Suspect in van Dam case had photos of another Danielle

AP ^ | 3-12-02 | BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer

[Freedom2specul8]

I guess we'll have to pray that he didn't cut and clearn danielle's finger nails to be sure. :(

[wonders]

However, I doubt that I could go into an occupied house (with a dog), go upstairs, kidnap a child (who is old enough to fight back AND make a lot of noise), then retrace my steps and get out of the house and yard with a fair certainty of not being seen by SOMEONE!!!

Good point. Something that strikes me as odd: If he somehow was able to accomplish this, though careful planning and good luck, his careful planning didn't seem to extend to AFTER the deed was done. A careful, methodical, well-planned snatch, then panic and very sloppy cover-up. Something strange. Or maybe not. People can be very strange.

As I said before, I don't closely follow this case. I come to FR for foreign affairs, politics, breaking news, not for crime stories. Just check in on this case from time to time because of my friend in So. Cal. worried about her own daughter. Thought I'd check out what has her so worried. Seems all sorts of wild rumours circulating in So. Cal.

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

You make an excellent point, about the disconnect between what apparently would had to have been a carefully-planned and meticulously-executed kidnapping, and the total idiocy of his later attempts to cover it up (suspicious travel, blood evidence, incompetence in dealing with the police- read their testimony at the hearing, etc)

Which leads me to suspect that the "Kidnapping" part of this crime was not all that difficult- that he was in the house (as an invited guest?) and was able to snatch the child while everyone else was otherwise occupied. Perhaps she came downstairs for something, making this a crime of opportunity?

[lsee]

His body language is just so disturbing.

[wonders]

You make excellent points as well. (Glad to meet you!) There is another possible scenario: He didn't intend to harm the child, just look at her while she was sleeping or something (creepy, huh?). Then either some unnatural lust overcame him and... Or she simply woke up and saw him standing over her. He panicked, then wound up killing her and continued in panic mode through the weekend. There are lots of possibilities. Something just doesn't seem right with this thing.

Actually, I don't like to think about the sordid aspects of this. Yuck. The whodunnit/howdidit part is a puzzle, though.

Something else I've wondered about: Why did this one particular missing child case get such HUGE national publicity from day one? I can understand how this case got to be such a fave of the media as it developed, but... why from the very beginning? Why this one and not all the others?

[wonders]

I think his fantasies led him to focus exclusively on getting the girl, and once he had her, he panicked.

That's a possibility, too. Fantasies don't develop to the logical conclusion. (Any kid who's ever fantasized about having a huge quantity of candy knows the fantasy only extends to imagining eating the candy, not to the tummy ache afterwards.) Maybe he had too much to drink or something, acted out the fantasy in some "auto pilot" mode (and was extremely lucky he wasn't caught in the process), then woke up, realised this was for real, and panicked. Who knows?

[Freedom2specul8]

He didn't intend to harm the child, just look at her while she was sleeping or something (creepy, huh?). Then either some unnatural lust overcame him and... Or she simply woke up and saw him standing over her. He panicked,

That's the best theory I've seen yet..

[wonders]

Ref your #48 on this thread: Many thanks and blushes. Still, I was just throwing out one possibility. There are many others. It is sadly likely, that in the end, only God and that dear little girl and perphaps a select few will ever know the Truth. Oh, that poor little child.