[The Other Harry]

...none of that has changed just because a girl recalls vaguely something that happened 12 years ago.

I beg to differ.

I believe her. That was not included in the original trial, but it is relevant to the question of whether he is probably guilty.

Going into the daughter's bedroom and fussing with the niece's teeth in the middle of the night is *not* a normal behavior. I have a daughter who is around Jennifer's age, and I am around DW's age.

There is no way in HELL that I would ever have done anything like that. I went out of my way to avoid ever getting accused of doing anything improper.

If there had been some sort of a problem, I would have called in the girl's mother. Lacking her, another adult female. You don't go messing around with little girls like that. Even back in those days, that was common knowledge. You just didn't do it. Never.

You might change diapers on your own daughter, but you would be hard pressed to ever change the diaper on any other child. Not becuase you weren't willing, but because you didn't ever want to be even remotely accused of doing anything improper. This was no small issue.

If Jennifer's story is true -- which I think it is -- then I think DW may have actually done it.

[bvw]

If, if and if ... the bugs do hamper that jump. There are so many ifs, and a similar parade marches up and down saying Damon also by if logic did it.

[I. Ben Hurt]

The story the girl told is a mystery. My point was, there's still no reasonable way he could have killed Danielle and left such trace evidence.

DW's own daughter was also in that room that night. He'd truly have to be some kind of wacko to try something with her in there and as I heard it, a lot of people in the house. If the girl bit him as hard as she said, I'd think it would have been obvious, maybe bleeding. He would have had to explain that.

I'm not putting the girl down. She sounded sincere but she did say she signed that statement because the lady LE wanted her to.

I'll admit I'm naive about such kinky things. I have led a sheltered life.

[bvw]

Westerfield, and honest and simpler man, is held to most major account for smaller things, that in the van Dams and crew are discounted. Why discounted? Because they are known liars and decievers, reckless parents, materialistic, narcissistic in all things. How could we possibly hold such no accounts to any account at all. Therefore let us hang an honest man, who remembers a singular appearance of a transgression long ago. An honest man ought to be held to higher account!

But that is not Justice, is it?