Replies

I think there is alot of similarity between Richard Jewell, the supposed Olympic bomber, and DW. Jewell was railroaded and EVERYONE was CONVINCED that he was the bomber by the media. Now what is happening to DW is several magnitudes worse, because he is being prosecuted, and even if acquitted, there will be that cloud hanging over him for the rest of his days. I think there is a very high probability that much of the MH evidence was planted. The statement that the cop gave for the reason they became interested in DW becuase his hose was unrolled was just ridiculous. They were steered towards DW early on, and for what reason I have no idea, decided that HE was their guy, and they'd do whatever it took to make the case stick. To me, there are so many unanswered questions in this case. How did he get into the house without leaving any evidence? How did he transport her? Why was her scent never found in the MH, or his house? Why was so much made of non-matching fiber evidence? The list goes on and on. I seriously hope for an acquittal, but there will be those that think that just because he's on trial, that he must be guilty, and factor that in with the flawed evidence and hold out for a conviction.

I do love East TN!! I live just north of Chattanooga within sight of the Cherokee Nat'l Forest. I'm in Chattanooga almost every weekend though because I keep my boat on Harrison Bay. Here's to my fellow 'Noogan'!!

Here's what I posted on last night's thread. It might shed some light on why it "had to be" David Westerfield:

In my opinion, they looked at Westerfield and only Westerfield because the van Dams pointed a finger at him, for reasons I can't be sure of--but it should be noted that almost as soon as they hired the P.R. firm, they also hired a good civil lawsuit attorney. Did they hope to win a lawsuit against him later, as in the OJ case?

This is from an older post of mine, not yet updated to include the testimony we have--but it's a real good start. First, here's the interview from February 5th, LEO to the SD local media, source is below:

Officer: During the course of our investigation, the resident here, his name came up, as someone who had contact with the family. We've talked to him. He is cooperating with us. He's talked to us yesterday, he's talking to us today. We had some things we wanted to check in his house. He allowed us to go into his home and we are doing some things to process the scene and possibly eliminate him as a suspect." Source

Second, there was an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune the same day, where another officer says something quite similar:

"This is a process of elimination," said Dave Cohen, a spokesman for the San Diego Police Department. "We have gotten some information and we wanted to take a little closer look at his vehicle and his residence." Source

And from the motion filed in court by Feldman:

"Detective Alldredge's affadavit was relied on to establish probable cause for search warrants 2783D and 27818 to search Mr. Westerfield's home. 27813 for Mr. Westerfields clothes. In his affadavit, Alldredge misrepresented statements by Brenda Van Dam that were relied on to supply probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. Because the affadavits were sealed, documents may only disclose the specifics of the misrepresentations in camera."

So, from this, it appears Brenda said something, but that Alldredge might have altered it or exaggerated it. Bottom line, it looks like someone did point the police in a certain direction.