Replies

To me, the fact that DW invited them inside indicates that he was either: a) an unusally friendly or very lonely person; or b) had an interest in either Brenda or Danielle.

TOH, the reason DW invited Brenda and Danielle into his home was given in the PH and Trial in testimony. To wit:
Westerfield was in the middle of refurnishing his kitchen. The Kitchen area was draped in plastic.

Brenda said that she noticed DW was redoing his kitchen, and that she was interested in redoing her own, specifically the drawer/cabinet knobs. SHE ASKED Westerfield if she COULD COME IN AND SEE THE KITCHEN.

He took her on a tour of the kitchen, and while talking with her, HE SAID that Danielle and her brother ran ALL OVER THE HOUSE, UPSTAIRS, DOWNSTAIRS, the GARAGE, the LAUNDRY AREA. Then, Brenda said, the kids came to her and asked if they could go out to the POOL. DW said YES.

This was DW's statement to police BEFORE he knew he was a suspect.

Brenda's statement AFTER DW was a suspect, after the PR team worked with her, After her close personal friend (a retired policewoman) advised her in police investigative techniques and police interviews, (and BTW that friend was a 'friend' of the investigators), BRENDA said that the KIDS NEVER LEFT HER SIDE. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD TO COME TO HER TO ASK TO GO OUTSIDE, they never left her side.

Hope that explains "WHY" Brenda, Danielle, and Dyllon went inside DW's house on a GS cookie sale.

I agree. If it was just someone on the street, it might be understandable --- people who do sport wear warm-up jackets --- but it was a dry cleaner! They would use the correct terminology.

What it does, is to take me back once again to the notion that the people in all of this who were initiating things were the van Dams.

DW may have had some ideas about porking Brenda, but that's about as far as I get with that. I don't see him ever focusing his attentions on Danielle.

In my mind, the ball was always with the van Dams. There are too many things there that don't make sense. All this kinky sex, the drugs, the strange people coming and going from the house at all hours of the night and day, the lying to to the cops, the drama in the courtroom, the spending binge, the PR agency, and on and on and on.

It never seems to stop with them.

I think the defense should have been allowed to include at least some of their "lifestyle" information in the evidence, and I think the porn should have been excluded as blatantly prejudicial. Mudd ruled the opposite way.