Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?

Union Trib ^ | July 2, 2002 | Union Trib

[Rheo]

I remember that...the neighbor kid had an identical pair for sleepovers.

This whole pj thing is weird now...were the blood cuff ones on the floor from the night before??

There were a pair of jeans, purple/blue shirt, underwear and those pj's....where was the outfit she had on that day?

[ItsOurTimeNow]

"I remember that...the neighbor kid had an identical pair for sleepovers."

So says BvD anyway...and of course, we all know how credible and honest she is. Is it possible that the ones BvD was holding were in fact Danielle's, and that she was taken out of the house already nude? *Wild Speculation Alert* - Like some kind of incestuous ritual gone horribly wrong, and BvD is trying to cover it up?

[Jaded]

Haven't see you before, welcome aboard. It's definitely a bumpy ride.

It has been speculated that Damon was the perp for whatever reason. He certainly had the opportunity, 4 hours alone. IMO, Brenda may suspect but she wasn't involved.

[Rheo]

Exactly, so say BVD, and all that that implies.

Is it possible that the ones BvD was holding were in fact Danielle's, and that she was taken out of the house already nude?

Possibly could have been.

Wondering why the perp didn't take the blankets with when he scooped her up?

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Thanks for the welcome, Jaded. I've been following this episode since the beginning, and a lot of things are bothering me about it. I'm not convinced that DW is guilty, especially since the prosecution has done a piss-poor job giving any hard facts or evidence in their case, and Law Enforcement botched a LOT of the evidence-gathering and subsequent analysis.

The prosecution's case is a house of cards, and I honestly think that DW is being set up as a patsy.

My $.02 anyway.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

No kidding, Rheo...you'd think that a 7 year old would kick and struggle if she were taken out of the home alive...a blanket would restrain her.

Unless, of course, the abductor was someone she knew, had seen often, and was comfortable with...like her "parent's" Pizza Party friends.

[Rheo]

you'd think that a 7 year old would kick and struggle if she were taken out of the home alive...a blanket would restrain her.

Restrain her...keep her from awakening from the sudden cold (3 in the morning)...keep DNA from possibly falling onto the bed, etc....oh, yeah...we have unidentifable DNA on the blanket..DW excluded.

Who in the world could have been in her room, touched her desk and not be on the parents list of knowns??

[Henrietta]

I think they fingered the wrong guy, before they knew EXACTLY what was going on over at the Van Dams home that evening. Once the ball started rolling, it couldn't stop.

I completely agree. It seems like they focused on him and then ignored any evidence that would not point to him, and tried to make a big deal out of stuff that is completely innocuous, like bleach on a shopping list and a garden hose left out on the lawn.

I know lots of people on this board probably disagree with me, and that's okay, so please don't flame.

[Henrietta]

I've been trying to figure it out also. The defense got off to a good start, I'd say. Showing some of the prosecution's case to be silly..the hose, the light, the locked motorhome, sweaty Dave, animal dna experts,... I'm interested in how the girls prints and blood got in the MH.

Didn't someone yesterday testify that the MH was sometimes left out in front of DW's house for several days before or after a trip? If this is so, I find it completely reasonable that the neighbor kids had gone inside to check it out (you know how kids are), and that would explain the handprint, the hair, and the blood (kids always seem to have little cuts and scrapes).

The prosecution didn't make it clear on how he got her out of the house, did he take her to his house and kill her, did he drive around with her, did he have her body in the MH when he went to get his wallet??? I have alot of questions.

I have alot of those same questions. It seems to me that when a murder is committed, it's pretty hard to hide evidence thereof. Things get bloody, little clues get left everywhere. The presence of a few hairs from the family dog is not something I find particularly persuasive. He could have picked up the hairs from his own driveway (hairs blow around, you know?) and tracked them all over his house, and the MH. It isn't as if the prosecution introduced evidence of a big ol' hair ball, or something!

Although that would have been amusing...HAIR BALL INCOMING!

[spectre]

No, lot's of people on this board don't disagree with you. We are waiting for some conclusive evidence...that DW is guilty. The prosecution has a weak case, and let's see what the Defense can do to clear things up.

I pinged you to another thread...sw

[demsux]

Those pictures certainly look like the female from the Danielle montage.

[revolted]

I tend to agree. My feeling is that something happened between Damon and Danielle that night. Maybe she didn't want to go to sleep. Maybe he is not even her biological dad. Maybe he has been abusing her without Brenda's knowledge. Maybe it went too far that night. He might have been upset about missing the "party" with the girls.
The diary entry
The 22 shell casing
The fact that there was no DNA from DW in the home.
She could have been drugged...maybe too much was given and she stopped breathing. Damon checked and couldn't recscucitate her....and he staged the abduction. He had at least access and time. He has always seemed less than honest.

[Henrietta]

Spectre, I didn't get your ping....

Hetty

[pyx]

I have never lost a child

We are all God's children.

[spectre]

Hit "My comments" at the top of your threads or messages page...It will show you...I'll do it again...sw

[UCANSEE2]

I am watching some TV of the trial but I don't watch it that much. I never purported to know all that went on in court. I thought I made it clear that I am forming my opinions on all I have gleaned about the case, from whatever source, both in and out of court. That includes what Brenda van Dam has said, whether you dismiss it as a lie or not. I am not a lawyer nor am I trying to be one. And apparently it needs to be said again, this is not a court of law.

OK. NO problem. You have stated this. You are an ill-informed casual watcher, who mostly is going by the testimony of the person that was drinking,doing drugs while her child was in danger, and has repeatedly lied to the press, the police, and in court. No wonder you believe what you do!

[UCANSEE2]

that Danielle was murdered because she came in on the orgy

I believe that has been brought up and discussed as one of the myriads of possibilities. The obvious response to your well described idea is this:

Then why is there absolutely no evidence of DW ever having been in the VD house?

[UCANSEE2]

Your lawyer gets paid whether he wins or loses.

So, as I said before, since you are so obviously smarter than anyone else on this planet, if you are arrested and have to go to court, make sure you don't hire a lawyer.

[UCANSEE2]

I am sorry. Strike that last comment.

Your lawyer gets paid whether he wins or loses.

If you feel that way, you must not have any faith in a lawyer's abilities in court.

[AppyPappy]

Not with MY life on the line. It's up to me. I'm the one going to the chair.