Posted on 07/24/2002 10:44:59 PM PDT by FresnoDA
More likely than leaving behind only one print, a hair with a root that gets left in the trap and blood or blood like material in the RV while playing in the RV unseen by anyone with no evidence any other child ever played there ?
IMO, you are absolutely correct, demsux.
Even if you believed the VD's to begin with, you would have to believe that children never disobey their parents, to think Danielle could not have crossed the street to the MH.
Personally, I believe it's possible that she may have gone in there while out walking Layla, which would account for so many dog hairs. Possibly even in the company of her brothers. JMO
What kind of store and were her parents in the store at the time ? I sometimes let my 7 year old use bathtroom alone provided I am outside door and depending on who else is in there. Judgement call.
How long ?
Fairly large dog to walk for a young child. My 7 year old son would not be able to walk our little apso lapso very far before getting frustrated and I certainly wouldn't let him walk him alone. I can't imagine him walking a dog the size of Van Dam's alone (unless someone refered me to wrong picture of dog.)
Does this make any sense?
The prosecution is suggesting mummifaction took place prior to the disposal of the body, which inhibited the blowfly activity from beginning until the middle of February. Problem is, that the prosecutor's curren t theory depends on the body mummifying in the first 2-3 days Danielle was missing, because otherwise, Dw couldn't have disposed of the body since he was by then under constant watch by the cops. If blow flies are attracted to fresh 'meat', possibly even within 1/2 hour, why would they wait almost two weeks to start laying eggs in Danielle's body?
It would seem very logical to me that if the body was partially mummified prior to being exposed at Dehesa Road, someone other than DW disposed of the body around the middle of February, eliminating DW as a suspect (at least as a perp acting alone) in the murder of Danielle.
All in all, the anthropologist will end up being a big plus for the defense in this case. Don't be misled by the answers being given on direct examination because Dusek is being very care to elicit only the answers he wants. Feldman will tear Dusek apart in his cross-examination and the witness will not make much of an effort if any to defend Dusek with his answers. BTW, your comment makes sense, unlike the prosecutors theory when applied to the evidence.
I know. I am father of 4 children and have been negligent numerous times and but for the grace of God they have survived.
That's beyond what I consider safe. Did she ask clerk to keep an eye ?
Ummm, when Damon van Dam pulled into the driveway the evening of Feb. 1, Brenda pulled in behind him -- without the kids in the car. They'd been left at home alone on that occasion -- were there any others? There's also the time Danielle left through the back gate without permission and was caught. Were there other times she wasn't caught?
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.