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.