TALE OF TWO LAWERS (Feldmand vs. Dusek) DEFEATED and DECIETFUL.(VD's SKATE FREE TO SWING AGAIN)

Yahoo ^ | August 22, 2002 | Yahoo

[FresnoDA]

TALE OF TWO LAWYERS......

DEFEATED and DECIETFUL

[EllaMinnow]

"There isn't a man alive who isn't a horn dog, and those as says otherwise are worst of 'em."

1733 posted on 9/4/02 11:23 AM Eastern by bvw


Familiar words.
I must have heard them a million times during 1998 and 1999, as they spewed from the mouth of every two-bit Clinton defender in America.

[cyncooper]

I was under the impression the cutouts were destroyed in testing. I'll look and see if I can find a reference - hope others will do the same. If the actual evidence was still around, than the photos become much less important.

I'm afraid you got that impression from the misinformation posted here. The blood (yes, blood) and fibers were available for the defense if they wished to do their own testing.

I have never been impressed with the outcry by some over the polaroid photo. The jacket had gone through the drycleaning process and evidence of spatter and smear would not be evident as in an unlaundered garment. Thank goodness the drycleaning process did not destroy the evidence, as was attempted.

[cyncooper]

Oh, not only are "all men" that way (horndogs) but they all will lie about it! So sayeth the Clinton defenders.

This trial has added the conventional wisdom that all computers contain porn, including child porn, and anybody would lie about that, too.

[Freedom2specul8]

BVW, ..questioning other people's conclusions is NOT the same thing as saying he's guilty. The character issue, the blood, dna, fibers, hair and child porn..all totalled a big finger pointing at DW.

red's right..that was a defense tactic of the clinton defenders. People who thought that clinton was a typical horny stud, who said it was no big deal that he could get bj's under the desk while on the phone with what's his face trying to decide whether he was going ot send our boys to war...are beyond all hope. Disgusting. (see starr report for confirmation)


My opinion about the definition of horndog is not indicative of belief of guilty of kidnapping and murder. It's just one of many things.. (although it wasn't brought up in trial, so therefore really doesn't count)..like some of the stuff spewed about the vd's...it doesn't count cuz they weren't on trial.

[dread78645]

Didn't DW drop the jacket at the dry cleaners himself as soon as he got back from his trip? How did the police get it to put the stain on it before it was cleaned? Also where did the police get Danielle's blood/dna to plant in the MH?

Yes, DAW left the jacket at the cleaners. The clerk didn't note any stains at the time.
Det. Torgerson got the jacket on thursday, and took it to the police impound.
The lab tech got it from impound, noticed the stains -did a presumtive test for blood, took polaroid photos of the jacket, then cut the sections out.

The police had Danielle's DNA from the beginning, the vaginal secretion on her panties and from the bean-bag chair.

The evidence impound isn't all too secure, note the .22 shell case (and what's up with that ?) was taken for a day, and nobody seems to know who took it.

This is an awfully risky way to win an election. If it backfires then you go to jail instead of back into office.

It is indeed, if you can show the DA's office directed it.
I'd go with Det. Ott and Keyser had a "hunch" that David was the man, but evidence had to get "embellished" some.
No risk for the super-cops, they got away with beating a suspect a couple of years back and got away again with lying on the affidavts to the search warrants.

[just me]

""the vd's...it doesn't count cuz they weren't on trial.""

True but they should be.

[Freedom2specul8]

While the ultimate punishment was the death of their child, I have to ask, what would you have them charged with and what evidence would you present? The evidence has to be verifiable of course. (just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm not being sarcastic at all..)

I can see someone would want to put them on trial for swinging, but it's not illegal. I have to wonder, if they could even prove it. The swapping partners with friends (disgusting as it is) isn't the same as the professional regular participation in swinging that has been discussed at length these threads. Is there evidence or witnesses?

[Freedom2specul8]

PS: don't forget the testimony of teachers...and newsreports that included comments of danielle's friends parents..

[just me]

It is called neglect.
You and I are on different sides, I do not believe David killed Danielle.
I believe someone they brought home that night did.
They could not prove in a court of law how David got into the house
they just believed he did.

The palm print on the hall wall out side Danielle's bedroom door.
Not identified.

Finger prints in her room.
Not identified

DNA mixed with Danielle's in her bed.
Not identified.

You identify the prints and DNA I say you probably got your killer.

It was not David.

[demsux]

note the .22 shell case (and what's up with that ?)

Ignore the man behind the curtain

[Freedom2specul8]

"You and I are on different sides, I do not believe David killed Danielle.I believe someone they brought home that night did."

I realize that..and I know why you believe it. I was waiting for that testimony..cuz it was a strong rumor for months..but it never came through.

---

Criminal neglect...of course the definition is different state by state..

Child abuse and neglect is, at a minimum:

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.


Child Neglect is characterized by failure to provide for the child's basic needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional. Physical neglect includes refusal of, or delay in, seeking health care; abandonment; expulsion from the home or refusal to allow a runaway to return home; and inadequate supervision. Educational neglect includes the allowance of chronic truancy, failure to enroll a child of mandatory school age in school, and failure to attend to a special educational need. Emotional neglect includes such actions as marked inattention to the child's needs for affection; refusal of or failure to provide needed psychological care; spouse abuse in the child's presence; and permission of drug or alcohol use by the child. The assessment of child neglect requires consideration of cultural values and standards of care as well as recognition that the failure to provide the necessities of life may be related to poverty.


Emotional Abuse (psychological/verbal abuse/mental injury) includes acts or omissions by the parents or other caregivers that have caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. In some cases of emotional abuse, the acts of parents or other caregivers alone, without any harm evident in the child's behavior or condition, are sufficient to warrant child protective services (CPS) intervention. For example, the parents/caregivers may use extreme or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement of a child in a dark closet. Less severe acts, such as habitual scapegoating, belittling, or rejecting treatment, are often difficult to prove and, therefore, CPS may not be able to intervene without evidence of harm to the child.

---

We have to know that if someone passed on a note that got denise fired from her new airline job, we have to agree that the same folks have begged the authorities to investigate the vd's for abuse and neglect. The teachers didn't give any indication of neglect or abuse...if anything, brenda looked a lot BETTER after the teacher's testified.

If there was true neglect and abuse, we have to believe that it would be stronger than speculations..that's all Im saying.

I thought the dna was found on the bean bag??

The prints you mentioned are not indicative of abuse or neglect.

[Freedom2specul8]

correction:

The prints you mentioned are not indicative of abuse or neglect. It doesn't mean they brought strangers in the home..

[just me]

You just do not get it do you?

I also believe they are covering for their mistakes.
I have to go.... Good day.. Later...

[demsux]

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Not checking on your children after the house alarm indicates a breach, not once, but twice...I think this qualifies.

The two boys should be removed from that home immediately, whether DW did it or not.

These parents COULD HAVE prevented this disaster from happening, if only their love for their children was as deep as their love of hedonistic pleasures.

[Freedom2specul8]

I'm sure you know that the parents, who've not been charged with or convicted of a crime associated with the death of their child cannot be held liable for for the criminal aka homicidal act of another.

"Not checking on your children after the house alarm indicates a breach, not once, but twice...I think this qualifies. "
You and I would have checked. This probaby going to cause flames..BUT let it be known it's not BAIT. A lack of common sense is not a crime. :( Does not checking equate with those parents who don't bother to install a home security monitoring system? Their system wasn't even turned on. They only had the chirps/door and window motion signals on. What if they didn't utilize the system as an alarm system? that's the way the testimony was given...they didnt' use it as an alarm. SO if they didn't...can you still blame them?

[Freedom2specul8]

yes, I do...I'm just not in agreement at this time.

see ya later

[demsux]

Suit yourself, I think that they were negligient that night and you don't...

[bvw]

Gee, ma'am (or whatever) I did not realize I was addressing such an esteemed sexless organism. Are you some form of yeast, or a protozoa? Wonderful weather these days.

[bvw]

A mother knows her son very long and deeply and may speak overly casually about something that she'd be more circumspect about regarding other men in similar situation. A mother may overemphasize a trait that to outsiders seems normal, because a mother has expectations of a son that she has of NO other males. It may be, and seems to me to be that Westerfield's mom may have wanted him to be some eunuch or celibate monk. So that when she called him a "horndog" it just meant he was a normal functioning member of the male gender.

And that btw is what I mean by "horndog", and also what Nature's God has provided by way of sex. The primal Man, Adam, was inconsolably lonely without a mate -- so the Creator made one up for him. We are men and not animals, controlling and utilizing in the best way, that sexual impulse is not beyond us.

Yet every guy is a horn-dog.

[Freedom2specul8]

She should have been asked to define horndog.... cuz you're right, she could have meant something completely different.

although, if she meant it to be innocent, why wasn't she called as a character witness.