Skip to comments.
Witness: Murdered San Diego girl's mother danced with defendant
Associated Press ^
| 7-8-02
Posted on 07/08/2002 1:03:17 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
SAN DIEGO (AP) --
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: davidwesterfield; murder; vandam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-135 next last
To: bvw
Once again: The cause of death of Danielle van Dam is indeterminate.Care to explain why they're having a trial then?
81
posted on
07/08/2002 9:26:56 PM PDT
by
Howlin
To: tarawa
What matters here is that a little girl is dead, and the defense is trying to muddy the issue and get sympathy for their client, without providing any real evidence of innocence. Apparently you just stepped off the boat. Let me be the first to welcome you to America, where one is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (and this case had a truckload of reasonable doubt before the defense even began). The burder of proof is on the prosecution; otherwise, all of us would be spending all our waking moments trying to 'prove our innocence' against every ridiculous suspicion the statists could dream up. That would be like living in Stalinist Russia or NAZI Germany. If you would like to live like that, there's still quite a few third-world countries which provide that level of security.
82
posted on
07/08/2002 9:30:07 PM PDT
by
meadsjn
To: jdontom
There was a good point made at the link you provided:
"There does seem to be a rash of these lately. A girl up here in Northern California was abducted by someone and was able to escape because her dad taught her how to unlock a car trunk from the inside. Smart guy."
To: meadsjn
I have to wonder if tara really meant that the defense is focusing on the parents too much... everyone knows that the defense's job is to get the jury to believe the client did not do it no matter what they have to reveal! I have to wonder if the jury is reacting negatively to it..against DW's favor.
To: isthisnickcool
There is an active couple who are members of the group called parents of murdered children.. I went to school with their daughter..she was shot in the head by her schizophrenic boyfriend...he refused to take his meds. It's a terrible terrible tragedy..
I also know what it's like to file a missing person's report. It's sheer terror and I would NOT wish it on my worse enemy.. EVER.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Perhaps, and I understand the emotions drawn out over a child's demise, especially when the circumstances indicate that the person(s) responsible could logically be considered a continuing danger to others.
One problem many seem to have with this investigation and prosecution is that (and the trial has shown), a mountain of evidence was overlooked because it would have implicated others or would have cast more doubt on the case against DW. It's un-American to have our lives and liberties treated simply as a card to be played in some prosecutor's re-election game.
86
posted on
07/08/2002 10:05:54 PM PDT
by
meadsjn
To: Jaded
Talk about strange. Why would he put up a site like that? His lawyer must be nuts.
To: Jaded
Although I have not watched the trial, from the outset the affect of both parents is quite strange. The prevarication must make them somewhat suspect,unless they are just trying to hide their lifestyle.
To: Angelique
Did you read the disclaimer at the bottom? That is a Freeper's page.
To: Howlin
Care to explain why they're having a trial then?Good question, beats me.....
To: Types_with_Fist
"The support for David Westerfield found here has surprised me. But, this is the stupidest thing I've heard yet."
Many people live similar lifestyles. They see nothing wrong with it, and they will defend the Westerfields, thereby, defending their own lifestyles. There are people like that here at freerepublic, judging from some posts that I have seen.
To: Don Myers
92
posted on
07/08/2002 10:30:06 PM PDT
by
FresnoDA
To: Howlin
Since Westerfield was not wearing the bloody jacket at Dad's, the jury is apparently being asked to infer that Danielle's blood was transferred to her mother, then from her mother to the defendant on the dance floor, and then from the defendant to his jacket and to the carpeting of his motorhome. Needed to be said again. A most excellent observation.
Not really a good inference IMO, blood probably got on the jacket same time it got on the carpet in the MH...how did blood get on the sleeve of her shirt found in her room? Maybe an old nosebleed? Maybe the blood was lifted from the shirt in her room and a couple of drops were put on the carpet in the MH and the jacket? Try it with a q-tip and some cold distilled water on a blood stain...
To: Don Myers
What lifestyle are you referring to? If you refer to a love of our justice system, and a desire to see the correct person get convicted, then I suspect many of us here do live that "lifestyle".
Westerfield lives a lot more normal "lifestyle" than the swinging, negligent Van Dams.
To: Politicalmom
Actually, no, it is not that lifestyle. You are aware of the one to which I do refer.
To: Don Myers
BTW, PoliticalMom, we do agree that the girl was kidnapped and ended up dead, right? WE do agree that children who disappear like that do not die of natural causes, and are normally raped, right?
Do we agree that a degenerate lifestyle might be partially to blame? Probably not.
To: meadsjn
I don't know if this addresses your comments very well..but maybe it'll help a little at least. :)
To ignore a mountain of evidence indicates at least one thing, admitting that it's evidence related to the case. How do they find out if it was? I would think in EVERY crime there are fibers, hairs etc that have to be eliminated for a variety of reasons.
By gathering it, looking at it, and see if it's related to the crime. The mountain of evidence IS KNOWN not just to us, but to the investigators and defense as well.
Remember, they have guidelines..WHY was the criminalist told to only focus on evidence that related to Danielle in DW's motorhome?
So whatever the answer to the question is..is ONE of the reasons to ignore the mountain of evidence. IE: A color treated brown hair in his MH would not be Dw's hair and it wouldn't be Danielle's hair so it would have no relevance. The unknown handprint in the VD home --Do we even know if it was an adult or child? We don't know if it was a good print or a smeared print do we? I wonder if it was a print of a child unidentified friend.
I do not know what the SCOTUS would say about not allowing dw's atty/investigators in the VD home...but they do have every right to go over the evidence. The same rights as the prosecution.
To: Angelique; Jaded
Talk about strange. Why would he put up a site like that? His lawyer must be nuts. LOL~!!
To: Angelique; Jaded
That is jaded's website..
To: Politicalmom
DW lived a normal lifestyle...hanging out in bars with people who were on the stand today?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-135 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson