Posted on 03/22/2002 9:04:21 AM PST by FresnoDA
Preferential Child Molester
Preferential Child Molesters have a definite sexual preference for children. Their sexual fantasies and erotic imagery focus on children. They have sex with children not because of some situational stress or insecurity but because they are sexually attracted to and prefer children. If this individual does not act on his urges, then he is not a child molester.
Situational Child Molester
Situational Child Molesters do not have a true sexual preference for children, but engage in sex with children for varied and complex reasons. This type of molester may engage in sex with a child, ranging from a once-in-a-lifetime act to a long-term pattern of behavior. The more long-term the behavior is, the more difficult it is to distinguish from a preferential molester. Members of lower socioeconomic groups tend to be over represented among situational child molesters.
Adolescent Offenders
An area of increasing attention is that of adolescent offenders. This type of offender can fit the characteristics of the preferential or situational child molester. Adolescent (or younger) offenders should always be viewed as past or current victims of sexual abuse. This may include psychological sexual abuse, inappropriate exposure to sexually explicit materials, and/or the repeated or inappropriate witnessing of adult sexual activity.
Question: Are all child molesters pedophiles?
Answer: No.
A pedophile is an individual who prefers to have sex with children. A person who prefers to have sex with an adult partner may, for any number of reasons, decide to have sex with a child. Such reasons may include simple availability, curiosity, or a desire to hurt a loved one of a molested child. The sexual fantasies of these individuals do not necessarily focus on children.
Question: How does the abuse occur?
Answer:
Abuse occurs in a wide range of situations and settings. For long-term abusers, often, the child molester will “court” the child with attention, affection, and gifts. Just as one adult courts another during a dating process, the pedophile seduces children over a period of time by gradually lowering their sexual inhibitions. Sometimes the molester will tickle, wrestle, or hug the child in the presence of others first, adding legitimacy to the activity that will occur later in private. Often a child feels guilty or ashamed of the abuse. Children may feel that a short amount of uncomfortable feeling is worth the amount of attention and affection and perceived care they receive from the molester.
Excerpted from Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis by Kenneth V. Lanning.
Actually....how would Damon do when analyzed by the same criteria.....just wondering.....
Are there Danielle pic's on the web already? Could these facial ID systems the police state wanna-be's are buying these days ID a particular girl from among the zillions of web images?
He claims SOMEONE was willing to put the money up if needed... OK...WHATEVER. Anywayz....I won't bother to reply to your so called intellectual, philosophical contributions to these threads again.
Silver Strand rangers said Westerfield arrived at the $12-a-night oceanfront campground Feb. 2. A ranger knocked on his motor-home door to refund the overpayment between 3 and 3:30 p.m., and Westerfield drove off about 20 minutes later. rangers did not go inside the vehicle and did not see or hear a child. He did not seem nervous, said Chief Ranger John Quirk.
Yes, I thought the guy seemed odd, too. But certainly no more bizarre than a married couple who wife-swaps, uses drugs, doesn't bother to check on open doors and beeping alarm systems, and lies through their teeth under oath. Anybody who puts their own personal pleasure (including drugs and sex) ahead of the safety and well-being of their own children is far more likely to be a pedophile contact than someone who's putting up a reward to help them get back the child they lost through their own negligence.
Just curious how does not paying taxes for a foundation impact his credibility? He got the money. Does this situation apply to the BAIL BONDSMAN who put up money? Does it bring his integrity in to question? What must his motives be. Surely he works with less savory people. Besides the purpose of most foundations is that they are a TAX SHELTER, not a do-good institution, and you move your shares or cash in it when you need it. Generally they are not for profit institutions.
If, that is, they have the killer in custody. And Crystalk has, several times, suggested an alternate theory that perhaps the child somehow died as an accident, and the entire thing is smoke and mirrors. Kind of makes you go "hmmm...."
But seriously, WHY the need for the van Dams to lie?
Remeber who she spoke under her breath "where's this hoing anyway" while being crossed by that maniacal master of cross examination Feldman? He got ahead of her weaving, she didn't want to lose the warp.
The van Dams started spinning their little web of deception ~before~ Westerfield was arrested, i.e., the conflicting change of stories and timelines, etc.
I don't understand the accusations people are making against DW being "weird". He went to the bar, as a single man might do, he stuck to his routine of going camping as he usually did. AND, he lived a private life, but was too neat?! Since when, does that make a person weird?
The van Dams aren't very bright people or have some minor brain damage from the drugs and alcohol, to not stick to their stories. OR they just think we all are stupid.
~sw~
On another thread, somone speculated that DW could see Danielle's bedroom from his house. The published floorplan shows this is clearly wrong. Danelle's bedroom is on the wrong side of the house from DW house.
However, the VD master bedroom is on the same side of the house as DW. Unfortunately, the floor plan does not show the window layout for the MB wall facing VD. Could it be that DW had a thing for Brenda VD, and watched activites in the VD master bedroom?
In the John and Ken radio interview, Brenda said something that still bugs me. She was asked how a kidknapper could enter their home undetected, find Danielle's room in the dark, and leave undetected. Brenda said there were limited models of houses in their neighborhood, and therefore someone from the neighborhood would be familiar with the room layout, even in the dark. This is an odd statment. Why suspect kidnappers woud be living in this upscale neighborhood?
In published photos, it's clear DW's house is different from the VD's. DW has a two car garage, VD three. In published photos the house between VD and DW has the garage door open and a large U-Haul truck in front. What is going on here? This house is the same model as DW house. Further, the house on the opposite side of DW is the same model as the VD house. These houses are within spitting distance of each other. I'm sure these neighbors know more about each others coming and goings than has been revealed so far.
From the PH, we now know that BvD had been in DW's house, and looked around quite a bit. There is no testimoney that DW was ever in the VD house. So if Brenda suspected DW, she would know that DW's house was not the same as her's. Which makes the radio interview statement very puzzling.
It has been widely alleged including by DW, that the vehicle of Damon van Dam was not at the VD home when he left for the bar nor had it returned when he returned from the bar.
IF THIS CAN BE TRUE, as checked by neighbors etc, then obviously the children were left alone in an unsecured house, and very probably all night---
and furthermore, the VD's entire story as told under oath would be FALSE, and one of the earlier rumors that he was away with another woman all night, would probably prove true.
One wonders whether his admission to "Barbara in bed" et al was not just to deflect suspicion away as to whether HE was even in the bed, much less Barbara.
p
There is also now this latest question about the Westerfield SUV as distinguished from the RV. Perhaps DW was up loading the SUV vehicle late that evening, till 2 or 3, but that testimony has been called into question, and he may have simply gone to bed when he returned home at midnight. But THIS IS NOT THE VEHICLE that contained any prints, dna, or other evidence of Danielle/Brenda van Dam.
However early or late he last was in the vehicle on 2/1, did he let it sit there until he left in it some 9-or-10 for Hi-Valley to recover his RV-motorhome?
If so, that would virtually eliminate any chance that whatever was in the RV had any bearing on the fate of Danielle or vice-versa, since said RV was away in storage during the whole operative time. We also know where he went in it that weekend once he had it, which is very much anti-Dehesa if you see what I mean.
For any conventional guilt theory involving Westerfield to hold up at all well, we need for him to have somehow gotten up very early Sat. am, driven out to Hi-Valley, put something awful into the RV, without leaving any traces whatever of the unspeakable's presence in the SUV in which it had been taken out there...
And then he drove the awful thing out in the RV and dumped it at Dehesa, then returned to Hi-Valley, left the RV there again for the moment, returned to Sabre Springs in the SUV, stayed an hour at most, then returned yet again to Hi-Valley to pick up the RV and then return yet again to Sabre Springs by 9 am or so...
all of this unevidenced by the neighbors as far as I can see, who were up and around and thick as fleas on a dog. They say, if I understand anything, that he calmly slept in until he and the SUV left at 9:30 or 10?
I know this thread was originally about sex offenders and pervs but look a some of the stuff in the non-tabloid, non-porn mags out there, it borders on porn and is extremely suggestive. I know men who have remarked upon the ads in these mags.
I think the neighbor, as well intentioned as she may be, is confused. "I noticed the blinds on that night but never looked before but I tell you it was then"... she suports that theory about birds of a feather... there shall be no blemish on suburbia or LE.
I think David is a target because of his success and that he's single. For Brenda's part, she would sell DW in a second, because if it was DvD, there's no guarantee she could get David other than for a quickie, He know what she IS. For DvD to hand him over, well it's just the competition. And besides if David's convicted, they can sue and they will win, even if he's not convicted they can still sue and win.
I don't see DW how he could have kidnapped and killed and dumped Danielle, in the time frame the police give since he had to use the RV. Maybe this is a smoke screen by SDPD, no it's just convenient. Fathers don't assault their children (yeah right), and single men with porn do. Brenda had to have know about the porn or suspected, it's just too easy. Even the DA knows that, and he's just trying keep the doubts lingering and they lynch mob stoked. As I've said often, no matter how distasteful you find porn, it does not a murderer make. Besides, if he was that in to it, there would be more recent porn and more than 1 interactive movie/cartoon. More people should understand this.
Okay, that's my 3 and one-half cents for this evening.
Indeed, the way they sit, it is probable that busy working people living in one would scarcely even see/notice the other from one year to the next.
WRT: pierce, he stated in that article that he did not have the money..no credibility...IMHO. Yes, he said "he knows someone" who said they'd put the money up...so where is it? Who are they? I wonder if the people who discovered Danielle are going to see a dime of it. Maybe they didn't meet the stipulations, whatever they were. Frankly, I'm wondering if they'll actually accept the reward(s) offered anyway. I wouldn't..
I might have missed the report that said pages were ripped out of the diary.. That would be very strange indeed...where did you read that?
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.