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

Union Trib ^ | July 2, 2002 | Union Trib

[luvbach1]

Virtually anything is possible; but not likely.

[luvbach1]

I have not based my views mostly by what Brenda van Dam has said, as you erroneously state, although I do not totally dismiss her input as you do. Her statements actually contributed to a small portion of my posts.The greatest weight of my opinions have been formed by what I consider to be the multiple lies of a kidnapper, pedofile, rapist, and murderer. As you finally seem to have understood, I am not on the jury and thus do not have to reserve judgement until the end of the trial nor limit my opinions to what has been presented in court.I am free to pick and choose as I see fit, and this I have done. So the sum of all that I know, ill-informed as it is in your opinion, with which I, of course, disagree, leads me to the opinion that the defendant is guilty of all charges.Perhaps the jury will be able to reach the same conclusion, limited as they are to what they see and hear in court.I suppose you will not consider them ill-informed if they should do that.

[luvbach1]

Westerfield saying "I have no idea how it got there" in no way refutes the blood and other physical evidence in my mind.I don't think that will convince the jury either.I had in mind an explanation for its presence, for which the staement above would not at all suffice.

[luvbach1]

So we know that the "evidence" found in Danielle's bedroom and elsewhere was that of the perp and not Westerfield? If that was the case Westerfield would not have been arrested.

[luvbach1]

Westerfield, of course. No doubt in my mind.

[luvbach1]

All that you said is true as it pertains to a jury. My point is that it in no way constrains posters on FR, nor should it. If you agree we have no issue

[luvbach1]

If you are not confused my confusion should not confuse you. My confusion was fostered by contradictory statements by posters. We'll see whther the jury will be confused or can determine who killed Danielle.

[luvbach1]

I never admitted I was uninformed. I just get my information from other sources, including my brain.

[luvbach1]

Convenient.

[luvbach1]

It probably does. Too bad that does not make her responsible for the crimes committed upon Danielle. For that only the perpetrator is responsible.

[luvbach1]

So Danielle wasn't buried. However we know she was transported to where she was dumped.

[luvbach1]

OK, your points accepted.Never said I had all the answers. Do you?

[cinFLA]

Yep. Possession of possible/not proven child porn,sloppiness of leaving out a water hose, more sloppiness by allowing children that are unsupervised by their parents to sneak into his motor home, and being stupid enough to associate with Brenda and her friends.

And the girl's blood on his clothing.

[Rheo]

But he was arrested and charged....he was excluded on all DNA or prints found in that home....the unidentified prints are on the desk in her room, the stairway bannister, the sliding door, the garage door.

The DNA on her blanket excluded DW but was not matched to anyone else.

[JusticeLives]

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

Because the sexfests were in the *garage*? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. ("VD" house gets me, too). That's a good question tho. I wonder why the police haven't processed the other "unknown" fingerprints found in the house.

More and more it sounds like a frame-up.
Anyone hear Wendy Murphy's ugly thoughts on FOXNews today?

Hey, I'm no Perry Mason.

[oremus]

Opinions mean absolutely nothing - yours or mine. I don't claim to have any opinion, because to me he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. As for me I will wait to hear both sides and then MAYBE I can form some sort of opinion that is not based upon MERE emotion. My concern is only that they get the RIGHT person, and that they don't convict the WRONG one, be that David Westerfield or ANYONE ELSE.

[JusticeLives]

"The blood of hers in the bedroom tho was on the left cuff of the pj top and purple top on the floor.
The pj's she was supposedly wearing are different from the ones on the floor.
What do you make of this?"

I'm not aware of this finding, Rheo (I haven't read *every* post about the crime), but it seems to me, that if the pj's left behind had blood on them, then, uh, they don't pertain to the crime, if I got what you said right. Why would anyone want to change her into clean pj's before obsconding with her leaving the evidence of blood behind? This doesn't make sense to me.

About the blood in the motorhome; it must not have been alot of blood, say, the amount that you'd expect if she were punched in the mouth, and we don't know how long the blood had been there. It's very easy to plant a blood stain that small on clothing and on objects; let's remember that LEO's have the technology to find blood even if the area has been scrubbed down. Does anyone know whether this treatment was done in the MH, or are the blood spots which were found a result of this treatment? It's very possible that Danielle had been in the MH in the past since the door has been open in the past or she might have wandered over to the MH while DW was inside and she was friendly and curious and asked to see what a MH looked like inside and DW let her come in for a moment (I know I'd be curious at that age) and she touched things and left some blood from a small cut on her arm, leg, finger, whatever. (When I was her age there probably wasn't a place on my body without a band-aid.) DW may not have wanted to mention such a short visit for fear that that would be all it takes for the police or jury to convict. Besides, it appears the kids weren't supervised very well and we really don't know whether she'd been in the MH at any time. I know this is a slim chance.

Now, if you were to ask me who I think may have had the opportunity and motive to do such a thing, I'd say the father. He had the most to lose if Danielle talked, if he'd been monkeying around with her as well. We don't know the kind of relationship he had with her and we don't know what his sexual mores are at this time. I think we need to remember that children her age often threaten to "tell on someone" and might have the tendency to taunt a little, like "if I can't go to King's Dominion, I'm going to tellll XXX what you do (to me?). She seems like a very curious, mischevious, spunky kid who might say something like this but I don't believe she'd say "I'm telling Mommy! I'm telling Mommy!" because she's partially aware of what's right and wrong and maybe Mom has said "don't say anything to anyone." If that's not the case, then she might have gotten up late that night and spied on them all and we know the rest. From the get-go the parents behaved in an inappropriate manner for having just had their kid abducted. The father always had the half-smile-look and his taunting in court could be a ruse to convince others how "upset" he is with DW so others won't take a long look at him. Why didn't we see some of this emotion the first days we saw them on TV?

Like I said, something smells.

[Rheo]

Smells it does.

The blood stain in the MH on the carpet by the dresser and closet was 1/4" in diameter....certainly not a blood bath.

The jacket shoulder was 1 3/16"...again, not a blood bath...pic looks like you would expect from a swipe with a bloody nose or cut.

[Lanza]

Hey Rheo, can you fill me in a bit? I have not been able to follow the trial due to vacations and other activities, as I was able to in the beginning.

1. Have they found ANYTHING that puts DW in the house? Fingerprints, DNA anything?
2. What about the underwear of Danielle stuffed in a drawer I thought we would hear so much about? Anything?
3. Do we have Damon's wear-abouts that evening clear (speculation he was with a female friend and let the kids alone etc..).

I just can't get how DW drank all those rum and cokes, and didn't get sloppy and leave a sign of himself in that house.

[Rheo]

1. Have they found ANYTHING that puts DW in the house? Fingerprints, DNA anything?

Nothing so far....they have unidentified prints but DW was excluded on everything tested.

2. What about the underwear of Danielle stuffed in a drawer I thought we would hear so much about? Anything?

They were actually on floor..crotch staining...the pj cuff (left) and purple shirt cuff (left) had her blood...the bean bag blood was Dereks...unknown contributor of DNA on her blanket.

We know nothing new about DVD's wereabouts.