Replies

I was thinking of putting a disclaimer on the bottom of every DW post.."We DEPLORE child pornography"...but even that wouldn't do any good...

I know what you mean. There are some things about which one simply cannot have rational discourse.

I don't like that DW had pictures of underage girls on his PC, it's just that I don't think it had anything to do with what happenned to Danielle.

But when you try to explain it, people look for ways to paint you like some kind of NAMBLA person or something. Emotions confuse people's reasoning.

Many people seem to identify with the VDs, lots of single mothers and divorcee's, etc, that don't want to think about the negative aspects of the VD lifestyle. They think, "Well I sometimes get drunk and bring home strangers late at night, and I am not a bad person." Then somewere along the line, the defensive instinct(or just stupidity) clouds their reason and they go from "The VDs sex and drug thing does not necessarily make them bad" to "The VDs sex and drug thing does necessarily make them not bad" And there develops a kind of identity/advocacy culture where people on any side of an issue will start arguing dishonestly for "their side." And since this whole case has been presented(outside the courtroom) as DW vs the VDs, they are against DW and refuse to see reason.

Personally, I can see where hysteria would spread against DW -- the way the case has been exposed seems to have been designed precisely to cause it. People are inclined to feel very strongly about the issues surrounding the case: child porn, parental promiscuity, in-home abductions, etc... So they bring those emotions with them to the argument.

I have my own reasons for believing he is innocent. Since I believe he is innocent, I see certain things in that context. Mudd's increasingly blatant bias upsets me. Please: the fingerprint proves the kidnapping which in turn proves everything else. He could make his instructions shorter, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, go into that room, write the word 'guilty' on a piece of paper, come back and hand it to the baliff."

LE's incompetence is so unbelieveable that, well, I don't believe it. It looks like corruption to me, and pretty obviously. Too much not looked at. Everything obvious was ignored to fabricate a case for the implausible. How could the police have someone who doesn't match the unidentified fingerprints on both doors in question that night, who doesn't match the unidentified fingerprints on the bannister, who doesn't match the unidentified fingerprints in Danielle's room, who doesn't match the unidentified DNA found on Danielle's bed, who doesn't match the unidentified single dark hair found in Danielle's armpit after the body was dicovered..... How can they think they have the right guy when he doesn't match ANY of the evidence.???

They can't believe that, it's absurd. So they know they are trying to put the wrong man to death. That's why I am upset. The media, the whole government of San Diego and some well-connected tweak-and-freak psychos seem to be conspiring to produce this Theater of Perversity before my eyes, wherein good is evil, but evil is good. Perps get sympathy and victims are scorned. If I understand CA law corrctly, and if I see what I think I see, three or four people have committed death penalty offences, but none of them are on trial.

But look at how events unravelled from the LE point of view. This guy left, had a tale of an implausible meandering trip, big scratches on his arm. The interviewers fibbed a bit to get warrants, took some statements out of context for the same purpose. Other LE doesn't know this. Then the "child porn" buzz starts, and water cooler talk around SDPD is "we have the perp."

Now they start looking for proof. But they can't find any. Now the water cooler talk is like "he is an evil genius and he's gonna get away with it." Soon, there is other, quieter talk, away from the water cooler. "We can't let this happen."

You see where I am going. A personal pet peev of mine -- LE corruption.

Smear from Danielle's panties onto existing DW blood stains from minor arm injuries about which we are all aware. I hope my DNA matches 100 out of 100 markers, not 12 out of 13.

The golden print is probably a lift from Danielle's room. The print that just says "Stop dusting, you found me!" Even when you supposedly have no comparison prints to go by. It explains why they "didn't find any prints" in Danielle's room -- because the report that said they did had to be destroyed because it detailed this print. Alternatively, they could have really thought they had it, because it was a child's print. But when Danielle's hand was rehydrated, it didn't match, so they had to fix it. The second, "more thorough" dusting was actually a cover for putting prints there that matched the hand.

Then as time passes, all the other circumstantial evidence turns out to be nothing. The scratches weren't made by fingers, the trip was a drag, but normal for for him. He really did try to find his friends, he readlly did invite others ahead of time. The whole overpayment thing really happenned. The incriminating statements were fabricated, distorted or just reasonable slips.

And now all that's left is the fabricated evidence.

Oops!

And they CAN'T CONFESS or they will face the death penalty.