Expert: Body dumped after defendant fell under suspicion (SO WHO DUMPED DANIELLE VAN DAM'S BODY??)

Union Trib ^ | July 11, 2002 | Steve Perez/Greg Magnus

[UCANSEE2]

especially if it is true that BVD at the prelim mouthed "Hi Dave"), It's not true.

May I ask, where you came up with that answer?

I for one would like to know if it is true or not. How do you know it isn't?

[connectthedots]

The whole weather thing promoted by Dusek was destroyed by one question from Feldman on redirect. The weather condictions would not change the experts opinion that the body was dumped within a few days of 2/16 and that there is no way to explain the absence of insect evidence that would permit the establishment of an earlier date for the disposal of the body. In other words, there is no way DW could have disposed of the body. Someone murdered Danielle, but it wasn't David Westerfield.

[Lanza]

Last I heard the Smart family hasn't been totally cleared as potential suspects, but the VD's were cleared ASAP. Hmmmm..... makes ya wonder....

[pyx]

I would be able to account for any forensic evidence that could be found.

You'd better pray you don't have someone with a political agenda on the jury at your trial, should you have one. It'd be pucker time for you if one on your jury didn't start by PRESUMING YOUR INNOCENCE. Its interesting that your pronouncements which seem to amount to, "I have nothing to hide", essentially advocate against PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. (For me, gutting the Constitution is just, not an option.)

I'll state it again for the benefit of others, there have been people on these threads who have pretty much convinced me that should something terrible befall a child in my neighborhood, I may indeed have second thoughs of offering help.

[UCANSEE2]

I watched the preliminary hearing. Neither van Dam displayed a friendly demeanor toward DW in any way. Quite the opposite.

May I ask which TV show you watched? Did you see this when the hearing started or before when everyone was being brought into the room and seated?

[cyncooper]

Well aren't you charming. (and crude, too!)

[mommya]

"I certainly can say that a child was not in my car or home without my permission."

No offense - but I remember when I said that I would certainly be able to acct. for all the people who had ever been in my house - you didn't seem to agree with that - but now you could be certain that somebody was never in your stuff? What I got out of what you said to me then was - "You may find prints (or fibers or whatever) from people you don't know have been in there at one time (i.e. construction workers)" - but now it would seem like you are saying - "No one could have been in my house (or car or whatever) without my knowledge."

[cyncooper]

I was addressing your hypothetical about a child in my neighborhood missing and the possibility of forensic evidence connected to them in my car or house.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I think the fact that the Prosecution is asking for the death penalty may be one thing that really kills their case.

I am absolutely pro capitol punishment. I would be in 100% agreement of the death penalty for Westerfield IF and ONLY IF there was not so much as a twinge of doubt in my mind. From what I have seen, there is nothing that has convinced me without a doubt or even close.

That may be the rub here. Some jurors may think he is most likely the perp but have little pieces that don't add up.

The Prosecution may have faired better if the investigation had been broader and given the appearance of an open minded search for the killer.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Hi, Ya Ya. I love your posts on other threads, but I encourage you to do some transcript reading, or click backwards on these posts and do some research.

Nancy Grace is a twit. She calls for sympathy for poor Brenda who was reduced to running the streets at 2a.m. calling her daughter's name. (Never happened)

The forensic evidence against DW comes down to
1. 1/4" spot of blood on the Motor Home carpet which the dogs never even stopped to investigate, so who knows how long it may have been there.
2. One partial print on one cabinet in the MH. Again, no one knows when it got there, but the dogs never tried to sniff out that area.
3. One hair in the MH sink that was Danielle's. But she had been at his house 3 days earlier, and could have been tracked in on his shoe from the house.
4. 3/16" spot of DNA on his green jacket. That may have been in his house when she was there.

People with better memories than mine can argue fiber minutiae, but the bottom line that I've heard is that there are similar looking fibers associated with Danielle and with DW, which "could or could not" have come from a common source.

Also problematical is that the DA only sought identification, confirmation of items that were likely to condemn DW. There was no, repeat, no effort to identify evidence objectively and then see if it fit the hypothesis that DW could have done it.

So much of what was promised by the prosecution's opening statement, and parroted by the media, has not been delivered. At absolute worse, DW looks "mildy, possibly, maybe" not innocent. But we are only half way through the defense.

Please check the info more. I respect your opinion on many topics, but think you're wrong here.

[mommya]

As far as the "Hi Dave" stuff goes - I must admit I don't buy it. I never saw this occurr and have only seen it referenced on the various boards.

[RnMomof7]

Do you know whether or not Brenda was there?

Probably measuring for window treatments......priorities priorities

[cyncooper]

Fair enough, South. I understand that POV.

[GoRepGo]

http://www.courttv.com/contact/

Just sent a nice, steaming letter to them chastising CTV for the continued employment of Lisa Bloom(ing idiot) and Nancy Grace-less- don't know how much good it will do but boy did it feel good!

[Rheo]

3. One hair in the MH sink that was Danielle's. But she had been at his house 3 days earlier, and could have been tracked in on his shoe from the house.

One hair in sink drain trap...not just laying in the sink..in the drain trap from how long ago??

[Spunky]

Thanks you very much.

[UCANSEE2]

CYNICS of Roosevelt believed that he had something to do with that

As was the case, and still is the case, the men on stage (Roosevelt,Truman,Kennedy,Nixon,Bush,Clinton,Reagan,Bush) have nothing to do with it. The men behind the curtain control it all.

In Truman's case, they picked him to run for VP of the US with Roosevelt. (1)Roosevelt didn't like Truman and never would have picked him. Roosevelt knew this was his last time in office, he was diagnosed with a fatal sickness (which he kept quiet from the press, and never had acknowledged himself, but everyone knew) and he was pretty bad off, so when told they were going with TRUMAN, he simply said he really didn't care who they picked.

(2) 'They' had decided on Truman because all other choices had 'little problems'. 'They' had made their decision, and put it into works , before notifying TRUMAN. They got together and had a meeting, where they invited TRUMAN. They had spent several hours beforehand rehearsing a 'phone call' with ROOSEVELT for him to ask TRUMAN to accept.

When TRUMAN got there, the phone rang, Roosevelt gave his rehearsed 'speech' and TRUMAN accepted. ALL controlled by these men 'behind the curtains'.

[demsux]

Feldmanized

[mommya]

Do you think you - as a 7 yr. old kid - could have gone into someone's car that was parked on the side of the road in your neighborhood - unlocked - without anyone but you knowing about it? I could have.

[pyx]

Well aren't you charming.

Thanks for self-identifying as one of the "some".

(and crude, too!)

I'd like to think I am sophisticated and plain spoken.

Then again, I'd like to think of myself as, smart, talented, and good looking. Alas, all I am in your eyes is an ignorant Southern farmboy.
I take great pride in being the latter.