Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prosecutor: Westerfield Guilty 'Beyond Possible Doubt'(Many Still Find Van Dam's Culpable)
Court TV ^ | August 7, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

Posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Prosecutor: Westerfield guilty 'beyond possible doubt'

Photo
Lead prosecutor Jeff Dusek traced the fingerprint, blood and fiber evidence linking defendant David Westerfield to a murdered girl.

SAN DIEGO — Calling the murder of Danielle van Dam an "evil, evil crime" that shattered notions of suburban safety, a prosecutor urged jurors Tuesday to convict her neighbor, David Westerfield, of capital charges.

Before a courtroom filled to capacity for closing arguments, prosecutor Jeff Dusek said the 50-year-old engineer snuck into the second-grader's bedroom last February, snatched her from her canopy bed, killed her and then "dumped this 7-year-old child naked in the dirt like trash for animals to devour."

"He's guilty of these crimes. He's guilty of the ultimate evil. He's guilty to the core," Dusek told jurors at the end of a closing studded with drama despite its three-and-a-half-hour length.

Dusek shouted and jabbed his finger at the defense table when he discussed Westerfield and the child pornography the prosecution says reveals a motive in the killing. But when he mentioned Danielle's death, his voice dropped to a whisper, forcing jurors to lean forward when he said, for example, of the moments before her killing, "This was not an easy time. This was not fast."

 

Westerfield listened to the prosecutor's closing argument Tuesday.

At one point, he slammed his hand again and again on the jury box rail to simulate, he said, Danielle's head striking Westerfield's headboard as he raped her. The image was too much for Brenda van Dam, Danielle's mother. She leapt up from her seat at the back of the courtroom and ran to the door in tears.

Westerfield's lawyer, Steven Feldman, began his closing late Tuesday afternoon. He is to conclude Wednesday morning and then Dusek will have one final opportunity to convince the panel to convict Westerfield of felony murder, kidnapping and child pornography charges.

The six women and six men who have heard evidence in the two-month long trial appeared to pay close attention to Dusek's summation, which focused on the forensic evidence connecting Westerfield to Danielle's disappearance and problems with his alibi for the weekend she vanished.

A spot of her blood on a jacket Westerfield took to the dry cleaners, Dusek said, "in itself tells you he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That alone. But it doesn't stop there."

He also listed fiber, fingerprint and hair evidence linking Westerfield to Danielle and said, "all of it comes back to his lap." Of two blond strands found in the defendant's recreational vehicle and genetically matched to Danielle, he said, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Proof beyond a possible doubt."

Dusek pointed to an autopsy photo showing Danielle's badly decomposed remains and ticked off the fiber and hair evidence technicians gleaned from her body.

"From Danielle herself, she helps to solve this case," he said.

Westerfield gazed straight ahead, and in the back row of the courtroom, Brenda and Damon van Dam held hands and stared at the floor. A row in front of them and three seats to their right, Westerfield's sister, who was attending the trial for the first time and was in the company of her husband and son, stared at the image.

Dusek also attacked Westerfield's claim that he spent the weekend Danielle vanished on a 560-mile solo road trip in his recreational vehicle.

"He gives us a bogus story that just doesn't wash," said Dusek, referring to his account of driving from his home to the beach then to the desert then to another part of the desert before returning to the beach.

He said Westerfield spent that weekend sexually assaulting Danielle and then after killing her, searching for a place to dump her body.

The prosecutor listed other potential suspects, including the van Dams, their friends, Westerfield's teenage son and even "the bogeyman," but said each was investigated and cleared.

He criticized what he said were defense attempts to implicate Westerfield's son, Neal, in the crime and said testimony about the van Dam's risque sex life, which included swinging, was irrelevant.

"All the sex, the alcohol, who's doing this, who's doing that. That's got nothing to do with her kidnapping," Dusek said.

With Westerfield's mug shot projected on the courtroom wall next to a passport photo of Danielle taken the day she vanished, Dusek said, "I think at times we've lost track of the other person. We've lost track of Danielle, what happened to her, what he did to her."

The prosecutor downplayed bug evidence presented by the defense suggesting Westerfield was under surveillance when Danielle's body was dumped and therefore couldn't have been responsible.

"Everyone's different, has a different estimation, approximation, some might even say guess," said Dusek. He added, "This is not an exact science. This is not DNA."

The prosecutor told jurors repeatedly that he did not have to prove to them why Westerfield killed Danielle, only that he did, but he said he was certain jurors wanted to know, "Why would a regular, normal 50-year-old guy kidnap and kill a 7-year-old child?"

There was no answer, he said, just another question. Pointing to print outs of some 85 images of child pornography found on computers and discs in Westerfield's home, Dusek said, "Why would a normal 50-year-old guy have pictures of young naked girls?"

With some of the images of elementary-school aged girls, naked and exposing their genitals, flashing on the courtroom wall behind him, Dusek pointed at Westerfield and said, "These are his fantasies."

Westerfield stared toward the empty witness stand, never looking at the photos.

Dusek acknowledged that "if (Westerfield) is the guy, that destroys all our senses of protection."

"That's the scariest part — he was a normal guy down the street," said Dusek.

Defense lawyer Feldman promised jurors the heart of his argument Wednesday, but in a little more than an hour before the panel, he seemed to be hoping for a hung jury. He presented jurors with a list of "Jury Responsibilities," several of which seemed aimed at encouraging any panelist for acquittal not to cave to pressure from other jurors.

One "responsibility" read "All of you have the right to have your feelings respected."

Just before court broke for the day, Feldman held up a blank piece of posterboard and said, "This is the only evidence they have of David Westerfield in the van Dam residence."

He suggested the van Dam's swinging lifestyle endangered their children.

"You don't know what pervert is coming in the door when you're in the bar, drunk, making invites," he said.

 
Comprehensive case coverage


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,141-1,144 next last
San Diego Swings

PhotoThe murder of little Danielle van Dam brought “swinging” into the spotlight. Log on to the World Wide Web, type in “San Diego” and “swingers” on the Yahoo search, and you get 6,160 hits. That’s more than “San Diego” in combination with “hiking trails” (2,570), “car clubs” (772) or “pet lovers” (359)—though not as many as “golfers” (7,430) or “Republicans” (18,900).

By Thomas K. Arnold

Club Paradise, according to its Web site, “is situated in the back hills of the El Cajon Valley, nestled in a secluded, yet easy to access area.” The facility offers a “high-class, home-party style environment” and boasts “5,000 square feet of fun, including a swimming pool, spa and backyard fire pit to socialize with your new friends while warming your erogenous zones.”

Guests are “welcome to bring some goodies (besides your wife)”—and once their erogenous zones are sufficiently warmed, they may choose from “plenty of play areas ... most prefer the living room floor or kitchen, but [private] rooms are always available.”

Club CB is an on-line club “providing a safe meeting place for sensuous consenting adults.” Member parties promise “the hottest couples, the best facilities, very tasty buffet dinners, scrumptious desserts and a staff dedicated to ensuring your experience is clean, fun and safe.”

Club CB party organizers boast they specialize in “stirring up erotic sensations and placing our members in the ideal environment to meet and expand friendships with the most exciting people in San Diego County ... all while raising funds for local charity foundations contributing to the research for multiple sclerosis and other debilitating diseases.”

Welcome to the wonderful—and apparently charitable—world of swinging, San Diego style.

Tony Lanzaratta, a retired Los Angeles police officer who, as executive director of NASCA International, probably has a better handle on swinging than anyone else in the country, stops short of saying San Diego is a hotbed for what he calls “play couples.”

“It’s impossible to chart,” Lanzaratta says. “But I travel a lot, and I know one thing: I meet a lot of people from San Diego.”

He says there are half a dozen organized swing clubs in San Diego County, some in private homes and some in commercial buildings. None is openly marked. “San Diego is a very conservative city,” he says, “so you just can’t do that.”

But even the local presence of half a dozen organized swing clubs—most of them with Web sites rivaling those of ritzy desert resorts—is no barometer for how many San Diegans actually participate in what Lanzaratta and other swingers call “the lifestyle.” According to the official NASCA Web site, that lifestyle is defined as follows:

“Swinging is social and sexual intercourse with someone other than your mate, boyfriend or girlfriend, excepting the traditional one-on-one dating. It may be defined as recreational social sex. The activity may occur at a swing party, a couple-to-couple encounter, a liaison or with a third person in a threesome. Though single men and women are involved, it is primarily an activity of couples.”

“A lot of people just have little neighborhood get-togethers in their homes, five or six couples who go for it,” Lanzaratta says. “The thing is, people are not card-carrying swingers; they don’t necessarily have to belong to clubs or even frequent parties. People don’t call up and say, ‘We’re with the Rand Corporation; are you swingers?’ So many people keep it hidden.”

NASCA originally stood for North American Swing Club Association, but now goes solely by its acronym. That’s because membership in the loosely knit, Orange County–based confederation of swing clubs now extends beyond North America—and Lanzaratta and other practitioners of “the lifestyle” believe the term “swing” has become dated.

“‘Swinging’ is not really a favored term anymore,” Lanzaratta says. “Swinging kind of connotes 1950s wife-swapping crap. It has little to do with that, and that’s why lifestyle organizations prefer to use the term ‘play couple.’”

Call it what you will—swinging is big news these days, and all because of a vivacious, bright-eyed little girl who was snatched from her home, brutally murdered and then dumped in East County.

The Danielle van Dam kidnapping and murder case has gripped San Diegans from the time the 7-year-old was first discovered to be missing from her Sabre Springs home in early February. It has also pushed into the spotlight—or shoved under the microscope—what had previously been one of San Diego’s salacious little secrets: the thriving local “swinging” scene in which the dead girl’s parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, were involved.

From the time KFMB Radio talk-show host Rick Roberts first brought up rumors of the van Dams’ mate-swapping lifestyle, there’s been a collective finger-wagging of disapproval—and also a collective curiosity about the phenomenon.

During the murder trial of David Westerfield, defense attorney Steven Feldman tried to convince jurors that swinging may have opened the van Dams’ doors—figuratively and literally—to all sorts of perverts who could have made off with and later killed Danielle. Early in the trial, he even tried to question Brenda van Dam about what he called “sex parties,” but Judge William Mudd stopped the grieving mother from answering broad questions about her sex life because he deemed them “irrelevant.”

No wonder, then, that local swingers are becoming increasingly gun-shy.

“It seems that the San Diego media are finally waking up to alternative lifestyles about 50 years late and for all the wrong reasons, i.e., the van Dams,” Jay, who operates the Free Body, Mind & Spirit Society, one of San Diego’s swing clubs, wrote in an e-mail, replying to a query. “Our membership is composed of mostly late arrivals from the rest of the world. They are quite aware that they now reside in the epicenter of geekocracy and therefore do not wish any publicity. Nobody likes to find burning crosses on their front lawns.”

Lanzaratta, too, decries the spotlight directed toward the San Diego swinging scene by the van Dam case. “It’s too bad there was this sudden interest in the lifestyle because a crime was committed,” he says. “The lifestyle, from what I’ve seen and heard, has nothing to do with the crime. These are everyday couples, and the suspect in this case is not a couple, is he? He’s a single male. So where is this thing coming from? I’m sure the defense is going to use this [the van Dams’ connection to swinging] and say they are unfit parents and all that B.S., but that’s a bunch of crap. They’re just trying to latch onto anything at all. I can’t fault the attorneys, because that’s their job, but for everybody else to jump on the bandwagon is just crazy.”

Lanzaratta’s indignation underscores the basic philosophy that seems to be embraced by most swingers: What they are doing is perfectly normal—and besides, what goes on behind closed doors between two (or more) consenting adults is nobody’s damn business.

“Eighty percent of the human world population is polygamous, so maybe the monogamists are freaks,” claims Jay. “We swingers all seem to feel completely healthy.”

(Jay’s comments aren’t entirely accurate. He might be referring to the legality of polygamy, not the practice. According to the polygamypage.info Web site, “In most of the world polygamy is an acceptable social practice and is never a crime. In much of the Western world, including Britain and most of the United States, the practice of polygamy is not illegal. As long as the marriages are not registered with the state, there is no offense, although there is also hardly any legal recognition of the relationship. In a few states, the bigamy law is used together with a ‘common-law marriage’ law to define polygamy as illegal. These laws also tend to make same-sex partnerships and cohabitation by unmarried couples illegal as well.”)

From the NASCA International Web site: “People who swing come from all economic levels. Every job classification, all races and nationalities are represented, though the majority are Caucasian, middle to upper-middle socio-economic class, and married. Swingers ... tend to be adventuresome, emotionally mature and have excellent relationships with their mates and friends. ... Many single women have joined swing clubs, finding them a refreshing alternative to the traditional bar scene.”

Lanzaratta, 52, a proud swinger for 14 years, says that definition really says it all. Sex is just part of the lifestyle, he maintains.

“It’s first and foremost social, with a capital S,” he says. “Now, what these people do after they meet other couples is between them, but 40 percent to 50 percent never take it to the next step, which is sex. It’s a place to go to be social with like-minded people, but certainly not just to get laid.”

Typical swingers, Lanzaratta says, tend to be baby boomer couples in their 40s or 50s with time and money to travel. The annual Lifestyles convention, which used to be here in San Diego but is now held in Las Vegas or Reno, draws upwards of 6,000 attendees each year, he says.

“They are factory workers and firemen and store clerks and bankers and doctors and newscasters,” Lanzaratta says. “It’s a total cross-section of whatever middle America or normal America is. It’s couples looking for a social outlet. They’re tired of theater and dinner and $100 nightclubs. They want to go to clubs where they can meet and socialize with nice couples, with no lecherous singles stuff or pickup scene. It’s not a meat market; people who go to our clubs have no requirement to do anything.”

Of course, if they do choose to do anything of a sexual nature, he says, “they’ve got privacy, anonymity and the company of other couples.

“Sex is certainly a big part of it,” Lanzaratta concedes, “but it’s not the only thing.”

Sampling of classified advertising on the Internet indicates that sex may be a bigger part of “the lifestyle” for some swingers than the ones with whom Lanzaratta is familiar. Here are some ads from San Diego swingers pulled off www.e-MacDaddy.com, a portal for adult sites:

From Dan: “Hi, I’m a good-looking and athletic male, looking to be a sex toy. I am putting myself out [for] any kind of adventure. 3somes or anything, I’m game. I’m disease and drug free and expect the same.”

From Twoofus: “Me and my wife are looking for a couple to swing with or a party to go to. Is there a good place to just sleep with many people at once? Any info would be helpful or another young attractive couple like ourselves that would be interested would be great.”

From Shon: “Wife and I are looking for a partner to join up for a night. Male or female. If male wifey says must be big. ... Females must be in shape, nice body. No skinny model chicks!”

From SD and NW: “We have been in the San Diego area a little over a year and we are interested in making new friends. We are interested in the swinger lifestyle. We are willing and able to try anything once and we would like to experience this lifestyle. We are a married (wife is bi) couple with no children. We are both clean and in good health. If we sound interesting to you, please e-mail us and we would like to meet you for dinner or just a coffee out. PLEASE NO BI OR GAY MEN.”

So how does one go about joining a swing club? Lanzaratta says that regardless of whether a “lifestyle club” has a physical headquarters or consists of parties held in various places, the mechanism is the same. It all starts with an interview.

“You contact them via phone or e-mail and then they talk to you, talk to the [partner], have you come into an office and meet you in person,” he explains. “They sit you both down and interview you to make sure both of you are on board with this. There have been instances in which the guy dupes the woman into doing this, and no one wants to have any problems.”

Once the prospective swingers “pass” the interview hurdle, they pay an initial membership fee—$130 is standard, and that includes the first “party”—and then are given a date, time and location of the next gathering. Most San Diego swing clubs hold get-togethers for couples every weekend, or every other weekend. “Some are also open on Wednesday night, hump night—no pun intended,” Lanzaratta says with a laugh.

Most parties are for couples only, but sometimes single men or single women are allowed in—typically on Friday nights, when the action’s a bit slower than on Saturday nights. The membership fees allow these functions to be private. “If they were open to the public,” Lanzaratta says, “there could be problems.”

Once at a “party,” couples pay a cover charge of $50 to $60. That fee buys them not just admission but also munchies.

“Most of the nicer clubs have a nice buffet,” Lanzaratta says. After dinner, “you get up and sit somewhere and strike up a conversation with somebody else,” he says. Most clubs have deejays playing music, “so you get up and dance and mingle and drink a little to get more relaxed.”

And from there, well, use your imagination. “If it’s an on-premise club, there’s an area for sex,” Lanzaratta says. “It could be a back room, it could be a bedroom—that varies greatly, too. Some couples will only be with another couple if they’re both there; others want to be separate. The orgy scene is not really that prevalent—it’s usually two couples, three couples max. And then there are situations in which the man doesn’t want to do anything—he wants his wife or girlfriend to be with someone else.”

Robin C. (not her real name) is a young North County mother who briefly tried the swinger lifestyle several years ago, before she and her husband had children. Speaking through an intermediary—she’s deathly afraid of being identified—Robin says she was enticed to try “the lifestyle” by her husband. After much prodding, she relented. They hooked up with another couple her husband knew and had sex with one another.

“I knew it was wrong, but I did it,” she says. Robin and her husband soon opted out of the lifestyle, but the memories are still painful. “What were we thinking?” she asks. “This just isn’t normal.”

Lanzaratta isn’t at all surprised at this story. He says “the lifestyle” is best suited to older couples who have been married for a while and who are on solid ground.

“New relationships aren’t ready for something like this,” he says. “They have still got a lot to learn about each other. In fact, when we have a young couple come in, we give them some food for thought. We say, ‘You guys might want to think about it for a while.’”

Young couples, Lanzaratta says, are also more likely to feel insecure, which can lead to jealousy and guilt.

“Jealousy is pretty common in couples just starting out,” he says. “They need to separate love from sex. It [swinging] is recreation; it’s like going out and playing golf or tennis. And if they can keep it in that context—and if it is that for both parties—only then are they ready. Sure, the first time there might be pangs of anxiety or jealousy, or ‘Wait, you really enjoyed that; I’ve never seen you like that.’

“But they need to discuss everything before they do it and after they do it, and make sure nothing’s hidden. If one partner is more gung-ho than the other, they need to take several steps back and regroup, and ask themselves, ‘What are we trying to accomplish here?’”

Rich Hycer is a psychologist with a practice in Solana Beach. Since 1976, he has counseled hundreds of individuals and couples about relationships. He frowns on swinging just as he does on affairs, and says both can cause irreparable harm in a relationship.

“In most cases, it’s really an avoidance of dealing with the issues,” Hycer explains. “It’s much more important to look to ourselves and to what’s going on between us and our partner than look outside the marriage.”

He says people who are drawn to sex outside marriage, or outside a committed relationship, invariably are looking for a quick fix. “They may feel their marriage or relationship isn’t satisfying, but they don’t want to go through the problems of divorce,” he says. “It may temporarily make people feel good, but it doesn’t deal with the underlying issues that are going on in that marriage or relationship. It may be a short-term, ‘feel-good’ experience, but it doesn’t really solve issues and can become an avoidance.”

Lanzaratta agrees that swinging can be detrimental for couples whose relationships are in trouble. But for those involved in solid, mutually satisfying relationships, he maintains, “it’s just the opposite—it brings couples closer together and deepens their commitment. It’s not the way to fix a bad marriage; it’s a way to enhance a good marriage.”

What drives people to seek sex outside of marriage? Monogamy is unnatural, Lanzaratta says—which is why so many people have affairs, something he rails against.

He adds that, contrary to common thought, women are often the drivers behind a couple’s entry into “the lifestyle.”

“A lot of women would like maybe to have an experience with another woman, but they have no idea how to go about it in regular society,” Lanzaratta says. “This is one place they can find it. This is very acceptable here. It’s the covering up and the cheating that destroys a marriage, not the sex. This is something couples do together.” 

1 posted on 08/06/2002 8:53:49 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom; spectre; ~Kim4VRWC's~; Travis McGee; BunnySlippers; DoughtyOne; ...
PING...
2 posted on 08/06/2002 8:55:36 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Blood, DNA, hair, fibers, fingerprints = Westerfield Guilty.
3 posted on 08/06/2002 8:59:15 PM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Perhaps...but this is a swiss cheese prosecution...it has so many holes in it, it stinks...
4 posted on 08/06/2002 9:05:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Y_A_A_A_W_W_W_N_N_N!

5 posted on 08/06/2002 9:06:51 PM PDT by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Well, here's proof that 9:00 pm PST is computer time at the asylum. It's usually over in less than an hour and then back to lock-up.
6 posted on 08/06/2002 9:07:33 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
BUMP
7 posted on 08/06/2002 9:09:59 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
Interesting that you're yawning after looking at your profile page. You seem to have a very big interest in crimes involving children and/or abductions.
8 posted on 08/06/2002 9:11:33 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Perhaps...but this is a swiss cheese prosecution...it has so many holes in it, it stinks...

Like blood on Westerfield's jacket? I'd convict him on that alone.

9 posted on 08/06/2002 9:11:35 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Yikes...... Lest someone misunderstand, I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about you, Frez.
10 posted on 08/06/2002 9:13:14 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
I knew what you meant. Threadjackals!!!!
11 posted on 08/06/2002 9:17:21 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Think I'll just let this post chill overnight. Maybe there won't be a very large maggot mass when I return tomorrow. G'night.
12 posted on 08/06/2002 9:19:27 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
My heart breaks thinking of the terror Danielle must have endured during the last hours of her life.

My faith in God assures me that she has a home in Heaven.

May God bless her parents, her brothers, her loved ones and all who knew her and are in pain over her tragic death.

May God bless David Westerfield and his family and friends.

13 posted on 08/06/2002 9:19:28 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: FresnoDA
I've followed your recent posts on this.

I'll go with those who don't think the prosecution has proved its case against Westerfield.

He's a weird dude, but so is everybody else in this.

The bug evidence bothers me, and I still don't see how he could how gotten in and out of that house with the girl.

Also, I think the cops were under tremendous pressure to arrest someone. He was nearby, and he didn't look all that innocent. So maybe they bagged him.

But what with all the other unnamed weirdos who had been coming and going from that house -- and he'd apparently never been in it himself -- I'm not so sure they've got the right guy here.

I think he has reasonable doubt on this.
15 posted on 08/06/2002 9:28:22 PM PDT by The Other Harry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
There seems to be little doubt that DVD is dead, and probably was murdered.

But the evidence presented by the prosecutor, on balance, has exonerated the accused. The prosecutor's own expert witnesses couldn't, and wouldn't, even support his theories.

I expect the jury to deliberate one or two hours, at most, and return a resounding "NOT GUILTY" verdict.

16 posted on 08/06/2002 9:30:21 PM PDT by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
And that proves WHAT????

It proves that you aren't yawning and in fact are very interested in what's discussed here.

It also proves you're dishonest. Either that or you're a glutton for punishment.

I never click on threads or topics that bore me. You do?????

17 posted on 08/06/2002 9:30:27 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
**FREE NINJA DAVE**FREE NINJA DAVE**FREE NINJA DAVE**

sometimes, i jes caint hep mysef

18 posted on 08/06/2002 9:33:02 PM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
LOL......thanks. I needed that.
19 posted on 08/06/2002 9:35:49 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
I just posted this to you on another thread.

Did Dusek say that the blue fibers -- in her hair and on the MH headboard -- were from her blanket from her room ? I saw this posted (as a question) on another forum. I only heard portions throughout the afternoon so I don't know if he said it.

20 posted on 08/06/2002 9:36:06 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 1,141-1,144 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson