My response sort of fits in with Kim's, so I thought I could repost it here.
"If it came to be known that she was involved in swinging that night would you feel that she had contributed in some way to Danielle's abduction?"
I'm glad you asked that.
No, not at all.
Let me tell you why.
Theoretically, it's not whether the van Dams were swinging or not that night, it's whether by doing so, they failed to protect Danielle from a sexual predator.
If whatever the van Dams were doing at the time of the abduction is to blame for Danielle's fate, then they would have been equally as guilty if they were simply sleeping.
The problem that FR posters have with this case as opposed to, let's say the Polly Klaas abduction, is the rumours of what the van Dam's may have been doing that evening. In both cases, children were abducted from their bedrooms (in Polly's case in the presence of her friends, while her mom was zonked on pain killers in the room next door, trying to get rid of a migraine) by a sexual predator and murdered. Yet few would point fingers at Polly's mother and call her negligent.
The difference must then be our opinion of the alleged activity itself.
But that doesn't make any sense either, because if they had NOT be swinging, and they HAD been locked in the garage playing poker, and listening to Pink Floyd real loud (keeping the door closed so that the kids wouldn't wake up) they should be able to assume, with a good amount of reasonable expectation, that no one will come into their home and kidnapp their child her bed while they were very obviously at home.
I mean, would it have been OK if they had been in the garage with the door closed simply playing poker and listening to music?
What difference does WHAT they may have been doing in the garage make?
If the van Dam's are to share in the guilt of Danielle's death because they weren't watching her when she was abducted, then every parent of every abducted child is partially to blame for their fate.
Some claim that the fact that they swung meant that they brought strangers into their home, yet, no one involved is a stranger to the van Dams, including the people that came over late that night.
Nor is Westerfield a stranger.
Now, having said all that, I'd like to point out a few things about this story.
It's been nearly one month since Danielle's abduction.
Let's see what we KNOW about the van Dam's swinging lifestyle.
We know that a local DJ claims to have received a tip from a "highly placed law enforcement official", which I believe is how DJ Rick Roberts markets his "informant".
We know that internet chat rooms and forums (us) have been buzzing with talk about the van Dam's swinging, generated of course by the Rick Roberts coverage.
We know that Larry King asked them directly, and they chose instead to talk about the subject that they had come to talk about. For the record, had I been in Mr. van Dam's seat, I would have kicked Larry's ass for asking the question to begin with.
Now it bothers me to no end that one month later, not one single one of the "perverts" that the van Dam's have swung with has decided to sell his "I SWUNG WITH BRENDA" story to some upstanding publication like the National Enquirer or the Washington Post.
Not a single one.
Beyond that, not one single neighbor (that we now of) has mentioned anything about the van Dams doing anything improper at all in close to one month, to any one of the dozen reporters that have been camped in the neighborhood since the story broke.
That really puts Rick Robert's informant in a bad light, specially taking the whole "don't use my name" thing into consideration.
Now, last, but not least.
I know cops. I know detectives.
I have talked about this to some.
There's no way that a highly placed law enforcement official made that call. If one did, he should be found, and at the very least fired. Preferably, he should be arrested and charged with obstructing an ongoing investigation.
In the post-JonBennett world of missing children investigations, the investigators are much too aware of the mistakes made in Colorado, and the cost to the police there to make such phone calls.
There's no way in my mind that caller was really what Rick Roberts says that he is.
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. If someone chooses to be around people with less than godly morals, they are opening themselves up to exposure to people who do immoral things, if not in the IMMEDIATE circle of trysts, then their trysts trysts. The outer circle gets ever-more immoral group of people, IMO. Some in the outer circle may come and go between several circles, fluctuating between, let's say, the VD inner circle of trysts and those in an outer circle, let's say even less moral group of people. Like attracts like through the full spectrum---it's human nature. There are always people on the cusp, so to speak, who is a sort of on the fence between fitting into one group and another. These types of people are salamanders, changing colors to fit the group their in, fooling others into believing they are like "them." The murderer could have been such a salamander, brought into the inner circle.
We know that Larry King asked them directly, and they chose instead to talk about the subject that they had come to talk about. For the record, had I been in Mr. van Dam's seat, I would have kicked Larry's ass for asking the question to begin with
I don't blame Larry King for asking that question. We know that mother VD was asked a couple weeks ago by a reporter the same type of question. She avoided answering it by changing the subject, saying something like "it doesn't matter what the rumors are (not denying), we are worried about finding our daughter," or something to that effect. Avoidance of answers always raises eyebrows.
Thank you Luis for your excellent summary.
Do you ACTUALLY think that the Van Dams are going to be "swinging" while all this attention is focused on them?? It's RIDICULOUS!!!
By all means, their lifestyle put their children in jeopardy.....playing cards with straight friends and "swinging" with strangers are really NOT in the same league.