Posted on 02/09/2002 6:53:27 AM PST by crypt2k
That's why it frightens me when I see/read people saying, "just let them in, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about." Next it will be "just agree with them and sign this admission, if you aren't a criminal, you have nothing to worry about."
Here's the problem with that approach. This is how guilty people react...
That is how most innocent people would feel. However having worked for the U.S. Attorneys Office in Chicago, my advice is to get lawyered up as fast as you can. Too many prosecuters want to close cases, not find justice.
So if you give a damn about the result of the investigation, you may want to cooperate with the authorities, and I do not see this as an abrogation of rights in the least.
Exactly. The "open door" policy for swingers....and one of the swingers who knew this may have gone upstairs after Danielle while they were "indisposed" in the garage.
/1/ Westerfield is likely negotiating the body's return for his life.
/2/ The parents know they will look like heartless orgy porgies who were so after chasing their pleasure that they literally left the door open to the abduction of their daughter by one of the many unknown "swingers" they let into their lives. And then they were so spent and consumed by their pleasure chase they didn't even bother to check Danielle's room for over 11 hours until one of her friends came over at 930AM.
They may not have abducted her, but they sure set up the conditions for her abduction.
Why do parents need a garage/party room with locks on the inside?
Can you think of a casual reason for that?
Also, the police have interviewed the folks from the bar who came home to their house. So the cops hve a good idea of what was going on in the garage. That's where the orgy rumors come from.
, the van Dams are the subject of rumors that they are involved in a swinging club, where couples typically engage in sex with other couples.
"This is in no way related to the investigation," Brenda van Dam said. "Nothing would get in between me checking on my children. It's a rumor. I don't know why people would want to be hurtful."
is there a denial in there somewhere????
========
diefree, you may be recalling the reason for the parents having a pair of pj's that were the very same as the ones that Danielle was wearing the night she was abducted.
At some time prior to that night, Danielle had a sleep-over and the mother thought it would be fun for the girls to have matching pajamas.
There was no sleep-over the night that Danielle taken.
Don't despair, and save your pedantic tone. I know the Constitution and I don't need your explanation.
Your argument makes sense....to a criminal.
My wife is a Federal Special Agent. She's not interested in closing cases by railroading innocents, she's interested in finding the guilty %!@%!$#@ and putting them behind bars. People who have committed no crimes, but who are suspects because of their proximity to the crime scene, spouses or friends of the victim, etc, cooperate with her. They answer her questions. They allow permissive searches. This allows the police to ELIMINATE potential suspects and find the real bad guy. It's not always obvious who committed a crime. The guilty are typically discovered through a process of elimination.
Bad guys lie to her all the time. They don't cooperate. They demand warrants. They won't talk to her. They act in the manner you suggest one should act when interacting with police. If you're guilty of a crime and want to get away with it, it's logical to the act this way. But if you're not guilty, and you're uncooperative, i.e. demand warrants, won't talk without a lawyer, etc., it's logical that the human beings who make up the local, state, and federal police agencies are going to suspect that you ARE guilty because you're behaving that way. And you will attract their attention. That's their job. In doing so, you will divert investigative resources away from the real criminal.
As a law-abiding citizen, aren't you glad that criminals do stupid things like allow warrantless searches and get caught? Do you want to see criminals guilty of crimes escape the consequences of their actions? Do you want to make it hard for police to do their jobs? Do you want to see the guilty go free? What's wrong with cooperating with police when you can help with a criminal investigation? If everyone behaved in the manner you prescribe, the police would not be able to solve many crimes now would they?
If you lived next door to the San Diego family that is missing its daughter would you not talk to the police? Would you not allow them to bring the dog into your house so that they could clear you as a suspect? If you said no, the police would be right to suspect that you had something to do with that crime. If they didn't suspect you, they'd be incompetent! You would be hindering the investigation by not helping, and by diverting resources toward you that could be used to find the real bad guy who molested and killed a little girl. If you cooperate, you're quickly ruled out and law enforcement can get on with doing its very important job of finding the real creep.
As I said, exercise your rights. You're free to do so. But there are consequences to the good guys and victims. My value system recognizes that along with our rights, we have civic responsibilities, one of which is cooperating with police when possible.
American Beauty, indeed.
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.