Posted on 06/27/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Just to clarify, it is not speculation. It is DW's statements to the media and to the police (see interview with Det. Redden, for example).
To be fair, we don't know when these witnesses were found. The prosecution gets a rebuttal to the defense and it sounds like these witnesses would be to rebut any assertations presented by the defense.
(What's wrong with witnesses testifying when called by the prosecution? they could claim their "five minutes of fame" by coming forward on behalf of the defense. Unless they are testifying to "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...")
There is plenty of circumstancial evidence, the man is guilty as sin...Problem is, California has a real problem securing evidence...
How do you know he has NO HISTORY of child molestation? That evidence is usually suppressed...and you know it...
it's a good thing those pizza people were over or we wouldn't know if she actually disappeared at noon on Friday.
Herein lies the reason the stories of Brenda and Damon differ. Brenda takes off to go get 'pizza' (whatever that means). Damon comes home after work. Was Danielle there Friday evening ? Is everything a lie to cover this fact up ? Damon says pizza was from NOON, to cover for Brenda not really being gone to get pizza. The kids were left alone. Maybe Danielle took off then. The story of Brenda being in the shower when Barb/Denise arrive, then the story that Brenda/Danielle SURPRISED Barb by jumping out from behind another vehicle to surprise them. Why. Again, because Danielle wasn't there.
I think Danielle disappeared sometime Friday between NOON and 5:30pm. Damon and Brenda are covering up for this because Brenda was in a hurry to go OUT with friends and they both thought Danielle would SURELY show back up sometime. I think maybe the reason Damon wanted to get the partiers to go home early, is that he had to tell Brenda that Danielle never showed up. Then they had to work on cover stories, to keep it from looking like they were bad parents.
WHAT HAPPENED TO DANIELLE? Most likely case is that she wandered around the neighborhood, got picked up by a known sexual offender, then killed and dumped at a later time. Police did not have the means to investigate this possibility, because they are trying to follow leads that stem from her disappearing FROM THE HOME, LATE AT NIGHT on FRIDAY. If not true, and she disappeared early in the day, it would take a whole different manner of investigation. So , now , we may never find out what truly happened, because the parents have been trying to hide their mistakes.
And what about that dang dog bed???...where did it end up and what from what kind and color of fabric was it made?
Good post!
Doesn't this statement just about sum up the WHOLE of the police departments case against DW ??????
I think KIM has made an important point here, that everyone on the DW threads should READ and UNDERSTAND.
We all get so wrapped up in this, and sometimes we take it out on each other. Those that think DW did it, and those that think DAMON did it, and even those that think someone other than DAMON or DW did it, all have exactly the same proof.......NONE WHATSOEVER, NOT A CLUE, NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, OR RELIABLE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY.
And yet we all continue to ARGUE so STRONGLY with each other.
Have you ever went on a ride-along with cops? (riding in patrol cars for an entire shift?) They sit in their cars for what, 6-8 hrs EVERY DAY just driving..they have been trained to see things you and I can't see, won't see or just simply don't see. It's AWESOME to watch them see and catch things other drivers don't see. During my coursework, for extra-curricular activities..I went on ride alongs in the innercity..mind you, I need to try it in nicer neighborhoods, but it would be oh so boring. I was shocked when I heard a cop turn on the local rock station. I had no idea they could listen to rock/music during their jobs. (gosh, naivete at it's finish..20 somethigns have so many preconceived notions about cops anyway) You'll be riding along, chitchatting with officer friendly, trying to be aware of your surroundings, thinking *you're* scoping out neighborhoods, thinking *you're* noticing things, "like I did" and then all of a sudden the cop could just swing in a parking lot cuz he sees guys playing craps against a wall drinking maddog 20/20. I'm like WOW! Where'd they come from...
So, yes, we want to assume Officer Friendly is doing his job..and is well trained enough so that he can detect things we would not. Do you remember the post I posted about the dog's ability to ''smell fear'' on suspects? I think some, not all but some cops do the same thing.
I did hear on FNC they found the child's DNA in Westerfield's closet...Hmmmmmm..wonder how that got in there...The man is guilty as sin...maybe he'll get convicted..even in crazy in KA...
A good Independence Day to you and your's, Jaded....Great minds can disagree even on FR...
At any rate..I have no doubt Mrs. Van Dam is and was a terrible Mom...But regardless....Westerfield is guilty as sin...
Hope your summer is great...
Brenda revealed, on Larry King Live on December 3, 2002, that their babysitter was a teenage boy.
#706 “Seems to me, the blood on his clothes from that poor little girl...needs to be explained...”
#707 “That jacket is a big piece of evidence...not to mention his behavior on the days in question...I believe he’s guilty...”
That bloodstain was small and faint. It wasn’t seen by the dry-cleaners, and there’s no report of anyone seeing it until the jacket had been in police custody for nearly a week. The stain itself wasn’t sent to an outside laboratory to confirm the DNA results, only extracted DNA. One of the detectives who attempted to violate Westerfield’s constitutional rights was also a customer at that dry-cleaners. For these and other reasons, there has to be a question mark over that evidence.
His behavior? He only left home several hours after the kidnapping, and returned home twice that day, supposedly bringing Danielle back with him - extremely risky. He first went to the beach, where he was in close proximity to other people (but they heard nothing suspicious); and then to the desert, where there were several people hanging around his RV while its curtains were open, so they could look inside if they wanted to (and one person did, without seeing anything suspicious). These were both places he frequented (so this was normal behavior for him) and where his friends might have been, so it’s unlikely he’d have gone there with a kidnapped child.
#706 “How do you know he has NO HISTORY of child molestation? That evidence is usually suppressed...and you know it...”
So guilty, no evidence required.
#715 “I did hear on FNC they found the child’s DNA in Westerfield’s closet...Hmmmmmm..wonder how that got in there...The man is guilty as sin...”
There was no testimony that her DNA was found in his closet.
No trace of him was found anywhere in the van Dam home. A profusely sweating man, who was supposedly inside that house for over an hour, yet the search dogs couldn’t detect his scent there. That alone is “reasonable doubt”. And no trace of him at the body dump site either: the best the forensic people could do was some fibers there that were similar to fibers in his environment, but these could all have come from clothing the van Dams were wearing when they visited him earlier that week - incredibly, the criminalists didn’t investigate that possibility. And there were many other fibers with the body, including with her fingernails, that couldn’t be linked to him and therefore excluded him. The insect evidence also excluded him. That alone is also “reasonable doubt”. And no evidence in his house or vehicles of a sexual or even physical assault: the best they could do was two small bloodstains in or from his RV and none in his house - far less than one would expect if he were guilty, and far more consistent with an innocent explanation: Danielle was a headstrong, adventurous child, who could easily have snuck into his RV while it was parked unlocked outside her home, leaving behind that small amount of evidence.
These factors, and many more, are discussed in the book “Rush to Judgement”: http://tinyurl.com/6bzzyf4.
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.