Posted on 06/05/2002 11:36:24 PM PDT by FresnoDA
My point is that instead of relying on his client's innocence, he's attacking the parents of the victim for an unrelated lifestyle. If these parents had had several friends over for a night of gin rummy, nobody would be even questioning them.
I disagree. I think you may be missing the point. It is not the pot, the sex. It is the LIES,LIES, LIES, CHANGING STORIES, COVERUPS, LIES, and LIES AGAIN. LYING RIGHT IN COURT TODAY, SEVERAL TIMES AND BEING CAUGHT AT IT.
If you go back on these posts, you find that the VD's said the dog could not bark. (had it vocal cords cut). Then said it could bark but didn't learn to. Then Damon admitted it barked. Then, from what I heard, the tape of the 911 call, you can hear the dog barking.
People that repeatedly lie probably are covering up the truth.
They both now state "When we realized the importance of the situation, we told the police everything they wanted to know". The IMPORTANCE OF THE SITUATION. HELLO!!!!!! YOUR DAUGHTER IS MISSING AND COULD BE DEAD. HOW IMPORTANT DOES SOMETHING HAVE TO BE TO GET YOU TO TELL THE TRUTH? They lied about the drugs and sex SIX times, and for I don't remember exactly how many hours.
IT IS ABOUT THE LIES, nothing else.
Quila, nice to converse with you. Please don't take any of this as yelling at you or attacking you. I am explaining what I have seen, and the yelling (all caps) is directed to the VD's.
Nice to have someone else up late to talk to.
It gets so ridiculous that many have come to the conclusion that is could be ANYONE BUT WESTERFIELD !
Like many others, If I could see just ONE piece of irrefutable evidence against DW, then I wouldn't be so maligned towards the VD's and associates.
Like I said, I think this trial will be a waste of time unless something comes out that points to the real abductor/killer. If evidence comes out that proves that DW is that A-K, then I will be happy to proclaim to all how wrong I was.
....that IT could be anyone but Westerfield.
I obviously don't know as much about the case as you do, but it seems the lies were to cover up that for which they knew they'd get raked over the coals for: drugs and sex. Or maybe they are still hiding something?
Nice to have someone else up late to talk to.
I'm in a different time zone.
Well, let me help.
Lies or changing stories about the alarm lights
which doors were found open downstairs
Whether the kids doors were open or closed
whether Brenda went upstairs with Barb the first time
Whether the dog could bark
Whether Brenda danced with DW
Whether Brenda knew DW by name or just by face
While selling GS cookies, whether the kids ran free in DW's house or not
Whether Brenda invited strangers back to her house after Dad's closed
whether the PJ's the grandma had held up for the press were Danielle's or an 'identical' pair kept for the neighbor girl to use
When they left the bar
When they got home
When the partiers left the VD home
When they went to bed
And this is the short list.
If you could answer that, you could probably solve the mystery of what happened to Danielle!
Twigs questioned whether Damon would have enough attention to detail to be concerned about whether Danielle had a nightlight or not. Considering he has shown about as much consideration of other people as Bill CLinton, I agree.
I question this aspect of it:
.....1030pm and he leaves her blinds open because her nightlight is burnt out. IT'S DARK!
Now, we must take into consideration the following: Maybe it was a full moon
Maybe they have a big light right outside her window somewhere
Does anyone know if either of these is true. If not, then why leave blinds open when it is pitch black outside ????????
Maybe, as another poster suggested, because he didn't put Danielle to bed, and needed an excuse for why her blinds weren't closed?
Unrelated to what?
Unrelated to the girl's death. Their preoccupation with some "entertainment" at the time may have been a contributing factor as far as negligence, but then they are not on trial for negligence right now. It's only because of the socially unacceptable nature of their "entertainment" that this is all coming out, and the defense is trying to use that to influence the jury against the parents of the girl to take some heat off the accused.
Swingers fish, any place they go becomes a lake full of new tasty fish. They bait, they lure, they hook.
But in the swinging lake, some of the fish are man-eaters, they love the fishers, and come after a lure not for the lure but for the person using it.
The van Dam's "lifestyle" could well be the attractive thing that attracted the girls killer (if she was in fact, killed -- that is NOT proven). The "lifestyle" should have been considered in the investigation more -- so it looks to myself and many. And the "lifestyle" MUST be brought before the jury in order to fairly consider it in weighing "reasonable doubt" regarding Westerfield -- "reasonable" includes considering any reasonable alternatives.
Good catch! I'll look for some transcripts. Often, they don't keep them for those short little interviews, but maybe we'll luck out? Then again, John Walsh isn't always a real good source--he gets things terribly mucked up, like the time he said that Westerfield had just moved in a couple of months prior--the sort of things that could have been easily checked, and should have been checked.
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.