Replies

Watkins said he found less than 100 "questionable images," including those he said that may have depicted minor females engaged in sex acts or posing nude in a sexual manner. Two of the files he said he retrieved were cartoon animations of an act of rape. Eight more photos also entered into evidence were supposedly of a girlfriend of Westerfield's and her teen-age daughter in a bikini in suggestive poses.

The Westerfield connection is something that has mystified me from the start. How did that man become the leading suspect so rapidly?

To hear the Van Dams tell the story, they barely knew Westerfield. Brenda mentions that she only met him briefly while canvasing the neighbors for girl scout cookies. If I remember correctly, that was a full year before the Danielle disappeared. Then she ran into him again "briefly" on the night her daughter disappeared.

It seems wierd to me that a guy could be out buying Brenda drinks at one moment, then secreting into the Van Dam home just minutes later. I'd like to see an accurate timeline of the friday evening and night this all occurred.

When it comes to the computer files that are reported to incriminate Westerfield, I get a little squeemish. I don't understand why any grown man would have child pornography on his computer. But in the accounting of what Westerfield had on his computer, the descriptions go limp. Watkins determinations are described for us.

Westerfield has been turned into a monster by the revelation that child pornography existed on his computer. I expected to hear that thousands of photos existed on his computer. I expected those to be of little girls. I expected them to reveal a man obsessed with girls ranging from age 1 to 10. Now it is revealed that Westerfield had less than 100 questionable photos on his computer. It is further revealed that those images included photos of "possible" minor females. Just how many actual photos of little girls exist on Westerfield's computer? Were there any at all? Were there ten or less? How many?

When I think of child pornography, I think of children from the age of birth through ten or twelve. When the police think of child pornography they think of any minor child. I believe a revealing or suggestive photo of a girl that is seventeen years and 360 days old, would qualify technicly as child porn. Any eighteen year old boy might have child porn, if for no other reason than that he might have a photo of his girlfriend in a bikini, or God forbid even less.

Is Westerfield the monster we've been led to believe. Was this just too quick and easy? How many people are aware that Danielle's blood was found on the stairs at the Van Dam home? I'll be interested to hear the acutal case against Westerfield. At this point it almost sounds like a setup to me.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I have found the scenario that sees Westerfield secreting into the Van Dam home, locating Danielle's room without distrubing anyone else, then getting her out of the house without disturbing anyone, to be a very difficult sell. I guess anything is possible, but it sure seems iffy to me.

All this being said, I still lean toward Westerfield. But I sure do have a lot of questions at this point. I am far from convinced.

That DW was in a rage because he was spured by Brenda is IMO stretching it. The time frame prosecution gives is thin. There is too much resonable doubt. I wonder how much of the forensic evidence will come back inconclusive or there wasn't enough to test, then it will be emotion only. They will haul out all of the profilers that SD can buy. Like that's really a slam dunk.

I think the first thing that caught their attention was that he immediately left the area in his RV to head out into the desert. It turns out he was known to be in the area where the body was found.

The clincher was the fact that they fould her blood in his RV and apparently, some DNA evidence from him in her room

The Westerfield connection is something that has mystified me from the start. How did that man become the leading suspect so rapidly?

I have wondered that from the beginning...especially since they said there is something like 13 convicted child molesters in the neighborhood..what did "red flag " that man...momma perhaps?????

You raise some very good points. Also, consider the fact that just about everybody who uses the Internet has received a piece of pornography via Email at some time, or has clicked on a link that turns out to be pornographic. If these images stay in the computer memory nearly forever, I certainly hope the police can differentiate between someone who assembles a file deliberately and someone who has been the unwitting victim of a *spam* scheme!