In taped interrogation, Westerfield tells police 'my life is over'

Thanks.. VRWC_minion , you were very close. I knew what you meant. The VRWC is the spelled just like Kim's.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - VRWC

Another interesting piece of info.

Did DW's key fit the VD house?

Did the LE check to see if that was possible?

Did the LE's check to see if anyone else in the hood had a key that fit the VD house?

I am reasonably sure you don't have the answer, but without those answers, one can only conclude that if DW did it, that might be how he got through a locked door. Before I would accept that is how he got in, I would have to have proof his key fit.

Dave's own "vision" says a guy dressed all in black went upstairs, took her, then backed out of the room and turned right.

I read this. Do you believe this was DW's way of confessing?

What do U think? (there's a pun for you.)

I'm going to eat supper now.

Did you read that in Keyser's testimony or just Ott's?..Haven't gotten that far into Keyser's yet.

I don't think I need to know WHEN something happened to know that it happened.

If you are going to convict someone of a capital crime, HOW/WHEN/WHERE are the crucial elements. If you state that evidence shows it occurred at 'this time' and the person can prove they couldn't be there...

If you state it happened in this place, and you can't prove they were there....

My point, you need to know WHEN if you want to accuse someone specifically of doing it.

This case bothers me so much, because BURDEN OF PROOF was thrown out the window.

What if you were accused of murder? And you provide an alibi as to time and location. And the Judge and Prosecutor tell the jury that it doesn't matter. They found evidence of you on the body. And the LE's tell you during investigation it doesn't matter if you have an alibi, they will make sure there is evidence found, even if they have to put it there themselves. What would your state of mind be? What would you do to convince them you aren't lying?

I keep trying to put myself in DW's shoes both as not-guilty and guilty.

As the NOT GUILTY I see everything he did (starting Friday night) as reasonable and due to circumstances.

As GUILTY, I just can't make it fit (his attitude, his quickness and willingness to answer questions). Even his voice. The little tags that tell me when someone is lying aren't there. There are parts where it seems he is lying and Those were easily id'd and very explainable.

I remember so many things that were accepted as truth by the LE and media but were so obviously a LIE or memory loss by Brenda.

DW said Brenda told him about the father daughter dance, about Damon worried about his girl growing to fast.

Well, Brenda said she didn't tell anyone about this. This led to police believing DW was lying.

They said the only way he could know this was if he had taken Danielle.

NOW, explain to me why, if you KIDNAP a child from her bedroom in the middle of the night, while you are DRUNK, and you take her and RAPE her, that she is going to be telling you stories about a father daughter dance, or how her dad is worried she is growing up too fast ? (She wouldn't even know this herself, so how could she tell DW?????) But the police accepted it. Either they are STUPID or they needed it to help the case. Each little step, each little lie supported the next.

DW is a creep, a pervert, a sexual deviant, whatever (he fits in then to his community then), but a rapist and murderer I just don't believe.

What if DW's vision was correct? What if it was someone dressed in black? Someone else.

Too bad that certain evidence was ignored.

Too bad that the genital area of Danielle was 'missing' and couldn't be used to find evidence.

Too bad that searchers didn't find her body the first time they searched the Dehesa Rd. area , but found it after someone phoned in a 'tip'.

Too bad DW had no alibi after he got home.

Too bad he had irresponsible neighbors that left their children home alone and unprotected.

Too bad his neighbors invited total strangers and possibly child molestors home for sex.

Too bad that media turned the case into a 3-ring circus.

Too bad that the DA took it as a way to keep his job, and then lost it anyway.

Too bad that another child die mysteriously, and the real culprit might still be out there.

Too bad the ringleaders of an international child porn ring lived in the same community.

Too bad that the bar patron that was asking questions of Brenda, about her being a mother (trying to id if she had children at home?) was never identified or questioned by LE.

Too bad that it can't be proved for sure that the man in jail is the bad guy. (of course, that again depends on your level of proof).

I heard it earlier. I haven't read it either. RED posted it, maybe she can tell you which investigator said it. It was during the MH trip.

I am getting off the net for the eve.

Glad you and your better half are safe (the gas thing).

Good night and God Bless everyone.

"........ the police didn't interview nearly enough people. "

Once again you make a ridiculous statement as fact when you have no idea how many they interviewed.

You also make many mischaractarizations about rape. The porn, etc. was to prove sexual deviancy as a motive for the kidnap/murder. It is a reasonable and scientifcally/statistically proveable assumption to make for this type of crime.

You may not like it, but the jury (and the public) are in fact able to make these reasonable assumptions. In this particular case, it is an obvious assumption.

>>>"They stuck with the HE raped her therefore he killed her;He killed her therefore he raped her."<<<

They said he KIDNAPPED, therefore he killed her, he killed her, there for he kidnapped. They were not allowed to seperate the crime into discrete acts, but to view them as a unit.

Not an unreasonable legal concept, taking custody of a minor child makes you legally responsible for their safety.

Since he came into "custody" of the child without parental consent or knowledge, it is kidnapping, there is no wiggle room to call it something else. The jury accepted the hair/blood/fibers as proof that she was in his custody that weekend, since no reasonable explanation of their presence was offered by the defense. Her body was proof of murder, because testimony as to the manner of death was homicide, and no testimony contested this or offered proof of natural demise, by disease or accident That is simple elemental logic.

I have not heard of any polls taken to try to sample public opinion in SD on DW's guilt or innocence, until tonight.

Even after the revelations of the past few days, 39% think DW is not guilty. Didn't hear % think guilty or not sure.

Source of Poll: Heard it on Rick Roberts radio program.

I was going, but you provided a pretty quick, and may I say a very reasonable rebuttal.

Police didn't interview enough people... Ridiculous, probably. It was showing that based on the reasons DW was a suspect, that many more people should have been included than it was probably possible to interview.

The porn, etc. was to prove sexual deviancy as a motive for the kidnap/murder...... I understand. So why wasn't Brooke Rowland questioned?

They said he KIDNAPPED, therefore he killed her, he killed her, there for he kidnapped.

I apologize. You are correct, it was KIDNAP, not RAPE, as you state. And this was the crux of the case.

taking custody of a minor child makes you legally responsible for their safety.

And I still say that the whole case rests on this issue, and the physical evidence was what provided PROOF in the mind of the jury, yet there are reasons to discard this physical evidence. But all of them are no better than the interpretations that come out each Day on things DW said.

Overall, I have no doubt that the things you just said are true, and legally accepted in a court of law. You have said you are a lawyer, so you would know more about that than I do.

BUT, what if that evidence was planted? What if the LE's were so convinced they had their man? What if they were told, we will get him, not matter what it takes, then one or two of them took matters into their own hands? (As they admittedly have done before)

Would you admit that if they didn't try the KIDNAP and MURDER together they would have lost the case ??????

I will read your answer, if you chose to do so, tomorrow as I have to leave now.

Good day, and God Bless you too.

I just asked my son to get out his law textbooks and tell me if the when and how questions must be answered for a murder conviction.
He read the same sentence to me from several of his textbooks:
"The only thing that must be proven is that a crime was committed."

Not when.
Not how.

Dusek said authorities believe Westerfield left the neighborhood bar where he had seen Danielle's mother and then the 6-foot-4-inch tall, 245-pound man sneaked into the house through an unlocked side door of the attached garage.
Danielle, her father and two brothers were asleep, but a short time later Danielle's mother and some friends arrived.
Westerfield crouched and hid, probably in Danielle's bedroom, while they and the father chatted and had pizza. He waited until the parents went to sleep and then, at around 3 a.m., grabbed Danielle and fled through a sliding glass door in the back of the home, Dusek said.

He took the girl to his home and then on a long trip in his motor home, Dusek said.

stories about a father daughter dance, or how her dad is worried she is growing up too fast ?

This info was used on the affidavit for warrant becuz Alldrege states the info came out of the blue.......yet...in Keene's testimony that was just released....on his second telling of it...Keene asked DW to recount the conversation he had with Brenda that night...and that was included.

So it was not out of the blue...it was not in response to a direct question but part of him retelling the detective the conversation, per the detectives request.....yet Alldredge told the judge it was out of the blue.

The above post, Dusek says nothing about a key.

About the key idea. I haven't asked redlipstick, but I'm guessing their neighborhood is similar to neighborhoods in my city--limited number of floorplans. Probably one key type per floorplan, making being familiar with the floorplan easier. Just guessing.

I think most accept that a door was open allowing for DW to slip in and slip out.

Sheesh, I meant I haven't asked redlipstick if that's what she was getting at.

LOL...just reading Redden's testimony...he says the detectives left the room...he and dW sat down..then WE proceeded to explain the poly....he is asked who he means by WE...he says me and DW.

Does he have a prounoun problem too or why was dw explaining the poly to himself??

Wasn't DW slammed for saying WE when he meant I?