Estranged in Boulder
By Richard Woodbury

TIME magazine


It was at the Boulder, Colo., home of Fleet White Jr. and his wife Priscilla that John and Patsy Ramsey had Christmas dinner on the night, now nearly two years ago, that their six-year-old daughter JonBenet was murdered. It was Fleet White whom John Ramsey called when the little girl was discovered missing the next day. And it was White who was close at hand when John Ramsey discovered the body of his daughter in a basement room. Sharing in the tumult, however, did not cement the friendship. By the time JonBenet was buried, the Whites and Ramseys were estranged and, until the Whites wrote an angry open letter two weeks ago to "the people of Colorado" about what they saw as the mishandling of the JonBenet murder investigation, the couple had kept silent for months. Last week, in a rare interview, Fleet White, an oil and gas entrepreneur, described the alienation from the Ramseys to TIME: "Justice hasn't had a chance so far. Anyone who doesn't have this as their prime goal, we'll have a falling out with."
While he refused to go into questions of guilt or details of the murder scene, White made it clear, as he had in his letter, that he and his wife are frustrated with the investigation. "The whole thing has been very puzzling to us," he said. "Nothing seems to make sense... There have been so many powerful and influential players in this case that it's difficult for the prosecution to proceed. And the D.A. and police haven't been able to work together. This is a deadly combination, and it's created friction." He does not believe district attorney Alex Hunter will indict anyone, adding that "there have been so many conflicting interests... Somebody without an ax to grind needs to be running things."
Bob Grant, a district attorney in suburban Denver and consultant to Hunter, scoffs at White's contention of a tacit agreement among authorities to delay the investigation to such an extent that foggy memories and undeveloped leads would result in the case's being derailed by the grand jury, which is expected to begin hearing evidence this month. "He doesn't know anything about prosecution procedures," says Grant. "He's an extremely frustrated guy, and you can understand that because he was there when the body was found. He seems to be going off the deep end."
White, however, finds it mystifying that members of the D.A.'s staff--unlike the police--have done little in terms of questioning him and his wife, yet refuse to say he is fully cleared of involvement in the murder. "If we're important witnesses, it's just common sense that the prosecutor would want to keep in touch with you. But we have no relationship with them." He adds, "We only want to see justice done for JonBenet. Nobody is really working for her."

Similar to Jams's thread about "What kind of person?" another way in which to identify the killer is to answer a question of motive, such as the important question for any homicide in which the perpetrator isn't obvious:

Who benefits?

For most child homicides, there isn't a huge insurance policy, there aren't webs of lovers and former lovers, there isn't valuable property, and so on.  It seems that for most child homicides, there really isn't anyone who benefits in such a measure as to justify homicide, so the question doesn't come up, certainly not in the same obvious manner as for an adult homicide.

However, with the JonBenét Ramsey homicide, precisely because of its notoriety, a large number of people did benefit, and some did greatly benefit.  Amongst these people who did benefit, who could have anticipated such a benefit in advance, that is, before the case actually did become a national and international sensation?

Keep in mind that the Ramsey family had had some publicity in the magazines and newspapers already.  John's business also had some of its own separate publicity in business circles.  JonBenét had been participating in beauty pageants which, although they didn't provide a lot of publicity, surely provided her more of it than most six-year-old children had.  There was existing publicity, but there was still a very large amount of room to grow even more of it.

It's entirely possible that the perpetrator anticipated that this already-existing publicity would be fertile ground to quickly grow a burgeoning bit of positive publicity into astounding notoriety if a sudden reversal of fortune for the family was to take place.  

In addition, the fact that JonBenét was killed in her own home greatly added to the notoriety, as did having been killed on most American children's favorite holiday, in a town that regarded itself as one of the best and safest in the country.  The ransom note was outrageous in almost every aspect.  To extend Schiller's title:

Perfect Murder + Perfect Family + Perfect Child + Perfect Day + Perfect Home + Perfect Town = Notorious.  Is this simply a coincidence?

Who would benefit from the case becoming notorious –- the more notorious the better?

Besides people close to the family who could sell their stories, and in addition to investigators who could benefit immediately as well as from later selling their stories, it seems fair to say that the press in general was the biggest beneficiary.  Individual reporters and photographers flocked to this case to make a name for themselves and to collect big paychecks.  

Did one of these persons of the press put this whole thing into motion?  

Calculating the risk: Would one such individual actually stand out such as to draw suspicion if a large flock of them showed up?  They are all just “regular” guys and gals doing their job, aren't they?  Who would suspect that one of them started it all?

For a number of years I have felt that a primary motivation for this crime was to create a sick, twisted publicity stunt or “shock crime” that may, as a secondary motivation, result in a windfall profit.  Members of the press who were close to the family were well-versed and well-placed to bring this about.  

Perhaps such a person already had rights to something valuable from which to profit, for example something that was to be in short supply after the crime had been committed.  If so, he wouldn't have to be part of the wolf pack.  He could just sit idly by and wait for opportunities to arise, giving an appearance of detachment and therefore of total innocence.

DENVER -- A forensic scientist who has claimed to be a DNA expert in trials in Colorado and across the United States was discredited this week in a Denver trial, according to the Denver District Attorney's Office.
However, Richard Eikelenboom disputes that claim.
"A Denver prosecutor got Eikelenboom to admit that he had no direct DNA extraction or analysis experience, that he operates a lab that has not been accredited, that he personally failed his basic proficiency texts in 2011 and 2012, and admitted that he was a 'self-trained' in running DNA profiles," the DA's office said.
"They're lying when they say I don’t do my own DNA work," Eikelenboom told Denver7.
He said being on the witness stand Monday was a "very hostile environment" and that the "lawyers were not able to explain it [his work]."
Eikelenboom said he's been accredited by the Dutch National Accreditation Council for years and Monday, he received accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD).
"I would not get that if I was not a solid scientist," Eikelenboom told Denver7.
Testimony this week in a 2013 sex assault case in Denver District Court found that Eikelenboom committed "fundamental DNA analysis errors by not following scientific standards in the DNA field," prosecutors said.
"[That's] completely unfounded," Eikelenboom said. "What I think also went wrong, the lawyers we were working for were not well prepared. The District Attorney never let me finish my answer."
"I appreciate Judge Whitney recognizing that Mr. Eikelenboom’s opinions about DNA have no basis in science and that he was not qualified to testify as an expert," said Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey in a statement sent to Denver7.
"[This is a] weird system. As District Attorney, you can say all kinds of things about the expert," Eikelenboom told Denver7. "I don’t think the judge completely understood what happened."
Eikelenboom has been used as an expert witness in high-profile cases, including the trial of Casey Anthony, who was acquitted in 2011 of killing her 3-year-old daughter in Florida.
Eikelenboom testified in the trial of Indiana State Trooper David Camm, who was accused of killing his wife and two children. Camm was convicted twice, but the verdicts were overturned. In the third trial, Eikelenboom testified that he found someone else's DNA on the clothing of two victims and Camm was acquitted.
Eikelenboom's testing and testimony led to a Colorado man being exonerated in a murder case after spending years behind bars.
In 2008, Tim Masters walked away from the Larimer County Justice Center a free man after skin cell DNA tests found Masters did not kill Peggy Hettrick in 1987.
Her body was found in a field near Masters' home. He was convicted without any DNA evidence linking him to the crime.
"In Tim Masters case, I did all the DNA work myself," Eikelenboom told Denver7 Thursday.
In 2008, Eikelenboom testified at Masters hearing about skin cell DNA detection.
"Skin cell investigations are still in their (infancy), …it’'s not performed worldwide very often. People do it on an occasional basis," said Eikelenboom at the time.
He said skin cell DNA is often left behind in violent crimes like Hettrick’'s, where the victim is grabbed and dragged. He said the perpetrator's sweat cells can be found embedded in the victim'’s clothing.
Eikelenboom took credit for Masters getting out of prison.
"It's always very special when you get someone out, especially in this case, a life sentence," said Eikelenboom in 2008.
Eikelenboom's company's website says the lab's work in the Masters case led to the first Touch DNA exoneration in the United States.
-Eikelenboom's lab-
Eikelenboom's wife, Selma, started the private lab in the Netherlands in 2003 called Independent Forensic Services.
Richard joined the company in 2005, he said.
The company's website says Richard Eikelenboom is a forensic scientist specializing in DNA trace recovery and bloodstain pattern analysis. 
It says he studied analytical chemistry and Polytechnic Biochemistry. It said he is studying for his PhD on touch DNA at the University of Denver.
In 2011, the Eikelenboom's built a lab in Jefferson County.

        Recognize this guy from the show "JonBenet: An American Murder Mystery" ? He's an investigator hired by the Ramseys apparently. Well, now he's going on trial. They have had terrible luck with their "investigators". So many have been discredited...

location 654 = Pay attention because this ain't exactly second hand gossip.

According to DG, the author of the book, James Kolar says that Dr. Meyer says - there is evidence of ongoing prior sexual abuse.

Well, Dr. Meyer never said that - I challenge anyone to find an interview or report where he says that.  As for Kolar... Where do I start.

He did a crummy job when he worked on the case for DA Mary Lacy. He never met the Ramseys and didn't do what we would have hoped.

That's the best I can say about him because it seems he got worse as time went by.  His wife took some kind of class where she was infected by BORG and carried the bug home. 

Part of that bug is being able to ignore the truth, the physical evidence, the proven facts - and to accept anything that could possibly convict the family and adopt that as the gospel truth in this case.

And as far as I can see, that is exactly what he did.

So Kolar wrote a BORG book, the DA wrote a letter telling him he was living in some Lala fantasy land, that his facts were wrong - - and he was arrogant enough to include that letter in his book.  And he became a BORG folk hero overnight.  BORG posters loved him!  And certain other people joined his bandwagon and the seeds were planted for the CBS show which is now the subject of a lawsuit by Burke Ramsey who they clearly showed to be the best suspect - in their minds the killer with his parents covering for him.

Evidence to the contrary?  Forget that!  It's the BORG way to survive to hate on the Ramseys because that is what BORG does.

Now DG is saying Kolar (who I consider to be a liar< said Meyer said... something he didn't say.

THAT is what this book is.  A twisted attempt to spread the BORG infection.   Just enough truth to be convincing to the uneducated masses, the new generation of BORG.  But too much misinformation so that those who really want to know the TRUTH can find it by doing the research.   Sadly, for many it is more fun to bash the family that can't fight back.  The BORG grows and feels strong, is strong - - - but is also wrong.  It is really sad to watch.  I can just hope justice prevails and those who would harm innocent people are all exposed for their actions - - and that all suffer some consequences for their actions.

Standing by and letting evil people hurt innocent people is evil.  But for some I see, it's just fun and games.  They are the bullies of the internet, hiding behind wires and monitors.  And they really like people  like Kolar and DG.

So they will still spread the garbage  - and, sadly, even if sued, their poison will have taken hold of too many.  JMO

The truth about the panties.

Patsy had been shopping in NYC and bought a package of size 12 panties for her niece, Jenny.  They were not only pretty with flowers on them but also boasted the days of the week in the waistband.  Seven pairs of panties in the package, one for each day of the week.

JonBenét saw the panties and wanted them for herself.  Patsy told her they were for Jenny and were too big for JonBenét, but JonBenét didn't care and begged and pleaded until, and it did not take long, Patsy said she could have them.

In all honesty, I don't know when that conversation took place.

Were the  panties too big for the child?  Yes, but JonBenét was in kindergarten and would have been learning the days of the week and would have been proud to know which panties to wear on what day.  The fact that they were "too big" clearly didn't bother her since she had already worn another of the panties - the Monday pair were out of the pack.  I can't say for sure where they were found, in the bathroom or laundry, but I can say there is NO reason to think  they were missing.  (No police report on that has surfaced.)


Christmas Day, JonBenet had been up all day, opening presents, then playing.  In the afternoon she was told to go wash up and change for dinner at the Whites'.  She slid off the panties and slacks she had been wearing - the panties were found inside the pants.  (These are the panties that had "skid marks" on them, the only feces found in this case - the garbage about smeared feces found in her room is a lie.)  

She was getting ready for a party - and I imagine she was very proud  of her prize panties - Wednesday was the right day and they were pretty and new.

No one checked her panties to see if they were a size 8.  No one would have been bothered if they knew she was wearing those oversized panties.

When Patsy put her to bed she took off the velvet pants and slipped on long johns.  She was in a darkened room and in a hurry to end the day because the morning was coming soon enough and it was going to be a busy day.  She was not paying attention and never did say she noticed which panties her daughter was wearing.

JonBenet was found wearing those panties.  There is no reason to think her killer changed them.

       

My dear friend, Ollie Gray, has moved onto his next great adventure.

My heart is heavy and I am at a loss for words.

He will be greatly missed and I can only say I was enriched by knowing him.  He was a truly good and gentle man.

By STEPHANIE SLIFER CBS NEWS February 25, 2015, 2:37 PM
Police chief speaks out on JonBenet Ramsey case, regrets it


BOULDER, Colo - Former Boulder, Colorado police Chief Mark Beckner participated in an "Ask Me Anything" session on the social-networking/news site Reddit where he spoke about the JonBenet Ramsey case, but now the former law enforcement head says he regrets it and that he didn't realize his comments would filter out to the rest of the world.
"I talked to the organizer and my impression was that this was a members-only type group that talked about unsolved mysteries all around the world," Becker said in an interview published Tuesday in the Boulder Daily Camera. The Q&A took place Saturday.


"I didn't know it was an open-architecture type thing, or I wouldn't have done it," he added. "It was a misunderstanding and naivete on my part."

The 59-year-old Beckner, who retired in April 2014 and who has mostly remained tight-lipped when it comes to discussing the investigation into the murder of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey, spoke relatively freely during his online Q&A and said and he believes no one will ever be convicted in the pageant girl's long-unsolved 1996 murder.
Beckner also commented on authorities' handling of the case, saying, "I wish we would have done a much better job of securing and controlling the crime scene on day one. We also should have separated John and Patsy [JonBenet's parents] and gotten full statements from them that day. Letting them go was a big mistake, as they soon lawyered up and we did not get to formally interview them again until May of 1997, five months after their daughter was murdered."
He said the police department was short staffed on the day of the murder due to the Christmas holiday and said there was confusion at the scene because of lack of law enforcement personnel. He also acknowledged the Ramseys' "position" in the community could have influenced the initial handling the case.

Beckner also criticized the Boulder District Attorney's office, then led by Alex Hunter, for getting too involved in the case.
Six-year-old JonBenet was found bludgeoned and strangled December 26, 1996 in the basement of her Boulder, Colo. home several hours after her mother, Patsy Ramsey, called 911 to say her daughter was missing and that a ransom note had been left behind.


No charges have ever been filed in the case, despite a grand jury having voted in 1999 to charge the child's parents in connection with her death. At the time, D.A. Hunter declined to sign the indictment, saying there was insufficient evidence to prove the charges at trial. The grand jury's decision was not made public until 2013.

Both Patsy and John Ramsey have always maintained their innocence. Patsy Ramsey died in 2006 of cancer. In 2008, former Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy said that DNA evidence suggests the killer was a stranger, not a family member, and publicly exonerated the Ramseys.

During the Reddit Q&A, former police Chief Beckner said the Colorado Bureau of Investigation opined the DNA found on JonBenet's clothing was likely sweat or saliva, but that it's difficult to say for sure since it was such a small amount.
On whether there might have been an intruder on the night of the murder, Beckner said, "Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in."

When asked Tuesday whether he regretted anything he said on Reddit, Beckner told the Daily Camera that he tried to be honest and fair.

"I think the only thing I would emphasize is that the unknown DNA [from JonBenet's clothing] is very important. And I'm not involved any more, but that has got to be the focus of the investigation. In my opinion, at this point, that's your suspect."

Beckner, however, noted on Reddit that the case is "not actively being worked on."
But Kim Kobel, a spokesperson for the The Boulder Police Department, told 48 Hours' Crimesider on Wednesday that while the investigation is not active, it is still an open homicide investigation.
"We still do receive leads and we look into every single lead we receive," she said.
Kobel added that the Boulder Police Department was not aware ahead of time that the Reddit Q&A was going to take place and said they instead found out online via other news articles.
Current Boulder Police Chief Greg Testa told Crimesider Beckner has reached
 out to the department since the Reddit Q&A. Testa said he understands why Beckner participated in the online chat, saying it came to him through his current position as an online teacher at Norwich University in Vermont.
"Mark [Beckner] wouldn't have done anything to compromise the investigation," Testa said.

Murder of Danielle van Dam


Danielle Nicole van Dam (September 22, 1994 – c. February 1, 2002)[3] was an American girl from the Sabre Springs neighborhood of San Diego, California, who disappeared from her bedroom during the night of February 1–2, 2002. Her body was found by searchers on February 27 in a remote area. Police suspected a neighbor, David Alan Westerfield, of the killing. He was arrested, tried, and convicted of kidnapping and first-degree murder. He was sentenced to death and is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison.


The crime
On the evening of Friday, February 1, 2002, Danielle van Dam's mother Brenda and two girlfriends went out to a bar, Dad's, in Poway. Danielle's father Damon stayed at home to look after Danielle and her two brothers. Damon put Danielle to bed around 10:30 p.m., and she fell asleep. Damon also slept until his wife returned home at around 2:00 a.m. with four of her friends. Brenda noticed a light on the home’s security alarm system was flashing, and discovered that the side door to the garage was open. The six chatted for approximately half an hour then Brenda's friends went home. Damon and Brenda went to sleep believing that their daughter was sleeping in her room. About an hour later, Damon awoke and noticed that an alarm light was flashing. He found the sliding glass door leading to the back yard open, so he closed it. The next morning, Danielle was missing. The couple frantically searched their home, but could not find her. They called the police at 9:39 a.m.

Danielle became the subject of one of the largest search efforts in state history, with hundreds of volunteers searching deserts, highways and remote areas for weeks. The Laura Recovery Center assisted in organizing the search, and a Danielle Recovery Center was set up in a real estate office in Poway to coordinate the searching.[5] Finally, on February 27, two searchers found her nude, partially decomposed body near a trail in Dehesa, California, an unincorporated town east of San Diego. Some searchers had decided to search the Dehesa Road area, near the trail, after detectives discovered traces of Danielle's blood in David Westerfield's motor home, because Dehesa Road was a possible route Westerfield could have taken to get to the desert.[5] Because of the condition of the body, the coroner was unable to determine a cause of death or whether she was sexually assaulted, and had to use dental records to confirm her identity.

David Westerfield 
Law enforcement officials interviewed the van Dams' neighbors the Saturday morning of Danielle's disappearance, and discovered that one neighbor, David Westerfield, was not at home. Westerfield (born February 25, 1952) was self-employed as an engineer, 49 years old at the time, and held several patents for medical devices. He had no criminal record at the time, and was a divorced father of two college students. He lived two houses away from the van Dams, and owned a luxury motor home. About three days before Danielle's disappearance, Danielle and Brenda had sold Girl Scout cookies to Westerfield, who invited them into his home. Brenda asked to see his kitchen because she had noticed it was being remodeled when they had sold cookies to him the year before.

On Saturday morning, Westerfield fetched his motor home from another part of town, stocked it with supplies, and left home at 9:50, minutes after Brenda called 911 to report Danielle missing. Westerfield later told police that he had driven around the desert and the beach in his motor home, and had stayed at a beach campground: this was later confirmed by witnesses, cell phone records, gas receipts and credit card records. Westerfield said he had intended to go to the desert, but realized he had forgotten his wallet, so he drove instead to the campground at Silver Strand State Beach. He paid in advance for a two-night stay. However, he decided the weather was too cold, so he returned home to look for his wallet, after which he went to the desert. A witness at Silver Strand later testified that he saw Westerfield pull out his wallet while at the campground. He drove to the desert, where he got stuck in the sand on Sunday morning about a quarter mile off the road and needed help from a tow truck to get free.

On his way home on Monday morning, a sleepy-looking and bare-footed Westerfield stopped at his regular dry cleaners and dropped off two comforters, two pillow covers, and a jacket that would later yield traces of Danielle's blood. When law enforcement first interviewed Westerfield, he did not mention going to the dry cleaners, although he detailed almost every other stop on his outing.

From Monday morning on, Westerfield became the prime suspect.  Law enforcement placed him under 24-hour surveillance on February 4,noting that he had given his RV a cleaning when he returned from his trip, although he maintained it was normal for him to do so. His motorhome, SUV, and other property was impounded for testing on February 5. 

Westerfield stated that he did not know where Danielle was, but said he had been at the same bar that Brenda had been to that Friday night, which Brenda confirmed
Arrest and trial

On February 22, police arrested Westerfield for Danielle's kidnapping after two small stains of her blood were found on his clothing and in his motor home. Danielle's partially decomposed body was found February 27. Westerfield pleaded not guilty, and went on trial on June 4, 2002. In pre-trial motions, Westerfield's lawyers moved to have his statements to police excluded, charging that he was unfairly interrogated for more than nine hours by detectives who ignored his repeated requests to call a lawyer, take a shower, eat, and sleep.[21] In the end, the two officers against whom the defense directed their complaint did not testify.

The forensic evidence presented by the prosecution included Danielle's blood stains on Westerfield's jacket and on the floor of his motor home, Danielle's fingerprints in the motor home, hairs from the van Dam family dog on Westerfield's motor home bed comforter, hairs consistent with Danielle's on the sheet of his bed, and matching acrylic fibers found on Danielle's body and in Westerfield's home, among other evidence.[22][23] One witness testified that she had left a side door in the garage unlocked, and prosecutor Jeff Dusek theorized that Westerfield might have entered this way; he emphasized, however, that the prosecution did not have the burden to demonstrate how the kidnapping was done, only that it was done.

During the trial, Westerfield's lawyers suggested that the police were in a rush to solve the case and declined to consider other suspects. They suggested that the child pornography found on Westerfield's computer was downloaded by Westerfield's son, Neal, who was 18 at the time of the murder. In testimony, Neal denied this.[24] Part of Westerfield's defense focused on the lifestyle of Danielle van Dam's parents, who they argued had an open marriage, were swingers, and smoked marijuana in their garage regularly. The defense suggested that because of this lifestyle, there might have been other people in the home that night.
To establish an alibi for Westerfield, the defense called three entomologists who testified that insects first colonized Danielle's body sometime in mid-February, long after Westerfield had been under police surveillance. The prosecution's entomologist testified that Danielle's body could have been colonized as early as February 2.
In closing arguments, Feldman argued that no evidence of Westerfield was found in the van Dam residence or at the body dump site, and that a foreign hair found under Danielle’s body was not his.[29][30][31] In rebuttal, Dusek argued that it is plausible for an intruder to enter a home without leaving trace evidence, especially if he is taking appropriate precautions. Conversely, Dusek argued, the nature and volume of Danielle's trace evidence in Westerfield's home and motor home, and on his jacket, allows no reasonable explanation other than guilt.

The trial lasted two months and concluded on August 8. On August 21, the jury found Westerfield guilty of first degree murder, kidnapping, and possession of child pornography.

During the penalty phase of the trial, Westerfield's 19-year-old niece testified that, when she was 7 years old, her uncle entered his daughter's bedroom, where the niece was spending the night with her parents while attending a party, and woke up to find him rubbing her teeth. She said she bit his finger as hard as she could, then went downstairs to tell her mother. Westerfield was questioned about the incident at the time by his sister-in-law, where he explained that he had entered the bedroom to check on the children, and was trying to comfort her. The incident was then forgotten
The penalty phase ended on September 16 when the jury rendered a verdict of death against Westerfield. In January 2003, Judge William Mudd sentenced Westerfield to death.
A
ftermath
Westerfield is currently incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison while his appeal is pending.[36] Because of the continuing 2006 moratorium on executions in California, and the July 2014 ruling on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty in California, it is not known when or if Westerfield will face execution.
The van Dams sued Westerfield, but the case was settled out of court. The van Dams were awarded $416,000 from several insurance companies who insured Westerfield's home, SUV, and motor home. The settlement also prevents Westerfield from ever profiting from his crime. 

When the trial was over, the media, quoting unnamed police sources, reported that Westerfield's lawyers were just minutes away from negotiating a plea bargain when a group of private citizen searchers organized by the Laura Recovery Center found Danielle's body. According to these reports, under the deal Westerfield would have taken police to the site where her body was located, in exchange for a sentence of life without parole.Both the prosecution and the defense declined to comment on these reports,  Many people, including Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, expressed outrage at the revelation, claiming that Westerfield's attorneys misled the jury by proposing an "unknown kidnapper scenario" even though their client said he knew the location of the body; however, legal specialists pointed out that defense attorneys are obligated to mount a vigorous defense regardless of their own opinion of the client's guilt or innocence.


In the months following the end of the trial, audio tapes of Westerfield being interviewed were released to the media. During his first interview, he is heard to ask an officer to "leave your gun here for a few minutes" in a seeming suggestion that he would like to commit suicide.[42] In one police interview he tells investigators that he doesn't feel emotionally stable. In one interview he is told that he failed a polygraph test; Westerfield says he wants a retest and that he was not involved in Danielle's disappearance.

In late 2003, San Diego police received a letter from an outside party confessing to Danielle's murder. The author claimed to be James Selby, a man accused of various sex-related crimes in five states, including in the San Diego area.Both police and Dusek read the letter, and deemed it not credible; however, Dusek forwarded the letter to the office of Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, who declined to comment.[46] Selby, who also claimed responsibility for the slaying of JonBenét Ramsey,[46] committed suicide while awaiting sentencing in Arizona on November 22, 2004.[45][47]
An episode from an animal forensic show on the US TV network Animal Planet was based on the belief that hairs consistent with Danielle’s dog, which were found in Westerfield’s laundry, in his RV, and on his comforter at the dry-cleaners, first got onto her pajamas when she cuddled with the dog, and then were carried on the pajamas to his house and RV in accordance with Locard's exchange principle.

Justice at last for father accused of killing his daughter, 3, after sex offender admits to murder 



A convicted sex offender pleaded guilty today to the 2004 sexual assault and murder of a three-year-old suburban Chicago girl whose father was wrongly accused in the crime.

With the parents of Riley Fox sitting just a few feet away, Scott Eby said in a clear voice the word 'guilty' six times - ensuring he will spend the rest of his life behind bars. 

In exchange for the 39-year-old's plea, prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty. 

The courtroom was packed with dozens of friends and family of Riley, many wearing pins with a photograph of the girl nicknamed 'Rileybugs' on them. 

The gallery was silent as Eby entered his plea, ending a six-year ordeal in the highly-publicised case. 

But that composure disappeared when Assistant Will County State's Attorney Michael Fitzgerald described what Eby himself admitted to doing on June 6, 2004. 
In horrific details, Mr Fitzgerald told the judge how Eby, in a five-page letter, admitted he had been drinking and using cocaine that day - a combination that gave him the urge to break into Riley's Wilmington house and molest her. 
Eby said he put a bandanna over his face before entering the house, put his hand over Riley's mouth and put her in the trunk of his car. 

He described then driving to a nearby forest preserve, duct-taping her wrists and mouth and sexually assaulting her on the floor of a men's room. 

Eby told authorities he knew the girl could identify him and panicked, taking her to a nearby creek and holding her 'under the water by the shoulders until he couldn't feel her struggle anymore'.
Many in the courtroom openly wept, and one member of the gallery yelled 'Rot in hell' before leaving the courtroom.

Riley's father, Kevin Fox, who spent eight months in jail before he was exonerated by DNA evidence, was the first to take the witness stand and read a statement. 

He talked about sitting in a jail cell when he was a suspect, knowing prosecutors wanted him executed and that the real killer was free. 

He said: 'I would always wonder what you were doing with your freedom. If you were lying, watching TV or if you were picking your next victim.'

He said that once he left court he would force Eby from his mind, adding: 'After today you will no longer be a part of my memories of my daughter.'

Riley's mother Melissa spoke of the joys of watching her daughter and how she liked to sing, dance, tell jokes and catch butterflies. 

But, as her voice cracked, she also told Eby what he took when he held her daughter's head under water. 

She said: 'She would never have the opportunity to play with her friends, have sleepovers, get her drivers' license, go to homecoming or prom, go to college, get married or have a family of her own.'

Mrs Fox stared directly into Eby's eyes each time she looked up from her statement, and Eby was visibly moved by her words.

She added: 'I didn't get a chance to say goodbye or give her a last kiss or hug. Instead, I visit a headstone that I decorate for holidays and her birthday.'

Eby fought back tears when she said: 'It disgusts me that she is gone and you are still here.'

He spoke briefly, saying he didn't have any answers or know why he killed the little girl.
Reading from a prepared statement, he added: 'I wish I could explain.'

After the hearing, Eby's attorney Michael Renzi said his client always intended to plead guilty from the time he was charged in May. He said he didn't want to put the family through a trial. 
Prosecutors said Riley's parents agreed to the plea deal. 

'She would never have the opportunity to play with her friends, have sleepovers, get her drivers' license, go to homecoming or prom, go to college, get married or have a family of her own' 

Mrs Fox said in court: 'I'm opposed to you getting the death penalty and dying a quick, painless death.'
Kevin Fox had harsher words after the trial. He said: 'I hope he rots in hell.'

The plea comes nearly five months after Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow announced he'd charged Eby with first-degree murder and predatory criminal sexual assault of a child. 

Authorities were led to Eby from DNA evidence collected from the crime scene along with other clues, including a pair of Eby's shoes pulled from the water that had his name written in them. 

Mr Glasgow, who was not the prosecutor when Mr Fox was arrested, cleared the father after taking office. 
When he announced in May that Eby had been charged with murdering Riley, Mr Glasgow was careful to point out that any prosecutor would have been hard pressed not to file charges against Mr Fox after watching video of statements Mr Fox made to investigators during questioning. 

Mr Glasgow declined to say what Mr Fox told detectives, but he described the statements as 'significant'. 
The Foxes were awarded $12.2 million in damages after they accused Will County investigators of fabricating evidence. 
A federal appeals court in April upheld their claim that Mr Fox was falsely arrested but reduced the award to $8.6 million. 

Eby, who has served prison time for burglary and forgery, was an inmate at the medium security Lawrence Correctional Center in Sumner, serving time for a 2005 sexual assault conviction filed in connection with an attack on a relative. 
According to the Illinois Department of Corrections, he will be eligible for parole on that conviction in mid-2017.