[Jaded]

The charges are there for motive. Why are you so single-minded on this issue? A child was killed. Who did it is a big issue. What books and video tapes do you have in your home that someone could look at and point the finger at you for possessing? 99% of those pictures were adult women. This argument is so Monica-era (can't use that other word). I would think members of Free Republic would be able to see the bigger issues here. Guess not.

If he did it prove it. Dusek hasn't. That is the REAL issue.

"The opinion expressed by the above poster in no way endorses or condones child pornography, in any way, shape or form. Any member of this forum who assumes otherwise, does so at their own risk."

[Freedom2specul8]

Ping to bonaparte..don't miss out on the fun. They're crawlin outta the woodwork!! ;-)

J, I can't seem to ''see'' your post, it's being dragged down along with the thread with well, junk.

[bvw]

"A child was killed"

As the primp-o-phile Arlen Spector would say, "Not Proven"!

There is some reasonable doubt as to whether Danielle Van Dam was killed, died accidentally, or died of natural causes.

[spectre]

Looks like trouble has shown up..I seem to recall this is OUR thread and the only thing crawling out of the woodwork are some cockroaches.

I'm getting off now, and see about some methods of pest control...awfully buggy here in Arkansas these days.

sw

[bvw]

That is to say, the the evidence and expert testimony regarding the death of Danielle is absent direct testimony as to cause of death, and any but the most inferential circumstantial evidence as to murder. There is no evidence of murder -- blood splatter, bloody weapon, marks on throat, evidence of trauma. There is no direct witness to murder. Only indirect circumstances from which murder can at best only be inferred.