Westerfield guilty of Danielle van Dam's murder

CNN ^ | August 21, 2002 Posted: 5:13 PM EDT (2113 GMT) | unknown

[WellsFargo94]

A jury Wednesday found David Westerfield guilty of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, whose nude body was dumped near a desert road last winter.

Westerfield, a 50-year-old engineer, sat slightly trembling, his face impassive, as the verdicts were read and the jurors were polled individually on each count.

[WellsFargo94]

The Ba$$-turd should be shaking! Did he actually think that he could get away with this?

[Unknown Freeper]

Uh... this was breaking news five hours ago.

[My2Cents]

This just in! -- Westerfield STILL guilty!

[Duke Nukum]

Uh... this was breaking news five hours ago.

Really, its not because the link in "breaking news" is just people betting on whether or not the jury would find Westerfield guilty, with links to other threads where people where still betting on whether or not Westerfield was guilty.

If this thread had been left in "breaking news" it would have been breaking news to me. There should be a new column called "goose chase news" 'cause that would be more apt. Or "broken news" for articles to replace the ones in "breaking news" where people are just speculating.

[InkStone]

So does this mean these wonderful parents, these fine role models, will get to retain custody of their surviving abused children? Those poor kids...

[Canadian Outrage]

I agree with you InkStone, that should be the very next question.

[WellsFargo94]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! There were NO ARTICLES posted regarding the details and I thought that someone might like to read more about this as I did when I logged on. I did a search and found no articles, just a lot of "he's guilty" posts.

Again, thanks.

[Unknown Freeper]

Hi, Wells. It was nothing personal against you. There had been other posts in breaking news. They were pulled because there were multiple posts regarding the topic in breaking news throughout the afternoon. Regards,

[WellsFargo94]

Thanks for the friendly reply. There were multiple posts, but none were articles. The reason that I posted the article later, was due to the fact that none had been written until then. Thanks anyway.