Posted on 06/10/2002 8:53:31 AM PDT by MizSterious
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE it was a total stranger who abducted seven-year-old Danielle van Dam from her San Diego home almost two weeks ago. Some thug could have picked her parents’ house at random and snuck in during the middle of the night, evading detection despite the home-security system. Somehow, the intruder could have found his way up to Danielle’s bedroom and removed her against her will—again, without being noticed.
Then again, maybe not.
The practical realities and crime statistics—less than 1 percent of the 800,000 children reported missing in the U.S. last year were abducted by someone unconnected to the family—suggest otherwise. Yet to judge by the initial coverage of Danielle’s disappearance on national TV, one would think her kidnapping had to be the exception to the rule.
The story, as first told on The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, Larry King Live, and America's Most Wanted, mirrored the account of Danielle’s parents, Brenda and Damon: Brenda was out partying that Friday night with friends at a San Diego nightspot. Damon put the kids to bed around 10. Brenda and her pals showed up around 2:30 and joined Damon for some pizza. The friends then left, and Brenda and Damon went to bed without first checking in on their daughter. They didn’t discover that she was missing until 9 a.m. Saturday morning.
As usual, the story behind the story has been available mostly outside the establishment media—on the Internet and talk radio.
Last Friday, San Diego talk-show host Rick Roberts presented his listeners with an alternative scenario for what might have happened. According to his "reliable" source "high in law enforcement," the van Dams are "swingers," and not in the dancing sense. They engage in "lots of wife-swapping," and reportedly did so in their garage the night Danielle disappeared. According to rumors circulating like mad on local talk shows and Internet bulletin boards, the van Dams lock their garage from the inside during their swingers’ parties to make sure Danielle and her two brothers don’t stumble in on the festivities.
That would explain why the van Dams might have failed to notice an intruder breaking into their home and walking off with their child. It also provides a motive for neighbor David Westerfield, the only suspect thus far identified by San Diego police. According to the rumors—which are, it should be noted, only that—Westerfield was a frustrated, would-be swinger who wanted to attend the van Dams’ soirees, but was denied admission for lack of a partner.
There’s more to the Westerfield angle: He saw Mrs. van Dam at the bar earlier in the evening, where, he claims, they danced (which she denies). He also high-tailed it out of San Diego and into the desert the next morning, which was enough to make police suspicious. So far, they have searched his home, where they found child pornography, and seized two of his vehicles, but they haven’t sought his arrest.
It’s easy to speculate by connecting the dots: At the nightclub, Westerfield might have learned about the orgy planned later in the evening. Mindful that Danielle’s parents would be distracted, he could have used the opportunity to sneak into their home and take her, thereby satisfying his perverted sexual appetites and exacting revenge against the van Dams for not including him in theirs.
It’s just a theory, and it’s rooted purely in conjecture, but it’s also the best lead available so far, which raises a worthwhile question: Why have so many in the press, the national TV media in particular, been reluctant to pursue it?
Surely it’s not just that the stories are unsubstantiated. That, after all, never kept the media from investigating claims of Nicole Brown Simpson’s drug use, the basis of O.J. defenders’ absurd charge that drug lords were "the real killer."
Fraunces no doubt chose her words carefully. In the last 35 years, the term "lifestyle" has become not only the code word for any sort of sexual deviance, but also the quick way to claim a certain immunity from inconvenient questioning about it. This is the same logic Bill Clinton and his defenders used to rationalize perjury and lying to the American public, because it was "just about sex." For Gary Condit, it justified denying his affair to Washington police. His lifestyle took precedence over their duty to find Chandra Levy, dead or alive.
It may be, as Mrs. van Dam claims, that Danielle’s abduction has nothing to do with her parents’ sexual predilections, but at this point, there’s no way for the van Dams to know that for sure. If they are lying about that Friday night’s events, then their credibility on all matters must be called into doubt. And even if they are telling the truth about that night, but they hosted sex parties in their home on others, that could yield a long list of potential suspects—people with unhealthy sexual behaviors who know the lay of the house.
The fetishization of "privacy" shouldn’t keep the van Dams from being forthright, or preclude the press from doing its job. The life of a little girl is at stake.
sw
I read somewhere that in Danielle's dairy was written:
DADDY WHY DO YOU HATE ME?
Do you know if there is any truth to this?
Suppose there is a hypothetical couple, who likes to "enhance" their marital relationship, by inviting various strangers or acquaintances into their intimate relationship, could the following be the case???
Let's say the guys name is, DOMAN, and the girls name is VERANDA....
1. If DOMAN and VERANDA like to swing (wife swap), and DOMAN likes to watch VERANDA have relations with male acquaintances or newly met people off the street, that could lead to a desire to escalate....to enhance....to increase the excitement!!!
2. Escalation could mean that instead of occasionally enhancing their relationship, by occasionally (once or twice per month) inviting these strangers over for intimate relationships, that DOMAN and VERANDA make the SWINGING relationships the norm (several times per week)!!
3. If the SWINGING becomes normalized and mundane, then perhaps DOMAN and VERANDA would still need to bring more excitement into the relationship, so.....since there may be limited moral boundaries for DOMAN and VERANDA, perhaps they decide to share their loving experiences with their preadolescent daughter, and some of the anonymous visitors they invite to their home to partake in their "enhanced relations"!
4. So DOMAN enjoys the watching and observing, until that becomes normal and mundane. So to again enhance and bring excitement, more aggressive activities become normalized......
5. Again, these levels of escalation continue to remove moral boundaries and limits, until the activity level rises above the ability for a preadolescent to physically cope and even survive.
6. Suddenly, like anyone who has "lost control" DOMAN and VERANDA realize they have acted wrongly, and move quickly and haphazardly to cover their involvement in the escalated activities.
7. Again, the lack of moral boundaries puts DOMAN and VERANDA into a survival mode, so......they use a nearby person as a patsy/alibi.
8. Let's say this local person is named, DWIGHT WESTERWOOD. He is a single, well heeled, but slightly naive person, who has been participating in some of the intimate relations that DOMAN and VERANDA are so willing to share with anyone they meet.
9. Unfortunately for DWIGHT, this means that he has been to the house of DOMAN and VERANDA, and has invited VERANDA over to his home on occasions. In fact, VERANDA has a key to his house, so it becomes rather simple to leave trace evidence at DWIGHTS home.....
10. Once the local law enforcement officials arrive, they are surprised to find that the crime scene has been carefully prepared for them by DOMAN and VERANDA, but because they do not want to embarrass any of their friends, they all agree that most likely, DWIGHT was the responsible party, and even if he is not 100% involved, "someone" has to be held accountable for the unfortunate escalation of activities.
They will all just have to remember that next time, a more careful plan must be followed, to avoid potentially embarrassing situations.
I know, this does not have a lot to do with the Van Dam case, but it is an interesting "other" scenario to speculate about, hypothetically of course!!!! :0)
FresnoDA
It is circumstantial evidence that no hair was found as long as it was before her haircut. Of course they can't say it "could not", but it is less likely and is part of the big picture.
BUT, if she had a KEY to the house, by gosh, I'll betcha it was "planted" by the defense...LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.