Posted on 02/11/2002 5:06:42 PM PST by Petronski
Thanks for the great response.
By Bruce Lieberman and Preston Turegano
STAFF WRITERS
February 9, 2002
All week, media across the nation buzzed about the abduction of a child from her bedroom in northern San Diego.
Danielle van Dam is still missing, but by yesterday the public's attention was shifting to the girl's parents, as accusations and talk-radio diatribes threatened to drown out news of the investigation.
The founder of a group that posted a $10,000 reward for Danielle's safe return suggested the police investigate her family. Radio talk-show conversations questioned the lifestyle of Brenda and Damon van Dam; television and newspaper reporters began asking them about it.
The Internet has been teeming with messages about Danielle and her parents. While some come to the van Dams' defense, the bulk are angry with the parents, and many of the messages are mean-spirited. They address everything from rumors of the parents' lifestyle to their statements that they didn't check on their children after a door was found open at night.
The van Dams, who discovered their 7-year-old daughter missing from her bed a week ago today, became household names almost overnight as they made the rounds of national television shows, pleading for Danielle's return.
They have used the reach of the Internet to ask for help in finding her. A Web site set up by neighbors provides a downloadable poster of the child and asks viewers to distribute it as widely as possible.
The shift in the response to the van Dams – from sympathetic to nasty – was swift as the couple tried in vain to keep the focus on the search for their daughter.
A family spokeswoman said the van Dams would not comment yesterday about the flurry of allegations.
One of the most outspoken critics was Douglas Pierce, who only days before posted a $10,000 reward for Danielle's return. Pierce, who describes his group, the Millennium Children's Fund, as a nonprofit advocacy group for abused children, said he was disturbed by what he saw during his eight hours in the van Dam home Wednesday.
He felt the parents lacked emotion, and said he was put off by what he described as their repeated rehearsals before facing the media.
The van Dams and several advisers plan what the parents say and how they look on television and in newspapers, Pierce said. "They were talking about their makeup and how they look in the camera," he added.
Pierce said the van Dams' two sons, 5 and 10, should be taken from the home while police search for Danielle.
Although he found no evidence to believe the van Dams are tied directly to their daughter's disappearance, Pierce said he decided to ask for outside protection for the children after observing the family, its public-relations team and a journal entry by Danielle that he said suggested conflict with her father.
Pierce said he was shocked when Brenda van Dam showed him Danielle's journal. " 'Daddy, please forgive me,' " Pierce said one entry read. " 'Daddy please love me. Danielle.' "
"After my personal observation, I'm asking for a wake-up call from the San Diego Police Department to investigate the family," Pierce said.
Pierce's comments enraged the van Dams.
"Douglas Pierce is some kind of freak who came into our house," Damon van Dam told a Los Angeles radio station Thursday. He called Pierce "evil."
"He is trying to start trouble for us," Brenda van Dam said. "We did not invite him into our house."
A few days ago, the van Dams began to get questions on television about their private life. Delicate questions became pointed yesterday when San Diego radio talk-show host Rick Roberts criticized the van Dams on the air for "not being honest" about "what really occurred" the night their daughter disappeared.
Roberts told his listeners that a "reliable" source "high in law enforcement" said the van Dams have engaged in "lots of wife-swapping." Saying he believes the source, Roberts reported activity by the van Dams on the night of Feb. 1 dramatically different from their description to the news media.
Roberts repeated his source's allegations for four hours, interrupted mainly by callers angry at the van Dams.
During a break in his 3-to-7 p.m. show on KFMB-AM 760 titled "The Court of Public Opinion," Roberts told The San Diego Union-Tribune he decided to go public with what his source told him because the van Dams' two young sons remain at home and "may be exposed to the couple's lifestyle."
When asked if he thought his comments were slanderous or unethical, Roberts said: "No, not at all. This is not a court of law. It's a court of public opinion. If anyone thinks they're slanderous, they can subpoena me."
Roberts said he told his program director he intended to disclose the source's information and that the director did not object.
Ed Trimble, president and chief operating officer of KFMB-TV and radio, could not be reached for comment after the show.
Roberts' comments prompted a flurry of new messages on the Internet.
A woman who runs a Danielle van Dam message board from North Carolina said, "It is the kind of situation that will show every wart they have – and it will horrify us to think how little privacy anyone really has."
In the meantime, Pierce continued to post the reward offer on the Web.
His Millennium Children's Fund is listed with the state of California as an active corporation first registered Feb. 26, 2000. In April 2001, Pierce filed a 990-EZ form with the Internal Revenue Service, listing the fund as a "children's public benefit charity."
Accomplishments listed on the form included creating Web sites for adults and for children, and "implementing" public-service announcements. Pierce reported no income and no expenses for the 2000 tax year on the form.
Instead, the van Dams think Danielle's kidnapper climbed the steps to her second-floor bedroom – decorated in pink and purple – after everyone was asleep. (source)
All this time I was under the impression that the child had a bedroom that was easily accessible to the outside, on the main floor perhaps, or with a door leading directly out of her bedroom. Reading this, I realize that if she was taken, it most likely was someone who (a) had access to the rest of the house, and (b) someone who might know where to find the child's room.
Who had access to the house, if, as it's claimed, the garage door was locked? Which begs the question, was the garage door locked for the duration of the "party", or did someone perhaps need to use an indoor restroom? If so, it would of course depend on the "activities" going on in the garage as to whether or not anyone would even notice the absence of one person. The child could have been carried to a nearby vehicle and stashed there until the person said his/her goodbyes and calmly drove away.
The article is also full of the misdirection and untruths by the van Dams early on, like the "we were just sleeping" story. But mulling over it, I did find some information there that I hadn't seen elsewhere.
Westerfield was at the same bar that night but was not among those who accompanied Brenda van Dam home, police said.
My original source was obviously wrong, which might explain why it couldn't be found. Often erroneous stories are simply removed from news sites.
The other is the question about the high-dollar public relations firm--lots of us asked, where the heck did they get the money? The Times reveals that their services were donated.
And thank you for your gracious words. What is your guess on what happened?
I had read earlier that Danielle's bedroom was on the second floor. Also, the family had a large, though "debarked" dog. Now a dog does not need to bark to jump on or bite someone if the dog is startled by an intruder. So, this means that if it were a random intruder, they would have had to entered the house at a time when the mother was out, the dad was napping, get to a second floor bedroom, and get past a large dog.
While anything is possible, it is more plausible, that it was someone familiar with the family.
Because it isn't the children's business, that's why.
My wife and I close our bedroom door while we have sex, and it isn't because we are ashamed of whatever it is that we do in there, but it is because we do not feel that it is the kid's business, at any level.
My parents are normal, in every sense of tne word, and they took great precautions not to allow us into their private life. And that's what it is, it is private time for the adults. Believe it or not, not everything that adults do should be made known to children. Even after marriage, my wife and I want time, and things, that are strictly hers and mine.
That does not, in any way, mean that we don't adore our kids.
If Danielle's parents had openly conducted their alleged (notice the word alleged, you are still working off rumours andf innuendo) swinging openly in front of the children, would that have made everything better in your eyes?
If you didn't, was it because you were ashamed of having sex?
Now that we have settled the fact that the neighbor was never in the house (at least by invitation), I would like to see your source for the information about any sort of a party going on in the garage that night, or that anyone was in the garage at all.
I also saw something in the article that you posted that confirms one of my main fears:
"Danielle van Dam is still missing, but by yesterday the public's attention was shifting to the girl's parents, as accusations and talk-radio diatribes threatened to drown out news of the investigation."
Danielle is being forgotten by averyone caught up in the romours and allegations.
Sick.
My apologies, let me re-state the question then.
Did you discuss when and where you and your husband would be having sex with your kids?
Did you discuss your sexual lives openly with your nine year-old kids?
If you are setting a yardstick by which other people are to be measured, you need to step up to it yourself.
Is it typical to debark a dog? I'm not a dog owner and I have never heard of this.
If I were to guess, I believe that it's Westerfield. I also believe that he is the source of the "swinging" rumours, trying to cover his own ass by taking attention away from himself, and directing it at the van Dams.
Who else would have "leaked" that information to the press? A law enforcement officer? Why? Releasing information like that can only hurt the investigation. "Swinger" friends of the van Dams would not do it either, out of self-protection.
The discjockey has either been lied to, or is himself lying about his source.
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.