To: xJones
I read posts from folks here that said he was innocent. This should put those thoughts to rest.
3 posted on
01/08/2003 9:43:42 AM PST by
TankerKC
(;-)
To: TankerKC
I read posts from folks here that said he was innocent. This should put those thoughts to rest. Fat chance of that happening.
4 posted on
01/08/2003 9:47:47 AM PST by
wimpycat
(Nothin' could be finer than to be in Caroliner....)
To: TankerKC
I've read people saying they wouldn't believe it, no matter what. It obviously became a personal issue between two groups.
In the tapes released Tuesday, Westerfield admits "unusual" sexual encounters with his wife, denies anything improper about his alleged use of binoculars to watch neighbors and says the child pornography found on his computer was simply something he downloaded along with a lot of other pornographic images and that he had no sexual interest in children.
Cre-e-e-py. But he's told a friend that he was only collecting child pornography so he could forward it to his congressman in protest.
5 posted on
01/08/2003 9:49:11 AM PST by
xJones
To: TankerKC
"But you can't blame anyone but yourself, Dave," answers one of the police detectives. "And I have no problem with that," Westerfield replies. Watch and see how this gets spun.
6 posted on
01/08/2003 9:49:56 AM PST by
wimpycat
(Nothin' could be finer than to be in Caroliner....)
To: TankerKC
I totally ignored those Westerfield defender posts of last year. Out of curiousity, what was the reasoning behind so many people believing Westerfield was innocent? This seems like an open-and-shut case to me.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson