sound.  This guy had graphic child porn, he knew it, and his lawyers knew it.  And if you ever took the time to take your head out of your own rear end you would know it too.  If there was no child porn then his lawyers would have no use in bringing his son into the picture.  His own son denied it was his, why not help his dad and admit it was his?  Because he knew it was illegal to have!  He did tell law enforcement he was directing it to Congress.  How much more admission do you want?  If it was legal, if it was his right to have it why wouldn't he say so?  Why try to make it seem like it was for something else?  You are living in denial.  Either way I will not permit you to add anymore about this pornography into the article anymore.  You have beaten this issue to death, over, and over, and over, and, it's about time you stopped.  You are in the minority with this one, and wikipedia does not have to give undue weight to minority viewpoints.  A dirty mind eh? Michael Jackson said the same thing about people thinking it is sexual when he played bed buddies with little boys.  Dusek is not unethical YOU ARE! You are the one who said a 7 year old is having sex with her brothers to mimic their parents sex life. Fighting for Justice 21:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If you are tired of repeating yourself then shut up and stop disturbing the article.  It doesn't get any simpler then that. Watkins testimony is that Armstrong said the children in his(the pervert Westerfield) photos didn't look prepubescent enough.  They were not lewd and lascivious to him.  That's not an outright denial that it isn't child porn. The children depicted could have been older then 13. The definition of child porn, in California, is flexible. Tell the truth! You claim to care about it soooooo much. Watkins hardly endorsed him either, in fact he stated he wasn't officially working the case.  Armstrong saw the photos because he and Watkins worked in the same laboratory.  Also, why don't you tell Girdag that your March 12 testimony is from the preliminary hearing, not the actual trial?  Trying to spin as usual? claim that “police reported not finding child porn, was NOT disputed” On the contrary Watkins testimony disputes it. Westerfield had plenty of questionable files.  You think what the jury saw was pink flowers and cute rabbits?  Anyhow, it matters in the least what Armstrong or Watkins concluded about the pornography.  California law allows the jury to decide what is or isn't child pornography.  I trust what the jury decided.  As for the sending it to Congress statements, what does the reporter have to gain by lying?   That was his lame excuse.  Fighting for Justice 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I’m not disturbing the article, I’m improving it.  And there’s a better way to eliminate the need for repeating myself: in this instance, include the links (with appropriate captions) in a separate section of the External links.  That way, they will be permanently accessible to all.  Thank you for giving me the idea.  Is this the first time you have acknowledged the existence of expert opinion that this WASN’T child porn?  That would be a big step forward.  Armstrong’s conclusion, according to Watkins, was not that they weren’t prepubescent enough, but that they weren’t prepubescent at all.  Which means that the media report estimating the video girl’s age at 11 or 12, is WRONG; and so is the report giving her age as 7.  If they could be so badly wrong, then we can’t have any confidence in their other estimate that she was a young teen either (all the other estimates were even more vague).  And you haven’t - and can’t - point to any official statement that she was a young teen.  But what is also significant is that this means there was NO evidence that he had a sexual interest in girls of Danielle’s age, or anywhere near her age.  Which removes the prosecution’s claimed motive.  The Californian definition of child porn can’t be all that flexible, as they were unable to stretch it enough to prosecute him under a child porn statute.   Where does Watkins say Armstrong wasn’t working officially on the case?  He was asked by the officer in charge to evaluate the images: can you get any more official than that?  What difference does it make that this was at the Preliminary Hearing not the main trial?  It was nevertheless testimony under oath.  I have previously made the point that the article is not about the trial, it’s about the case.  Nowhere does Watkins deny the existence of a police report stating that NO child porn was found.  Even if Watkins himself had said that, in his opinion, it was child porn - which he DOESN’T - it still WOULDN’T disprove the existence of that report.  (It would just mean there was a difference of opinion in the laboratory, suggesting that some images were marginal.  But there’s no evidence of a difference of opinion.)  The fact that Watkins himself, the very person who used the word “questionable” (and used it frequently), DENIED disagreeing with Armstrong, points to him NOT seriously thinking it was child porn.  I am fully aware that the jury is allowed to make their own decision, all I am saying is that EXPERT evidence indicates that they made the WRONG decision, and that evidence of this MUST be included in the article.  If you disagree, then please quote expert evidence that it was child porn.  Given a choice between a conclusion arrived at by an expert who wasn’t under pressure, and a decision made by amateurs with an angry crowd outside, I would trust the former as being more likely to be correct.  Who said the reporter was lying?  Westerfield might simply have been talking about the cartoons, and the REPORTER - incorrectly - called this child porn.196.15.168.40 05:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my goodness! The room is spinning.  Stop spinning so much 196.15.168.40.  I don't want you getting disoriented now. You have never been out to improve this article.  If you did you would add something for the prosecution.  You have NEVER EVER done such a thing.  All of your edits are for the defense, because you are a Westerfield-apologist.  At least have the guts to admit that much. I've added points for the defense, even though I disagree with them. You do nothing like that. I don't care if you don't trust the media, I do, and so does Wikipedia.  Wikipedia considers COURT TV a reliable source.  You are a spin artist and a master of deception.  I am tired of you trying to minimize the jury's verdict just because you don't like it. Watkins nor Armstrong say the images were not adolescent females.  My official statement that they were teens is the jury's verdict.  You know the verdict you don't like.  You will never convince me that all 12 of them got it wrong and only you were right. Although, I'm sure your ego might like that.  The only one wrong is YOU.  Armstrong never testified anywhere. I don't care what he thinks. He's never spoken publicly about his views.  He saw the images not a video. Watkins confirms he saw images. And even if he did view the video the possibility of the female being adolescent exist. He didn't rule that out, but it's ok I know you think he did. Watkins calling the images "questionable" was a word that was agreed upon in order for Feldman and Boyce not to throw a hissy fit and object. The words "not at all" are so vague it is futile to register them. Why didn't he use a stronger set of words, like, "Yeah I do agree with him". Dusek followed it up with an objection and it was sustained, so it is possible Watkins would have explained himself more clearly. Feldman and Boyce were trying to get him to say he agreed with Armstrong and it failed.  The article section under "The Trial" is about the trial. You and his lawyers have taken Armstrong's word and spun it around to suit your own selfish purposes. Watkins and Armstrong are COMPUTER FORENSIC EXPERTS. They are experts at extracting files from computers. They are not experts on child pornography laws. It's up to a prosecutor to indict you. Boyce was out of line in asking Watkins opinion if he agreed or not.  In no way are they telling the jury they arrived at the wrong verdict. That's your opinion.  Westerfield is a pervert. He knows he's one too as proven by that letter he sent. Suuuure he's talking about the cartoon. His lack of testifying is also very revealing. An innocent man takes the stand to defend himself whether his lawyers approve of it or not.  He's a pervert for his cartoons, his images, and his videos. Furthermore, 11 and 12 are preteens.  Females start puberty earlier then males.  Some females can start puberty as early as 10 years old.  And this article will say he had child porn whether you like it or not. If there wasn't child porn his lawyers would never try to pass it off to Neal.  So you had better get use to it.  Upholding the jury's verdict is paramount, not your spin. Fighting for Justice 07:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No what wikipedia requires is that the information is sourced and verifiable.  Wikipedia does not have to give undue weight to every single defense argument.  THis article will stay as it is right now.  I will revert any changes you make, because it is all done to make Westerfield look innocent.  You can hide behind your neutral and balanced facade but I'm not buying it.  You have NEVER EVER added anything in favor of the prosecution.  I have added stuff that helps the defense.  Your true motives are very obvious.  The age of the girl stays because it is what the sourced article contains. This article does not have to make apologies to David Westerfield.  THis article is too long and it doesn't need additional information.  Oh, wow, now they are actors; that's quite a nice spin you're making 196.15.168.40. Got any other good ones like that one? Watkins said "appears to be", so Westerfield's attorney's could keep their mouths shut and not object .  Much like you need to do with your own mouth.  Did you also forget that Westerfield's lawyers weren't entomologist either? So how do they know they were told the truth? Oh I know.  They just liked what they were hearing.  Are you an entomologist, or just a Westerfield advocate?  Fighting for Justice 06:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: SHE WASN'T OF LEGAL AGE!!!!! The jury didn't think so, so why should the rest of us? If she can be described as young as 7, then clearly she wasn't in her late teens. ACTING OR NO ACTING THE VIDEO PROVES WESTERFIELD IS A PERVERT. The act of rape turns him on. YOU DEFEND A PERVERT. I've never heard of a minor willingly acting out a rape scene for a sleazy porn flick. In fact it would be illegal even if the minor did it voluntarily.  Judging by the media's description of the emotion in the courtroom, when it was viewed, the scene was graphic and very violent. This tells me it was the real McCoy. Only a spin artist, like you, could insinuate it was an act. Not even David Westerfield told us he thought they were actors. And judging by his uncomfortable demeanor, when the scene was played, I think, Westerfield knew it was a video he shouldn't be owning.  Also if there was genital contact between the adult and minor all the more reasons to think it was the real thing, and not staged. I believe the scene had genitals exposed and used, as rape of a female includes penetration. The scene was described as a rape.  SICKO! The article stays as it is. Deal with it.   Fighting for Justice 20:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: None of the above needs to be dignified with a long response.  But let me say this for this will be the last reply I will ever make to you.  You are more of a deranged individual then I ever gave you credit for. I can not believe what you stated about the Van Dam's. You also seem to suffer from telepathy - what with the jury communicating to you they got caught in "hysteria".  I certainly hope that you have no children, for I believe, any child will be in great danger with someone like you.  A person who defends a known pervert and makes light of child pornography.  I defend the Van Dam's because their lifestyle involves consenting adults. A pervert is someone who rapes or murders a child. The Van Dam's have not been convicted of such a thing, much less accused of it. Your comments are bordering on libel and, if I were you, I'd choose my words a little more carefully.  Unlike some people Brenda and Damon have their freedom intact.  Tell me, where is David Westerfield going for his 55th birthday?  Oh that's right; no where!  Because he's at San Quentin State Prison. The home of the biggest perverts in California.  And you have the audacity of calling the Van Dam perverts.   So are you telling me murdered children all have bad parents? THe children got murdered because they had bad parents? John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Mark Lunsford, Magi Bish, Erin Runnion, Maria Keever, Milena Sellers, and Maureen Kanka all bad parents. Wow that's quite a list. You arrived at that conclusion yourself?  Riiiight David Westerfield never looked or viewed the images/videos. He searched the net for them, but never looked at them. The images on CD-ROMS all done by magic. <sarcasm><sarcasm> Goodbye 196.15.168.40.  I hope you find a nice gift to give Westerfield for his birthday. Happy pervert defending.  I know it's a role you relish in. I'll still monitor the article tho.  Oh and I have a big news flash for you Einstein. Circumstantial evidence is more then enough to convict. You don't necessarily require direct evidence.  You seem to take issue with that I suggest you talk to the Supreme Court. So long my little MENSA drop-out. Fighting for Justice 16:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposal 

message: 1. The jury returned a conviction for the charge.  They don't convict you for the fun of it. I trust the jury. I know certain people don't but that's sour grapes and totally irrelevant.  
2. His lawyers tried to unload the porn onto his son.  If there was no illegal porn, why drag his son into the mess?
3. He sent a letter stating he was collecting it to forward it to Congress as evidence of smut on the internet.  A lame excuse if I ever heard one. But oh well.  
And this is the biggest reason of them all:
4. He never took the stand in his own defense. If I knew my stuff was legal I would get up and say so.  I will defend owning it.  He did none of that.  NOTHING. If his lawyers told him not to, he didn't have to listen to them.  An innocent person will take the stand and defend himself against everything they were accusing him of. Lawyers can advice you not to testify but if you want to they have no choice but to let you. He did none of that. There's only one reason for not doing it.  It's when YOU KNOW YOU ARE GUILTY.  Westerfield knew he couldn't survive cross-examination. He knew he was going to be asked questions he wouldn't have valid answers for.   
My conclusion: His conviction is not the fault of the medias or a community.  It lies squarely on the shoulders of David Westerfield. His vice for little girls caught up to him and for reasons, only, known to him, it snapped on one dark evening.  He finally secured a little girl to live out his darkest fantasies.  For most of his life he tried to live his life correctly. He got married and divorced twice, had children raised them, got educated, made friends, and had wealth.  But he always kept his penchant for little girls well hidden. Sexually he could do it with a grown woman, however, they never completely satisfied him. When he discovered the internet he sought comfort in photos of little girls, videos, animations and that was enough for awhile.  Perverts usually want the real thing and Westerfield was no exception.  Sadly, he killed a little girl.  Now he's rotting away in jail awaiting his date with a needle.  He's only gonna get older now and hopefully, I hope anywayz, he'll get a stroke and die so his victim, Danielle Nicole Van Dam, can be at peace.  Fighting for Justice 07:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My top 4 reasons why I know DW had child pornography