It's a reach for anybody in any situation to answer after the fact why they did NOT do something. It would be more of a reach to speculate why someeone else did not do something.
If however your intellectual framework is to look at the situation from a presumption of innocence -- like a juror should and which I am trying to do -- then that is not even a question to be asked. Some such speculations might be considered in investigations and in general fact-findings, but even then be wary of them.
"The truth will out." Means to me that a concerted, conscientious and ethical search for the truth will have it in time, allowing Providence proper due. Generally I dislike negative specualtions such as this would be regarding Westerfield, but would -- I've obviously already employed them -- allow such negative speculations against actors who have demonstrated prior patterns of vile deception, wanton immorality, repeated theft or egregious violence.
It goes to learning how to swim with sharks. How do you id sharks in the first place -- by baiting them and see if they rise to it. IMO, the Van Dams are sharks. Contrast the Van Dams and the Smarts. (What a combination of names!)
I wonder what LE did not know to ask about? Obviously, if Barb had not "ratted them out", we probably would still not know about the drug use and perversion.
Do you think it's ok if I leave the hose out while I'm gone...maybe I'll leave the sprinkler on, just in case
I agree to beginning with the presumption of innocence. However, in evaluating Westerfield's statements I am perceiving some lies.