Case overview
On February 2, 2002, seven-year-old Danielle van Dam was reported missing from her San Diego home after her parents discovered her bedroom empty that morning. The investigation focused immediately on a narrow abduction window and a neighbor who had been inside the family’s home the night before. Within three weeks, physical evidence tied David Westerfield to the crime, and Danielle’s body was found in a remote area east of the city.
The last confirmed sighting
Danielle van Dam was last seen by her father, Damon van Dam, when he put her to bed around 10:30 p.m. on February 1, 2002. The family lived in the Sabre Springs neighborhood of San Diego, a suburban area of cul-de-sacs and tract homes. That evening, Danielle’s mother, Brenda van Dam, had gone out with friends to a bar in nearby Poway. Damon stayed home with Danielle and her two younger brothers.
Brenda returned home around 2:00 a.m. with two friends. The group sat in the garage briefly before the friends left. Brenda checked on the children and went to bed. The next morning, around 9:00 a.m., she discovered that Danielle was not in her room. The side door leading from the garage to the backyard was open. A security alarm had not been set the night before.
San Diego Police were called at 9:39 a.m. Officers immediately treated the case as a stranger abduction. The home showed no signs of forced entry, but the unlocked side door indicated an intruder could have entered during the night.
David Westerfield and the timeline
David Westerfield, a 50-year-old self-employed design engineer, lived two doors down from the van Dam family. He had been at the same Poway bar on the night of February 1 and had briefly spoken to Brenda van Dam and her friends. Witnesses later told investigators that Westerfield had danced with one of Brenda’s friends and made small talk with the group before leaving.
After the bar, Westerfield returned home. He told police he left his house early the next morning, February 2, and drove his motor home into the desert for the weekend. He said he spent time near the Glamis sand dunes in Imperial County before returning home on February 4.
Investigators identified inconsistencies in Westerfield’s account. Neighbors reported seeing him cleaning his motor home on February 2 and acting unusually anxious. One neighbor saw him driving the motor home out of the neighborhood that same day. Another saw him return and take the vehicle to a car wash and dry cleaner over the following days.
Westerfield’s timeline placed him away from home during the window when Danielle’s disappearance was discovered and reported. Detectives noted that his sudden departure and extensive cleaning efforts raised immediate suspicion.
The search and the evidence
San Diego Police mounted a large-scale search for Danielle. Volunteers combed neighborhoods, open spaces, and nearby parks. The FBI joined the investigation. Bloodhounds tracked a scent from Danielle’s bedroom to the street outside, but the trail ended there.
On February 4, police obtained a search warrant for Westerfield’s home and motor home. Inside the residence, investigators found child pornography on his computer. Forensic technicians collected fibers, hairs, and other trace evidence from the motor home and his vehicles. They also seized bedding, clothing, and personal items.
Laboratory analysis revealed key findings. Danielle’s fingerprints were found inside Westerfield’s motor home. Her blood was detected on items of his clothing and on the carpet of the vehicle. Fibers from Danielle’s bedroom were matched to fibers found in the motor home. Orange acrylic fibers found on Danielle’s body were later matched to a blanket in Westerfield’s home.
On February 22, 2002, police arrested Westerfield and charged him with kidnapping and murder, though Danielle’s body had not yet been found. Prosecutors stated they had sufficient physical evidence to proceed.
The recovery of Danielle’s body
On February 27, 2002, volunteers searching a remote area off Dehesa Road in East County San Diego discovered remains later identified as Danielle van Dam. The location was approximately 25 miles from her home, in a brushy area near the desert. Her body was found partially buried and in an advanced state of decomposition.
The medical examiner concluded that Danielle had suffered trauma consistent with violent assault, but could not definitively determine whether she had been sexually assaulted due to decomposition. The condition of the body indicated it had been there for an extended period, likely since shortly after her disappearance.
The discovery site was consistent with routes Westerfield could have taken during his stated trip to the desert. Investigators believed the location was chosen for its remoteness and low likelihood of discovery.
The trial and the defense
David Westerfield’s trial began in June 2002 in San Diego Superior Court. The prosecution presented forensic evidence linking him to Danielle, including the fingerprints, blood, and fiber matches. Witnesses testified about his behavior in the days after the abduction, including the cleaning of his motor home and his presence at the bar the night Danielle disappeared.
The defense argued that the evidence was circumstantial and that contamination or transfer could explain the forensic findings. Westerfield’s attorneys suggested that other individuals, including visitors to the van Dam home, could have been responsible. They also raised questions about the family’s lifestyle, which the defense claimed created alternative suspects.
The prosecution countered that the physical evidence, combined with Westerfield’s timeline and behavior, formed a clear pattern. They emphasized that only Westerfield had the access, opportunity, and forensic link to Danielle’s abduction and death.
On August 21, 2002, the jury convicted David Westerfield of kidnapping and first-degree murder with special circumstances. The trial lasted nearly two months and included extensive forensic testimony. The conviction rested on the DNA, fiber, and blood evidence recovered from his motor home and residence.
Sentencing and appeals
On January 3, 2003, a San Diego Superior Court judge sentenced David Westerfield to death. The penalty phase had included emotional testimony from Danielle’s family and arguments from the defense for life without parole. The jury recommended death, and the judge followed that recommendation.
Westerfield was transported to San Quentin State Prison, where he remains on death row. His case has been subject to automatic appeals in the California legal system, but no execution date has been set. His appeals continue.
The case prompted widespread discussion about child safety, forensic evidence standards, and the use of trace evidence in criminal prosecutions. It also led to increased awareness of sex offender registries and community notification laws in California.
Where to look next
- Documentary: “Foreign Body” (Forensic Files, truTV)
- Book: “Stranger in My Home” by Jack Barnao
- Podcast: “Casefile True Crime” (Audioboom)
