[I. Ben Hurt]

You know we've gone over this many times, DW getting into the VanDam house unnoticed, taking Danielle to his house, his suv, motorhome, traveling all over, dumping her body in a most inconvenient place, coming back into the neighborhood, all this and leaving only a spot of DNA in the motorhome and on his jacket, one hair, etc. The bug evidence, the dog evidence, none of that has changed just because a girl recalls vaguely something that happened 12 years ago. Only remembering more after talking to her boyfriend about it. I'm standing firm, DW didn't do it.

[Lucky]

Besides, what that girl described had nothing to do with being molested. After DW mentioned something about it to the police they went to that girl right away and tried to make something out of nothing.

[The Other Harry]

...none of that has changed just because a girl recalls vaguely something that happened 12 years ago.

I beg to differ.

I believe her. That was not included in the original trial, but it is relevant to the question of whether he is probably guilty.

Going into the daughter's bedroom and fussing with the niece's teeth in the middle of the night is *not* a normal behavior. I have a daughter who is around Jennifer's age, and I am around DW's age.

There is no way in HELL that I would ever have done anything like that. I went out of my way to avoid ever getting accused of doing anything improper.

If there had been some sort of a problem, I would have called in the girl's mother. Lacking her, another adult female. You don't go messing around with little girls like that. Even back in those days, that was common knowledge. You just didn't do it. Never.

You might change diapers on your own daughter, but you would be hard pressed to ever change the diaper on any other child. Not becuase you weren't willing, but because you didn't ever want to be even remotely accused of doing anything improper. This was no small issue.

If Jennifer's story is true -- which I think it is -- then I think DW may have actually done it.

[Ditter]

The way I look at it is, if Westerfield did *not* do it, there would *not* be a single speck of blood or a single hair.

He was framed, you say? Who ever framed him was certainly sure they would find those tiny specks of blood & that one hair. If I was going to frame someone I'd throw a little more evidence around for insurance. I'd put out bloody smears & clumps of hair. I don't think I'll ever be framing anyone for murder, its just not my style. So that just my opinion.