Posted on 03/12/2002 6:35:18 PM PST by FresnoDA
Kim the tow other prints are known people jennifer and I believe Daniell his girlfrinds daughter..more later got to run..
Wow! I hadn't heard that. You're right, that's pretty compelling to me too.
(Thanks for spotlighting that, there's just too much info about this case
being put on FR to read it all)
Real FReepers can take it, as well as dish it out.
sw
Something about this case bugs a lot of people. But not because most think Westerfield *didn't* do it. At least by my reading.
I've always been the sort who tended to lean toward the prosecution in cases like this, at least initially. It would have been just as easy to arrest the parents for this crime as David Westerfield. Or so goes my logic.
The weirdness about this case, and the reason for the mesmerizing of the media, is just what was going on with the parents when all of this was going on?
Don't forget the parents did pass a lie detector test early on. While Westerfield did not.
However, the parents are alleged to be "swingers". There is also disparity on the times that fateful night, by the parents, and this puts a stain on thought. I'm still not sure if the father was even home that night. At first I heard he was. Then I read he was not, or was not and was *supposed* to be.
Finally, this Westerfield connection with child porn is very iffy. They found a lot of porn on his computer, to be sure. And some of it was very hard core. But of over 60K of images, only about 100 was deemed possible child porn, if even that. I'd figure a guy actively seeking child porn would have a better track record than this.
I think it's entirely possible Westerfield murdered little Danielle to extract some sort of revenge on her mother. Remembering that Westerfield was very flirtish with Brenda Van Dam earlier that week when she and Danielle were in his house selling girl scout cookies. He made some comment to Brenda VD to tell her friends that she had a rich neighbor. The sort of behavior a heterosexual male pursues is what I'm saying here. He did go to the same bar that Friday as Brenda and her friends and he did buy them all a drink. By Brenda Van Dam's own admission, she tried to be polite to Westerfield but didn't want to encourage him. She wasn't interested, in other words.
Still the behavior or a heterosexual male into adult woman is what I'm thinking.
At any rate, I *do* believe DW murdered Danielle. Now that I find out he had another girlfriend with a daughter named Danielle, I ponder that he lashed out in rage and took an opportunity presented by an empty Van Dam house and a child named Danielle asleep and unprotected within.
What's more interesting, at least to the salacious I, I admit, is what the hell were those parents doing that Friday night and did their "activities" keep them from protecting their children as normal?
The media knows this as well, and is salivating at the prospect of this trial. Add to this many peoples' speculation that perhaps the Van Dams' had something to do with Danielle's death and, hey, it should be interesting.
This has been my gut feeling all along. I hope I'm wrong.
You wrote
and finally, if PEACE on Free Republic must come at the price of bowing in reverence to "certain posters", then I have but one life to live at FR......and I will risk permanent removal....
1. I truly hope you would never bow to anyone but your creator! No one here expects you to bow to anyone!
2. If Jim Rob would allow personal attacks , etc..then many people would not support FR..as evidence by comments made on his thread
When Jim Rob wrote this:
Believe it or not, Free Republic was not established as an "anything goes" free speech forum, or as a liberal debating society. This forum was established as a working forum for like-minded lovers of individual rights to work toward preserving a concept near and dear to our hearts. Freedom. And for restoring our formerly free republic to its former greatness and original intent as established by our Founding Fathers. And to fight against the very real threat of losing it all.We are not here to fuss and fight with each other. Your personal gripes and petty dislikes are not interesting to anyone but yourself. Keep it to yourself. Keep it off the forum. If you do not like an argument advanced by a poster, critique the argument. Advance your own side of the issue. But do not insult or attack the poster. And please do not allow a difference of opinion to become a forum disrupting flame war or long-lasting thread killing feud.
I chose to respect his wishes. a long time ago...and many others agree with him. On the other hand, the way certain issues were handled the weekend before last, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way..as you well know. So, yes, let's debate, and don't hold back. Tough Freepers can follow rules..because they are TOUGH. To take the easy way out is to not respect the host and do what one wants.
You take care and I look forward to reading your news articles...staying on top and questioning will always be important on our quest for truth.
Ok, I wasn't going to reply (YEAH, RIGHT!!!!), but since you brought it up...I think it's ok to do this...
Believe it or not, Free Republic was not established as an "anything goes" free speech forum, or as a liberal debating society. This forum was established as a working forum for like-minded lovers of individual rights to work toward preserving a concept near and dear to our hearts. Freedom. And for restoring our formerly free republic to its former greatness and original intent as established by our Founding Fathers. And to fight against the very real threat of losing it all.
We are not here to fuss and fight with each other. Your personal gripes and petty dislikes are not interesting to anyone but yourself. Keep it to yourself. Keep it off the forum. If you do not like an argument advanced by a poster, critique the argument. Advance your own side of the issue. But do not insult or attack the poster. And please do not allow a difference of opinion to become a forum disrupting flame war or long-lasting thread killing feud.
Again, I feel so much better once I have been "straightened out" by you. Thank you very much..........forum disrupting flame war or long-lasting thread killing feud......I will abide, and I presume......so will you.......
Yes, point well taken. I've been here for several years, and never saw threads shut down so quickly over so little. Usually it takes some real flames--and by that I don't mean mamby pamby stuff like plates of milk being put out or pms jokes. I've seen people called real names, and flamed so badly that surely their monitors flamed out. Most of those threads lived. How come these have had so much trouble, I wonder?
While I am not flaming (and in my opinion, have not in the past, not in any real sense, as mentioned above), I don't see the point in agreeing with someone just so I can keep my membership. What use is membership in a place where you have to worry about getting booted off for expressing an opinion or disagreeing with someone else's? That's not freeping. That's tyranny. So--I'll keep on as I have, until I disappear. If I do, you'll know why. :)
"Who says A, must say B." as Bill Buckley says. The problem with the "strong allegations" is they are completely unsupported by LEO behavior (can't prove Rick Robert's source is really LEO!).
By assuming usupported allegations (A), one is also saying (B) that LEO is either ignorant, incompetent, complicit, covering up......etc. etc. etc.
All of which may be true (or not), but where are the supporting rumors of (B), that LEO is involved in either gross stupidity or gross criminality.
LEO is either ignorant of allegations, investigated nothing. Not likely considering publicity.
LEO is complicit, criminal, and is covering up. Got any evidence/allegation/rumour/accusation of that?
LEO is aware of and has investigated this angle and discounted for reasons not shared with the public.
The first two are poorly supported by known facts. The van Dams may be evasive with the press, but they owe the media and the public, not one thing. LEO, to whom they owe a legal and moral duty of full cooperation, says they have gotten it.
I'm betting the cops are right. BTW, recent articles point out DW glaring lie about having left his wallet as a reason for the change in his "trip" plans.
I think drugs/alcohol may have played a part in dulling the senses which led to the failure of basic security precautions. However, that is neither criminal or negligence (in the legal sense). There is a basic right to security in one's own home/property. Children have an even greater right to presumptive security, especially while asleep in their beds. That predators take advantage of opportunity created by human failings, does not make their criminal acts less criminal, or shift the responsibility to the victims. It makes them more heinous and morally corrupt. To prey upon the weak is a great moral wrong.
The problem is predators, the solution is predator control.
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.