Posted on 08/22/2002 11:32:19 PM PDT by FresnoDA
There are things that have not been released yet, there are times already testified in court where the POLICE LIED. If it fit their needs, I guarantee you the police would lie. Seen it for myself, see it in this case.
and why do I keep seeing posts about it, if it isn't sourceable.
Not sure what you are pointing out here, Val. I am discussing the curiousity of NO PRINTS in Danielle's room, and the likelihood that the reason for SAYING there wasn't was to be able to have PRINTS to use to transfer to the MH.
I am interested in seeing where this niece/teeth thing goes as it seems just a little too convenient for this DOG AND PONY SHOW of Pfingst's. (that's what it really is, in case you thought it was about Danielle or David Westerfield).
Now, DW could have committed this untasteful act, but (1) it is not sexual molestation, and (2) it still doesn't make him guilty of murder.
There are those that say , well it shows he molested Danielle.
Unfortunately we have no evidence that she was molested. Either animals conveniently on feed on the ONE AREA of her body that would contain proof, or someone made it look like animals did it. That someone would have had to have time and planned that out. To say it was DW, would prompt one to ask, then why did he take the JACKET with a stain looking like blood and having one of the Van Dam's DNA on it to the DRY CLEANERS! Why did he tell the police he took the stuff to the DRY CLEANERS?
There are too many things that make me believe that someone did this who was not being investigated or watched, and they had time to plan. Time to let the body sit somewhere for a while. Then after removing the part of the body that could hold evidence, they put it out on Dehesa Rd.
Kim, you forgot. Only the Prosecutor is allowed to bring up "NON EVIDENCE". Since the police didn't have the dog bed, how could Feldman bring it up? The Judge would have objected (which judges aren't supposed to do). The info about the dog bed was brought up, in the PH. But, like I say, even if the dog bed had Danielle's blood all over it, IT'S NOWHERE TO BE FOUND.
Just like Danielle's vaginal area. Why do you think it really is missing? Animals took it to be of help to DW?
If what you say was true, then (1) The le's would have DNA to test.
(2)The Sweat,tears,saliva would obsure a print. (the prints come from the GREASE on you skin, which is ruined by sweat,tears, and saliva).
I'm sorry, I don't consider that a flame. You posited a scenario in your life that was innocent and compared it to the actions this niece is saying DW did. I was pointing out that these were two different situations. Not flaming!
That is certainly possible and is what the Prosecution implied.
TO have this happen, means Danielle was alive in the MH. HOW LONG? Where did this assault occur? Would a person intent on assault and murder not tie up their victim? How long would he have driven around with her in the back?
We have been over these questions over and over in the past, and it is like a puzzle.
The prosecution had 3 pieces of the puzzle that seemed to fit. They then had 197 other pieces that didn't fit. So, they crammed some together, and sawed on others until they fit. Now, looking at the finished puzzle, the picture on it doesn't make sense. But, The jury was told that the picture doesn't really have to make a good picture. If it has some colors and kinda forms the shape the puzzle was supposed to end up in , IT'S OK, HE's GUILTY.
Now at the penalty part of the trial, we have more puzzle pieces that don't quite fit, being sawed and hammered to try and get them in place. You tell me where and when DW killed Danielle and why the dogs couldn't track her scent in the MH, and then I would have reason to believe he committed the crimes.
Again, I would ask of you and others, Does an incident that may have occurred 12 years ago, make you guilty of murder in the present? That is what you and others seem to be getting at.
I would agree that PROOF of SEXUAL MOLESTATION, especially if it occurred recently, would go to MOTIVE in this case, especially if it could have been proven that Danielle was molested/raped.
Since none of this is true, what you are seeing going on now is being done for this reason:
The media, CTV, Nasty Grace, Paul Pfingst, the SDPD, San Diego, all noticed that as the trial proceeded, more and more people thought DW wasn't the real killer. That as more children ended up dead, and an INTERNATIONAL PORN RING was discovered in their neighborhood, with POLICEMEN,TEACHERS, CHILD/FAMILY COUNSELORS/LITTLE LEAGUE COACHES as the main members of this CHILDPORN RING, that people were starting to see through the SMOKE and MIRRORS paraded in court.
If people continued to doubt, and they didn't NIP IT IN THE BUD, people might investigate, continue asking questions and find out just HOW BAD DW was being railroaded. That the DA and SDPD were covering up for making a mistake in originally picking DW as the perp.
SOOOOOOO, now we parade in this 'incident' and try to get the public to SWAY in favor of the death penalty. Then everyone will forget about it and move on. This is what the DA and the SDPD want. KEEP MOVING, DON'T WORRY ABOUT the TRUTH.
YOUR CHILDREN ARE NOW SAFE (well, except from their teachers,priests,policemen/policewomen,swinger friends,dope dealers,Child/family counselors and Little league coaches)
Or just ignore some pieces altogether; .22 casing, bug-guys, and the damp canister in the steam-cleaner.
Now, how many questions did I ask? Wanna bet and see how many don't get answered?
Plenty, no, and not too many.
Like you, I don't have a believable image of DAW grabing that little girl from the house, or on the outside for that matter. I don't believe the mummy-guy. I do have faith that it was Danielle DNA --the question is how and when it got there. A brutal rape confined to a 1-1/16" spot on his jacket lapel ? Oh --and for completness 1/4" spot on the carpet.
I have faith in the 4 bug-guys she was dumped 9-18th. If DAW was the murderer how did he do it ?
The jury felt otherwise and found him guilty. Now we listen to Dusek do what he does best: smear him with accusations, and play a maudlin video.
The DA and SDPD disgust me at this point.
Naw, that's just another COINCIDENCE, CONSPIRACY, CROOKED LE, etc.
Stay tuned, for the explaination. Watch for CAPS.
If you mean test it for DNA, then the answer is YES. Also the size of the print would be a determining factor.
You know, the big problem, I believe, was that there were the 3 items in the MH (hair,print,DNA) that some believe proved DW did it and some believed proved nothing. Some believed those items were planted. To accept this, you would have to beleive the SDPD (or certain members) are corrupt, that the DA might be corrupt. That is something very hard for people to accept. Especially if they live in SD.
I would not doubt your word this is true.
This may be the case with Danielle. Other factors about her corpse were unusual (according to the bug experts and the ME). Those factors made things like the vaginal area, the eyes, and one foot being gone suspect.
Do predators usually eat the foot?
PROPENSITY? One incident 12 years ago.
But you don't believe this girl's story, do you? You can't believe her because that destroys your belief the DW couldn't have killed Danielle because he's not a pedophile.
Let's say we believe her story, exactly as it is being told. Now, does that make him a killer? Does that PROVE he kidnapped and murdered Danielle? Why did he kidnap and murder her then?
We are just supposed to accept that this guy who might have committed a slightly perverted act 12 years ago, all of a sudden decided to KIDNAP and MURDER the next door neighbor's child? That he did it on a whim, while drunk, and left not a trace of evidence? Why is is that the 70 other CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTORS in the neighborhood aren't guilty of murder and kidnapping. They are pedophiles, they must also be guilty. Now they don't have the HAIR,PRINT,DNA in their motor home, right. But , they may have a bunch of hair,dna,prints, a foot, and her clothes in their basement. Problem is police locked onto DW and ignored evidence that might lead them to one of these people. As I said before, the reason I am so adamant about DW being not guilty is because I started off assuming (like all of us) he was the CULPRIT. Then as time went on , the evidence didn't fit, the LIES by the VD's, their friends, the LE's made it obvious. Ever seen CLINT EASTWOOD in HANG EM HIGH? This girl has no axe to grind, she is just telling about what happened to her. Geez, what a coincidence the Dishonest/Incompetent LE and the Crusading DA managed to find a relative with a strange tale to tell, about TEETH no less. DW is the unluckiest defendant on the face of the planet in the history of mankind.
The incident goes to show the propensity of the convicted killer to mess with 7 yr old girls.
PROPENSITY? One incident 12 years ago.
But you don't believe this girl's story, do you? You can't believe her because that destroys your belief the DW couldn't have killed Danielle because he's not a pedophile.
Let's say we believe her story, exactly as it is being told. Now, does that make him a killer? Does that PROVE he kidnapped and murdered Danielle? Why did he kidnap and murder her then?
We are just supposed to accept that this guy who might have committed a slightly perverted act 12 years ago, all of a sudden decided to KIDNAP and MURDER the next door neighbor's child? That he did it on a whim, while drunk, and left not a trace of evidence? Why is is that the 70 other CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTORS in the neighborhood aren't guilty of murder and kidnapping. They are pedophiles, they must also be guilty. Now they don't have the HAIR,PRINT,DNA in their motor home, right. But , they may have a bunch of hair,dna,prints, a foot, and her clothes in their basement. Problem is police locked onto DW and ignored evidence that might lead them to one of these people.
As I said before, the reason I am so adamant about DW being not guilty is because I started off assuming (like all of us) he was the CULPRIT. Then as time went on , the evidence didn't fit, the LIES by the VD's, their friends, the LE's made it obvious.
Ever seen CLINT EASTWOOD in HANG EM HIGH?
This girl has no axe to grind, she is just telling about what happened to her.
OK. I will accept that.
Geez, what a coincidence the Dishonest/Incompetent LE and the Crusading DA managed to find a relative with a strange tale to tell, about TEETH no less. DW is the unluckiest defendant on the face of the planet in the history of mankind.
He may very well be.
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.