Replies

I'm glad Greg Weston is ready to drop the cyanide pellet, but before he does I wish he'd give me the exact evidence which confirms the following:

1. Greg, show me incontrovertible proof that Danielle van Dam was abducted,...by anyone. You can't!

2. Greg, show me incontrovertible proof that David Westerfield entered the van Dam home on the night of Danielle's disappearance. You can't.

3. Greg, show me incontrovertible prooof that Danielle van Dam was abducted from her home by David Westerfield. You can't.

4. Greg, show me incontrovertible proof that Danielle van Dam was murdered (keeping in mind it's always possible she died accidently either at her home or elsewhere.) You can't.

Westerfield may indeed be guilty, but the burden of proof was on your boy Dusek, and he didn't deliver,...at least to my satisfaction.

If perchance the jury finds him guilty I think it may be a sign of the rampant hysteria sweeping the country in the wake of several well publicized abductions and murders. That is not to say parents don't have a right to be concerned. We do. But convicting a man on such scant evidence would be, in my opinion, a rush to judgement in a climate of protective fervor.

I believe the most damaging evidence is the handprint over Westfield's bed in the trailer, and the traces of blood on his jacket. Did I miss the explanation for these things by the defense attorney? I had long thought that the relationship between Westerfield and Brenda was MUCH MORE detailed that we were led to believe. I had thought that Danielle might have scratched herself as kids do, when she was over with mom, and left the evidence then. But this wasn't fleshed out by the defense. That was damning to me.

Is anyone aware of something that relates to this that I missed?