Skip to comments.
Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?
Union Trib ^
| July 2, 2002
| Union Trib
Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 441-442 next last
To: Rheo
And why didn't the dogs indicate she had been INSIDE the MH?
I assume he didn't climb into the hatch to kill her...(/sarcasm)
To: luvbach1
My point is that it is extremely unlikely they would have gotten there in any other way than during the abduction and murder. That makes the issue of when rather moot. This is the most intelligent response I have seen yet to this issue. Thank you.
However, can you see that if Danielle got into the MH, say THURSDAY, and had a slight nosebleed, that she could have left her prints, hair, and blood in the MH.
As others have stated, why didn't the dogs HIT on the MH if she had been there so recently?
To: BunnySlippers
For the sake of argument, Dusek did say he would show. It's not over yet.
243
posted on
07/02/2002 9:51:30 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: Jaded
That is the overwhelming evidence.I know you were being sarcastic, but I believe it is just that.Their presence can't be explained away except by unbelieveable scenarios.
To: Rheo
Glad you're here,cat slayer! Did we ever figure out about Keith Stone or Pete?
245
posted on
07/02/2002 9:53:19 PM PDT
by
Jrabbit
To: luvbach1
Sold cookies to him at his house 2 times...the week of her disappearance and the previous year.
As far as her parents allowing her to cross the street, today we heard her brother, Dylan, age 5, just did...we also heard reference, brief before sustained, that Mark Rohr, DW's neighbor had to rescue on of the VD boys from something.
We don't truly know yet how often she actually was out with supervision.
246
posted on
07/02/2002 9:53:23 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: BunnySlippers
I've said before if Dusek can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it and how, I'll jump over the fence. So far with what we've seen, I'm pretty comfortable.
247
posted on
07/02/2002 9:53:55 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: Politicalmom
And why didn't the dogs indicate she had been INSIDE the MHUmmmm....the same reason the dogs didn't alert to DW being in the VD house???
248
posted on
07/02/2002 9:54:25 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: BunnySlippers
Bunny, all the evidence against him HAS BEEN PRESENTED. It is all right to decide he's innocent now! If you think he's guilty, I'm with you, YOU should wait until ALL the evidence is in.
To: UCANSEE2
No need whatever to apologize. Sarcasm is ok (if you did it I didn't notice). I only dislike snideness or personal attacks. You did neither.
To: BunnySlippers
I have been repeatedly condemned for having an opinion. THAT IS MY POINT. You have not, at least on this thread. You said you knew for a fact that DW was a CHILD MOLESTOR, and when asked for proof, you won't answer. That is not an opinion, my dear. If you said you believed that DW is guilty, that he did it, and tried to show how and why, others would counter with their beliefs and their reasons for those beliefs. You give no one a chance to argue at all. You stroll in and tell everyone THEY ARE WRONG, YOU ARE NOT WRONG. (I can point to where you did this, if you like) You refuse to listen or evaluate any information, all you do is demand others prove what they say, while refusing to do anything but say you have proof.
This is why you are having a difficult time. I enjoy people who contribute NEW information. If you have any NEW information that proves one way or the other WHAT HAPPENED,I would love to hear it.
To: Jrabbit
Nope...everyone else heard Keith....I heard Pete....it was Pete!!!hopefully, we hear more from Detective Muler or the Stone witness.
Keith wouldn't have committed perjury, would he?
252
posted on
07/02/2002 9:57:32 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: BunnySlippers
Post 199, tactic of avoiding the issue.
To: meadsjn
Sounds to me like they were operating in "take away reason and accountability" mode...
254
posted on
07/02/2002 9:58:25 PM PDT
by
185JHP
To: nycgal
Guity if all the evidence of the DA is true but I have questions. This is my first trial reading online and I still do not understand how he got in and got out and got the God bless her,little girl into his car and then into moter home and then did the rest,God rest her soul.
255
posted on
07/02/2002 10:00:57 PM PDT
by
fatima
To: luvbach1
so why not him?
Why not any of a dozen "convicted" sexual offeners in the area?
Or, the sexually aggressive lezbo, Barbara?
To: Rheo
Absolutely not.( These are fine,fine upstanding pillars of their community.) I was pleased with the defense today, even with the DA's witnesses. I especially enjoyed the bird sex lady.
257
posted on
07/02/2002 10:02:43 PM PDT
by
Jrabbit
To: BunnySlippers
But I have not yet heard the proof that I hear exists about other suspects. That is still a myth. Fair enough. If you go back to the Trial transcripts, since you say you have read them, or if you want to go back on these threads, there is testimony that police found PRINTS in the VD home, on the bannister rail,in The Bedroom,that DO NOT MATCH DW, DO NOT MATCH any of the VD's or their party guests. The police made no attempt to follow up on whose prints these might be, they admitted to it in testimony, and when asked why,said because they weren't DW's.
To: pyx
Bunny is right. FR is not a court of law.
To: luvbach1
A child climbing into a motorhome is NOT an unbelievable scenarion. I have had kids in my very own RV parked in front of my house.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 441-442 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson