Posted on 02/04/2019 1:39:09 PM PST by onyx
“but the investigation /witch hunt seemed almost forced....”
Agreed. It is obvious that they decided very quickly to focus on him. Even though he was a most unlikely suspect, being a middle-aged man with no prior history, and he’d lived in that neighborhood for years without even arousing suspicion. They quickly cleared everyone else, including Danielle’s parents and their friends, despite their unusual and extreme sexual activities and alcohol and illegal marijuana consumption - and even their lying! - and concentrated exclusively on him. And made it very obvious to everyone that they believed him guilty. And they fed inflammatory information to the media, which in turn then slavishly regurgitated everything they were told apparently pointing to his guilt (notably his “rambling”, “meandering” weekend trip, the allegedly failed lie detector test, and the false child porn allegations), without questioning it - or questioning anything.
Why did the police do this? One possibility is that, because of the public fear and resultant pressure, they wanted to reassure the community by convincing them they knew who did it. Perhaps they wanted praise to be heaped on them for their brilliant detective work. Another possibility is the polygraph examiner’s belief that his weekend RV trip was crazy (though people who own RVs have said it wasn’t unusual), as a result of which he believed him guilty - and then, it has been suggested, he set up and conducted the polygraph exam in such a way that he appeared to fail, knowing that the local police firmly believed in polygraphs, so this would convince them of his guilt. One of the detectives said she was convinced he was guilty because he left his garden hose lying untidily across his front yard (but not sufficiently convinced to put this in her notes). Yet another possibility is that the then DA was up for re-election and probably felt he needed a quick arrest and conviction to boost his chances (he lost). (He is alleged to be the source of anonymous leaks to the media, and his subsequent statements about the confidential plea deal negotiations support this belief.)
But whatever started them along this path, once they had started they suffered from “tunnel vision”: nothing persuaded them otherwise. Not cell-phone and other records confirming his alibi. Not their failure to find any evidence of him at the kidnapping scene. Not the exculpatory evidence of their own forensic entomologist whom they themselves had brought on the case. Nothing.
““The State” does not mean the UK or some other foreign country, where innocents are killed regularly by the government. The OP is saying name one innocent killed by capital punishment in the United States.”
This discussion forum isn’t restricted to the United States. And I don’t believe that the judicial standards in the UK, Australia and many other countries are significantly inferior to those in the United States. The article I referred you to lists several United States cases. I’ll mention just the most recent name, Johnny Garrett, though whether you accept this as an innocent who was executed depends on what you consider proof of innocence. I am of the opinion that, if David Westerfield had lived in one of the other states which actually carry out executions, he would have been executed by now - even though the evidence is overwhelming that he is innocent.
“like here’s this creepy guy we can go after....”
“Creepy”: I’ve already commented on the very similar “oddball” and “weirdo” descriptions. But there is something different about the “creepy” description: someone involved in the case did describe him as that, and did so in testimony. This was one of the mother’s girlfriends, but she hadn’t previously called him “creepy”, or even described him negatively, not even when she was initially interviewed, when the police were specifically looking for likely suspects - and a “creepy” person would have been at the top of their list. Why did she think him “creepy”. Apparently just because he was watching them playing pool at the bar, without talking. Hardly reason to believe that, just hours later, he would kidnap and murder Danielle. But despite that, the media repeatedly repeated her “creepy” description.
Nevertheless, I think you are fundamentally correct. He had gone away that weekend, his trip was supposedly strange, he supposedly had child porn, he supposedly failed a polygraph exam, and he didn’t have a watertight alibi, so they could go after him - and did.
“lets face it...he most likely did kill that little girl...”
How could he have kidnapped her without leaving any evidence behind at that crime scene? AND how could he have carried out the kidnapping without the police, or the prosecution, or the jurors, being able to figure out how he did it? AND how could he have dumped the body at that site without leaving any evidence behind there AND without taking away any evidence from there? AND how could four distinguished forensic entomologists have been so badly wrong? It stretches credulity beyond breaking point to have to believe all of that. And you need to believe all of that to believe him guilty.
All the prosecution had in physical evidence was a few hairs and fibers, plus just one hand print and two small blood stains. Nearly all the physical evidence was the hairs and fibers, which are easily innocently explained by the very recent cookie sale. The hand print and blood stains can also easily be innocently explained by the motor home having been so often accessible to her, so she could easily have previously innocently been inside it. And that’s assuming that evidence is reliable. Which it isn’t. For starters, most of it was only partially tested, and so might not even have been connected to her. And there are major questions regarding what the jury considered the strongest evidence against him, the blood - see my post #44.
“but there was nothing more than circumstantial evidence to go on....”
Exactly. And weak circumstantial evidence at that.
The prosecution stated that the primary thrust of the case was circumstantial evidence based upon the physical evidence, it was not an eyewitness case. And the great majority of the physical evidence - the hairs and fibers - is not only easily innocently explained, it’s also exactly what you would expect from that very recent visit selling cookies. The prosecution later expanded on that statement, saying Westerfield was linked to the crime through the physical and circumstantial evidence and his statements regarding his activities that day. They didn’t expand on what they meant by that, but they did later accuse him of various lies, so for now I’ll just refute one of those allegations.
He said he went to the Strand instead of the desert because he had forgotten his wallet. But the camp host at the Strand said he had seen the wallet. So Westerfield had lied. However, his ex-girlfriend, and his camping buddy, and a bank employee, all confirmed what he said about his money: he kept his cash in his pocket and his credit cards in his wallet. So he hadn’t lied, the camp host just made a mistake. Also, just use your commonsense: if he’d had his wallet, he wouldn’t have gone to the Strand, which was an illogical place to take a kidnapped child because of all the people nearby, he would have been able to buy enough gas and then gone straight to the desert as was his original intention. The appeal court judges mention the camp host’s claim in their verdict, but not that it was powerfully rebutted. That was dishonest of them.
“he drove somewhere in his motor home and went past the area where the little girl was found..”
The prosecution argued that he drove on Interstate 8, which is the best route for ordinary cars, and which runs past the recovery site (it’s on a parallel road, a short distance away); he said he drove on State Route 78, which is safer for a large vehicle like his. The body recovery site is south of the I8, while the 78 is well to the north of the I8. Westerfield lived north of the I8, about midway between the I8 and the 78, which may also have played a role in the route he chose.
The evidence (such as cell-phone records, gas receipts and eye-witness testimony) is that he drove on the 78, as he said. So his known route took him away from the recovery site. We can’t say the same for her father. He not only apparently drove on the I8 past the body recovery site on his trip to the desert, but did so at the very time the body was most likely placed there, according to the entomology evidence. Amazing coincidence.
Based on the above-mentioned evidence, Westerfield didn’t go on that section of the I8, and therefore didn’t go past the body recovery site, on either his way to the desert or his way back. And this agrees with the prosecution argument that he only dumped the body on Sunday night. In other words, if he’s guilty, he must have made a special trip to that site some time after filling up with gas for the second time that weekend. But did he do so before going to the Strand/Cays, or after leaving there early the next morning? Based on testimony by the Cays security officer, he more likely arrived there at 8 p.m. Sunday, in other words he went straight there after filling up. This could have been confirmed by the second security officer, but he didn’t testify and apparently wasn’t interviewed by the police. This leaves just the Monday morning. But we don’t know what time he left the Cays, and there are widely differing statements even for what time he woke up: 4 a.m.? 6 a.m.? His departure time could probably have been established by the Cays security officers who were on duty that morning, but they apparently weren’t interviewed either. Furthermore, the police could have determined if he had even made that extra trip by checking how much gas was left in the motor home tank, but apparently they didn’t.
This was probably the highest-profile case any of those police had worked on, yet they only did half an investigation. And a man - an apparently innocent man - is due to be executed based on half an investigation.
“I just wish they had some dna to go on......”
They had DNA at both crime scenes (blood on her bed and a hair under her body), but it wasn’t his so it was ignored. That’s shocking and inexcusable. Why did the police ignore it? Because they so quickly jumped to the conclusion that he was the perpetrator? And because it would have been really embarrassing for them to have to publicly admit they were wrong? Why did the jury ignore both that DNA and the failure by the police to investigate it? Because they had been persuaded by the media coverage that he was guilty? Because they were afraid of the angry community if they delivered a “not guilty” verdict? Why did the media ignore both it and the police failure? Because they had been persuaded by the police that he was guilty?
Sex was presumed to be the motive for the crime, making it even more surprising that they didn’t find any corresponding “biological material” (as some true-crime documentaries delicately put it). So maybe that wasn’t the reason for the crime. The only evidence that it was sexual (apart from her body being naked, and that may just have been to remove evidence such as hairs and fibers), was a condom wrapper under her body, and that wasn’t even mentioned during the trial. Why not? Did it have someone else’s fingerprints on it?
But you’re right: finding his DNA at either crime scene (her home and the body recovery site) would have been big, it would have given the prosecution a very much stronger case. And their failure to find his DNA is evidence of his innocence.
“parents should always put their children first...above their sexual trysts, sports, drinking, etc......I am mad that they would carry on like that with 3 little children to raise.....”
Don’t forget their illegal smoking.
They apparently did everything except the actual sex while the 3 little children were in the house.
This ends my response to both you (cherry) and to the other posts on this thread - unless there are new posts. It’s taken almost two months. Two things stand out. One is that most of the posters believed him guilty; the other is how little knowledge was demonstrated about the case - most of the posters gave no reason for their belief, they presumably just accepted what the media published. Coincidence? If they knew more of the facts, they wouldn’t have believed him guilty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.