Posted on 07/24/2002 10:44:59 PM PDT by FresnoDA
I was actually thinking the opposite. The lack of photo's would tend to indicate the driving motive of child porn didn't exist. Wouldn't acting out such a huge fantasy warrant photos for future viewing ?
Where were the leather ropes and restraints, the video camera's and pics of actual kids?
If he were hiding child porn, why leave the CD's that contained a small amount on a bookshelf in the office where he knew is son used the computer??
Given that he probably had a radio and TV in the RV, is that plausible ? Was this in the papers ? Even if he had radio off would it be likely he would see a newspaper where he leaves off his RV ? I would assume the news was top of the hour every hour ? If I were LEO, I would have begun to be suspicious the minute he acted like he wasn't aware of her abduction.
Here is the first time he mentions thinking somebody could be in the house---he brings it up, then further on the Det. asks if he means "the little girl", so my interpretation is he brings it up first. He says the neighbor told him about Danielle--fine, but Neal had already been to the house to check the doors and he went inside to do it, according to his testimony. Here's where DW brings up somebody possibly being in his house:
Westerfield: Mark-yeah, I walked into the house, and you know, the house--I don't know if anybody was in the house, but I couldn't tell. And--
Redden: Why would somebody be in your house?
So, Mr. Anal leaves his jacket and the RV door unlocked? Must have been a rough day for him.
He had been gone about 6 hours before he found out after returning to the neighborhood so he knew she was missing before LEO talked to him.
His MH storage place is on a man's property, Keith Sherman, not a public place.
That is not the prosecutions contention tho...he did this because he was a pedophile and/or motivated by child porn.
Revenge might have been easier to believe but the state did not go with that....nor is there any indication that there was rejection.
Calling Westerfield "anal" and presuming that he would not have ever left the door open and unlocked is again: presumption of guilt. Sith Lord Kim has trained you well, young Darkside Jedi.
I am just asking as that is my memory, but I could be wrong, of course!
That is presumption of guilt.
For me the defintion of anal is anyone that is on a weekend trip and suddenly fears he left the door unlocked and asks his son to go check.
As for "ever" left the door unopened, I have no problem with that, but lets look at the possibilities. What are the chances that someone, who is so compulsive about locked doors he has to call home and ask his son to check, wouldn't be as compulsive about his RV being locked ? Add to that the one time he actually leaves it unlocked (and isn't haunted to go back and check) is the one time Danielle happens to attempt to access the RV while playing outside alone with no other child to witness it or no adult to see her ?
It could happen I agree.
I often drive with the radio off, even on long trips. I'm probably not the only one who does that.
I have been through this before and have explained countless times. I started with the presumption of innocence. At few days ago I had no clue if he was guilty or not. I looked at the physical evidence and I found it overwhelmingly sufficient to prove Westerfield is guilty. Since then I am looking for evidence that might change that perception. Also, since then the more I look the more physical evidence I become aware of instead of evidence that exonerates him.
So, far I haven't been presented any evidence to change my opinion which was formed based on the hard physical facts except for speculation. Speculation is by definition and direction to a jury in CA not a basis on which to form reasonable doubt. Speculation includes Danielle was ever in the RV other than the day she was abducted. Speculation includes the blood on the jacket got there when she visited for selling cookies. Speculation includes the fibers rubbed off from the investigators. No evidence other than inuendo regarding these speculations has been put forward by the defense to my knowledge.
So, currently I do not presume Westerfield's innocence because I have seen enough evidence to believe with moral certainity that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But, hey I could still change that opinion based on the remaining testimony, closing arguments or facts that a kind freeper here may provide.
I do too but to never turn it on ? Not even to get a weather report if your traveling ? Doesn't seem plausible but again everything about assuming the Westerfield is innocent requires acceptance of a number of unlikely coincidences so whats one more.
None of this is evidence anyway its all on the same order of speculating.
A neighbor was aware that the RV was always unlocked ? That is huge. This guy must have been called as witness by Feldman wasn't he ?
Any record of testimony or report ?
I'm a little confused on that paragraph.
He left the MH unlocked more than just one time and it had been in the neighborhood for 2 years....that is a long time and a lot of opportunity for a child to enter.
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.