Court TV Host: We're being joined now by Dan Williams, former San Diego prosecutor. We're going to be talking about the case of David Westerfield, who is accused of murdering a little girl, Danielle van Dam. His lawyers claim that police violated his rights during their questioning. Welcome.

Dan Williams: Hello! Glad to be here.

Question from: Doris-CTV: Didn't the police read Westerfield his Miranda rights?

Dan Williams: It's my understanding that they did in fact read him his Miranda rights.

Question from: fav: Do you know what evidence they have to link Westerfield to the crime?

Dan Williams: Well I think there is blood stain evidence. There may be fingerprint evidence. And while I have not reviewed his statements to the police, there may be portions that might tend to incriminate him. And other facts, specific facts, I'm not aware of at this time.

Question from: ctv_warhorse2: What are the violations that Westerfield is saying the police are guilty of?

Dan Williams: Well, he is alleging that his rights under the 5th amendment the right to remain silent were violated in that

Court TV Host: We're talking to former San Diego prosecutor Dan Williams about the van Dam case and the prosecution of suspect David Westerfield. The police forced an involuntary statement from him. They will attempt to describe and create a situation of custodial confinement at the time the statements by Westerfield were made. The prosecution will attempt to show a non-custodial situation. That's essentially the answer.

Question from: ripley51: Do you feel that Westerfield's lawyer will attempt, as most defense attorneys do, to shift the blame to the police and to Danielle's parents? Or have California juries had enough of those tactics as demonstrated by the Knoeller/Noel case?

Dan Williams: There's no question in my mind that the defense will indeed shift the finger of suspicion to the parents and the police or anyone else they can shift the finger of suspicion toward. Whether juries are tired of this tactic remains to be seen. Also critical to this question the ability of the prosecution to maintain the jury's attention on the hard fact of guilt.

Question from: fav: Did he say they used physical force to attain this statement?

Dan Williams: I don't believe they did. I don't think at this time there is any evidence of physical force.

Question from: ripley51: Could you please inform us of this District Attorney's track record with murder convictions? And what is his style?

Dan Williams: His track record is nearly perfect and extensive. His style is to keep his presentation very simple and straightforward.

Question from: ctv_warhorse2: Are Westerfield`s lawyers paid or are they doing this pro bono or are they public defenders?

Dan Williams: They are not public defenders. I believe Mr. Westerfield has retained them, and I do not believe they are yet seeking public funds to assist in the defense of Mr. Westerfield.

Question from: magnolia: Hello Mr. Williams, Do you know how much blood evidence was gathered in the van Dam case and how incriminating does it seem to be?

Dan Williams: I'm not personally aware of the nature and extent of all of the evidence probative of Mr. Westerfield's guilt . However, I do know, among whatever else is available to the prosecution, there is incriminating DNA evidence resulting from blood stain evidence. And fingerprint evidence I believe also exists, according to our local media.

Question from: wannaknow: Do we know what the statements are that Westerfield made to the police? Did he confess?

Dan Williams: First of all, I do not believe within his statements to police a confession is included. The public awareness of the content of his statement I believe is that which has been revealed in court documents filed by the defense.

Question from: ripley51: Do you feel that mandatory video tapes of police interrogations would in fact protect the police department from allegations such as these?

Dan Williams: Yes. But these allegations should be considered only that, at this point in time. Because the allegations are supported ONLY by those facts offered up in the pleadings filed by the defense. The prosecution in its written response to this motion to exclude Mr. Westerfield's statements will include all those facts omitted by the defense which tend to and will legally support the admissibility of the defendant's statements.

Court TV Host: Does the Michael Crowe case, which Court TV aired a documentary about, where a police department in the area managed to get a young suspect to "confess" to a murder he hadn't committed give any more weight to the types of arguments that Westerfield's lawyers are making.

Dan Williams: I don't believe the Stephanie Crowe case will have any affect upon the admissibility of Mr. Westerfield's statements to the police.

Question from: donnaloou: Do you know, or have any idea when this trial will be... months or a year?

Dan Williams: The trial date is currently scheduled to begin, I believe, in the middle of May 2002.

Question from: magnolia: Do you think the child pornography evidence will be allowed in at trial?

Dan Williams: That's an interesting evidentiary question. I would expect ultimately the trial judge will probably allow such evidence in the event the prosecution gives the court a legal and factual basis to permit the jury to see and hear such evidence.

Question from: ripley51: Will the trial be moved to a different location, considering all the pre-trial publicity? Moving the trial on a change of venue motion in a county as large as San Diego presents a major burden of proof to the defense. I would think it would be difficult to make a finding that another jurisdiction in the state of California has a jury pool unaffected by media coverage of this trial. The question jurors must answer in such a situation is whether or not they can be fair and impartial in spite of their knowledge of the case through media coverage. Therefore it might be difficult to persuade a trial judge that a more unbiased jury pool exists outside of San Diego county.

Court TV Host: We're going to have to wrap things up now...any closing thoughts?

Dan Williams: I think on the issue of the change of venue, it's an interesting question because the depth and extent of media coverage in San Diego county appears to have created within a portion of this county's jury pool some serious questions about the responsibility, if any, of the parents. And the question being, does Mr. Feldman in his defense want to abandon through a change of venue motion this potentially favorable portion of the Sand Diego jury pool?

Court TV Host: Thank you very much for being our guest today.

Dan Williams: Okay. Thanks very much!