Skip to comments.WHERE IS DANIELLE VAN DAM? Town Is Rife With Talk!
Posted on 02/18/2002 9:32:13 AM PST by FresnoDAEdited on 09/03/2002 4:49:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Where is Danielle van Dam?
Feb. 18 issue
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 11:06 pm:
|I think the promiscuous parents were directly responsible for this crime. They apparently have the morals of pigs in a pig sty.
They were simply into gratifying their perverted
sexual drives and could not be bothered with checking on the kids. Their promiscuous orgasms ostensibly came first.
|Kneed 2 No
Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 05:16 pm:
|On the hopeful side, what if, just,"IF" somebody knew this little girl was being exposed to this questionable adult behavior, and removed her for safety reasons? She could very well still be alive.|
Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2002 - 09:28 am:
|Do you think the police are using Mr. Westerfield as a decoy, and the real criminal is the father? The reason I think this is, if they know for sure it's Mr. W, then why are the VD calling in people to hunt for their daughter, when Mr. W., supposely told the police he could take them to her. Just a thought.|
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 10:49 pm:
|This case gets weirder and weirder. I believe we already know who the guilty party is. We just have to wait for them to break. Remember Susan smith? They had to play some mental games with her first!|
|Dan OBrien, 29 Palms Ca
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2002 - 08:42 am:
|If these parents of the missing child were drug abusers the police would have arrested them both for child endangerment.
If the parents of the missing child were alcoholics they would have been arrested for child endangerment.
If one of the parents would have fallen asleep while smoking a cigarette and set the house on fire and a child would have died the parents would have been arrested for child endangerment.
If the parents were distracted with a domestic argument and lost track of the child they would have been arrested for domestic violence and child endangerment.
But in this case the parents bring into the house on a regular basis a stream of unsavory strangers to satisfy their sexual proclivities, fail to secure their children from them, and disregard the signals from their own alarm system rather than disrupt their evening of sick pleasures and loose their daughter. The Press does not bring up their lifestyle and instead they are made Media darlings.
The parents in this case would have a better chance of getting arrested for cruelty and abandonment of the family pet.
Something is askew here folks. Its a sick world we live in, and a sick media that spoon-feeds us the news. A world where a woman in Los Angeles is given the maximum sentence for manslaughter when she fell asleep after a few drinks and she forgot to bring her baby in from a hot car. Yet the media is courting these sick puppies.
It now brings suspect to the cases of Paula Class and others whose parents were so preoccupied. Were they swingers too?
Posted on Friday, February 15, 2002 - 08:25 am:
|By Joe Hughes
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
February 15, 2002
In the strongest comments yet about the Danielle van Dam investigation, a high-ranking San Diego police official said yesterday he was confident the case would soon be solved.
"We will solve this case sooner rather than later," Assistant Chief Steve Creighton said. "We have a ton of evidence that we are meticulously going over. We are making progress."
Earlier this week, a lieutenant said an arrest could be weeks away, but the mood of officials changed after police returned to the home of a van Dam neighbor Wednesday night for a lengthy, third search.
Creighton did not say when an arrest might be made.
Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 09:56 pm:
|Why do the children always have to suffer for lifestyles of parents. Even if not direct it has to have some effect at some point. In this case maybe even death.|
Posted on Wednesday, February 13, 2002 - 05:33 pm:
|how can the police be so stupid as to have let the family stay and inhabit the crime scene?|
Posted on Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - 06:15 am:
|Looks as if they changed the message board since I was logged on last night.
Last night I asked my husband... If we were having people over for just a regular party, you know with normal adult conversations, joking etc. and the children were in bed. Would you check on them before the guests arrived?? He said yeah, and we would probably would have checked on them every 1/2 hour or 45 mins.
Maybe we are unconventional parents, but that is the way we parented, and we now have 5 out of 5 children grown, working, and being productive citizens.
Someone had mentioned in a previous post that she heard that swingers give their kids drugs to keep them asleep during the activities. That is awful if true.
Everyone seems to be calling for a resolution, but I don't think that the police should be rushed to make an arrest. They need to find Danielle if possible.
It is hard to imagine that someone would come into a home, take one child, and leave when the father and 2 other children were in the house. It is also more difficult to believe that someone would come into a house and take a child when there are 6 adults and 2 other children in a house.
As I said before the news on the east coast is not covering this and perhaps I missed something. I know the parents took lie detector tests, and they passed. Did the neighbor? What about the other adults in the house?
It's fine if they want to be part of a swinging community, but as with everything your actions have consequences and now is the time they are going to have to pay the piper for their dancing, but coming out and admitting to their way of life in order to clear up this matter.
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 09:01 pm:
|Here's the problem I have with the "child porn" allegations:
1) Sure, you'd have to investigate whether a model was a young-looking adult vs. an underaged teen. But there's no way you could confuse an adult model with, say, a 7 year old. Remember, Danielle is only 7; how relevant would it be if the guy had porn of 16 year olds? I'm no expert on pedophiles, but it seems like guys who dig 7 year olds wouldn't dig post-pubescent high school-age students. The report of "tons of kiddie porn" implied that the models were young children - NOT TEENS. (not that under-18 porn is ok - it's not!)
2) AFAIK, the allegations of child porn were discussed first on the Rick Roberts Show with his "source in law enforcement" as the sole source. I have not heard any police official give this information _on the record_. I don't think this info is properly sourced, just like a lot of the innuendo made against Richard Jewell. I could make a strong case that the allegations against Richard Jewell were better-sourced, as they came from multiple sources within the FBI.
3) Who has signed his name to any of these allegations? As far as I can tell, all of this is just the word of a single, unnamed law enforcement source. Technically, this person could be a chatty meter maid who gets her info from department-house gossip. [I don't actually believe that - Rick is probably better than that. Still, the lack of attribution is troubling.]
Your claim that Rick has been "right on everything" is patently false as he just retracted his "kiddie porn" statements. I don't want to beat up Rick Roberts - I thought it was correct to move forward with the type of info that he had AS LONG AS IT WAS PROPERLY SOURCED. It's my contention that the media in many high profile cases pushes improperly sourced material in order to be FIRST rather than RIGHT.
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 07:05 pm:
|Please Please PLEASE SENATOR COOLEY...Listen to what Rick is saying.
His source...along with other police sources, and several T.V. stations reported the police found "tons of kiddie porn" in Westerfields house.
The police obviously had to investigate the porn to find out exactly what it was. That takes time, and calls, and investigating.
Now the police sources to the Rick Roberts Show are saying they have investigated it and concluded the models were of age, but dressed like children...some in rape sequences.
Senator...this is an ongoing story...it's constantly moving...and so far Rick has been right on everything. No one else is giving you this...except for Newsweek and People. Listen more carefully before throwing your mud.
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 06:36 pm:
|Another thing on the "child porn" aspect of the case: it's ILLEGAL to have porn that makes adults look like children in it. That is, not only is it illegal to have porn with actual under-18 people in it, it's illegal to have adults pose as children in porn.
At present, I'd bet that DW has nothing illegal, and that various hosts at KFMB have slandered him.
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 06:11 pm:
|So now Rick's source says that Westerfield did not in fact have kiddie porn - he had the "Barely Legal" stuff instead? Sounds to me like Rick's source doesn't know nearly as much as he thinks he does. I mean, come on: he was implying that the guy had photos of 7-year olds being molested. That's a far cry from flat-chested 18-year-olds!
I think Rick should hold off on reporting more info from his "source". I'm thinking more and more that this is a "Richard Jewell"-type case.
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 05:27 pm:
|I have a strong feeling that Danielle's body is buried out in Glamis, but the problem is that we don't know exactly *where*. I've been out there with the American Sand Association search and I don't doubt that I might have passed right by or over her grave. The recent sand storm has erased every possible trace of a burial site, so maybe we should just start sifting through the sand...|
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 03:15 pm:
|I just did an internet search on "David Westerfield", and one of the things that popped up was a list of UCSD extension courses. Several of them were computer courses taught by a David Westerfield. president of a computer consulting firm, and author of a book on microchips.
Is the the same guy who is the Van Dam's neighbor?
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 01:26 pm:
|How many people return from a weekend trip to the desert Sunday night and clean their motorhome from top to bottom before they even get back home? Sounds fishy....|
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 12:40 pm:
|If Mr. Westerfield went to the Silver Strand in Coronado on Sat. and then the desert on Sun. why wasn't the Coronado area included in the search? Also, if Mr. Westerfield had child porn in his possession, why was he not arrested immediately for that? Possession of child porn is a federal offense.|
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 12:32 pm:
|why haven't the police been more forthcoming regarding the other people who attended the
sex party that night?
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 11:36 am:
|don't forget, this is SAn Diego, not LA, and the jury of DW's "peers" if he is the perp, don't take kindly to kidnapping/poss murder unlike apparently, the OJ jury did.|
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 11:28 am:
|I think that Westerfield did it. They just dont have enough evidence to arrest him.. This makes sense..look at the OJ trial, they had tons of evidence against him and he still walked. I think the police want the charges to stick when they finally do arrest him.|
Posted on Monday, February 18, 2002 - 08:13 am:
|Where was Mr. W's motorhome when this happened? Was it at his home or was it in storage in Poway. I read that he stored it in Poway. You know the City of Poway has canyons, too. All with thick brush and could be a good hiding place for whatever. I used to live in Poway back in the 80's & 90's and I used to do some of my running out in that area. I used to run up Beeler Canyon Rd. and the back roads out there. That would be a good place to look and all the surrounding areas. Mr. W used to live in Poway so I think he would know that area pretty well. I haven't heard anyone searching that area at all. It's worth a try. Rick Roberts, what do you say, huh?|
I keep returning to the same thing....it is either the parents or the neighbor. The money part is still bugging me. That Excursion, or was it an Expedition looked brand new. But then, I live in the snowy midwest and our cars get all messed up with road salt.
FOLKS IN SAN DIEGO ON TARGET, POLL FREEP NOT EVEN NEEDED!!
Previous Poll Results:
Now that you know about Danielle van Dam's parents' swinging lifestyle should their other two children remain in the home?
23% - Yes
I.G. Agree again with your comments!! You have this buttoned down....
Egress into this home, both from the front and from the rear, is very limited. The "perp" would have walked right by the front of the garage, using the front door and the gated fence from the rear of the house traverses directly adjacent to the garage. Maybe Damon VD had his "radical" stereo blasting at full volume? Disco, rap??? What about the neighbors, were they ever bothered by the late night comings and goings (and noises) at the VD estate?
And how do the "SWNG VISITORS" get into the garage, using the remote control? Side gate? Do they drag these anonymous strangers through their house. If the garage is made into the rumpus room one could imagine the VD's have made, then it is unlikely they are going to simply open the garage door for all to see!
So that leaves the abduction of Danielle.....
PARENTS ARE IN GARAGE, and not in the house?? How could a random perp have such knowledge. Lucky guess, no way, they are too shrewd. Would have to have been either a previous SWNGER or one of the PLYRS that night/morning. Could they have gone for "break" from the melee, and stashed the girl out back to retrieve later, on the way out? We still can not ignore....
1. Alarm did not work, stoned or not, why would Damon VD ignore?
2. Rottweiler is tame, and can't bark. Denied by the Kennel that sold to them.....
3. Intimate knowledge/layout of the house, 4000Sq feet is bigger than most track homes....in a dark house, plodding around upstairs, luckily finding the female child and not one of the boys?
4. No scent trail for dogs...that is strange....a short trail of the child to the street, where it is lost in a vehicle is expected.....
5. Parents were "indisposed, very late, very long time" Note that the timeline of the Van Dams has varied, reported by LE in San Diego.
I don't buy it, not for one minute. A "stay-home" mom is always overly protective, and she would have checked on the brood before calling it a night. She was gone early (6 P.M.) off to dinner, then dancing, then "the parking lot episode" then back home for the garage party.....and not once did she check in on her children....if San Diego L.E. cracks this, it will be revolting.
But these type of criminals are amazingly cunning, crafty and without remorse. If the VD's stick to their planned story, and if they have planted enough dirty evidence on Westerfield for L.E. to find, then they will walk....too bad there are other kids...maybe males mean more than females with these types....I think the main reason why the VD's are not denying and protesting the SWNG LIFESTYLE any louder, is that they know many will say, "Oh, well they were doing that, we don't want to be judgmental" and all the while, it is a diversion. Hope I am way off base.....
Westerfield said they danced, Brenda denies, possibly laying groundwork to nullify Westerfield defense testimony pointing to probable cross-contamination if Westerfield hairs are found in child's room? In addition, Brenda claims not entering the child's room after returning from the restaurant, negating another opportunity for cross contamination. Next time she enters the room (she will say) she was bathed, hair washed and wearing a nightgown?
It is totally incredible to me that a person not familiar with, and at least formerly welcome on, these premises could have done this. No sign of a struggle or hasty grab of a person in blankets, etc. You tell ME how a stranger could have got the girl out of bed and down stairs and out of a house with 6 adults and 2 children in it, etc.--unless perhaps the girl knew him/them, and went with them voluntarily on her own accord.
I just don't think there is any evidence that anyone was forcefully abducted at all! Looks like Danielle (trusted perhaps not validly) and left voluntarily with the perpetrator, unless it was someone trying to save her as above poster has said...
Also, why all this about the middle of the night? If the "guests" in the garage left finally at 5 or so, and the parents were passed out somewhere, what is to keep Danielle from waking at daybreak, playing outside in the yard, going off to McDonalds with friendly adult frequently seen in the house, etc.
Why this absolutely ludicrous dispute over whether W and Mrs VD danced? That should be easily confirmable by interviewing those at the club...and might they have MORE THAN DANCED, such as in the parking lot etc? Why the argument early on that they were really strangers, had met only when he bought girl scout cookies, and now it seems [maybe, who knows who is lying] they knew each other fairly WELL?
She looked so non credible on that little point, that I think she DID in fact actually look in on the children, and found them to be OK.
Also agree that mummy dearest is unbelievable in her alibi!!
Perhaps her intent at the club was to collect samples that could be planted at the crime scene (hair and other) - let's wait and see what evidence the SDPD comes up with before continuing this line of thought.
I still think Mrs VD knows who has the child and why...[or if child is known dead] who HAD her and why.
I agree with you that it is looking less and less likely that Danielle was even alive when she left the premises.
There seems to be some reason the couple almost EMBRACE the release of the details about their life style, as if that was HELPING their case not hurting it...as if it were a defense.
My opinion about Westerfield is that he is either completely innocent, or a rather insignificant player in some rather big operation about child sex and/or porn-- that involves the VD's more heavily than he, and explains all these expensive toys and life style beyond visible means of support...
Have not seen this film, but the selective breeding is an unusual twist. How do you relate to this event? Curious?
I would answer this question with the theory I have posted on this and other threads: one of the "guests" at the "party" excuses self to get snack from kitchen, or, perhaps, to use the bathroom. No one particularly misses said guest because they are otherwise occupied. He's been there before; goes upstairs, either carries out a sleeping child OR gets her to walk out with him. Might be Westerfield: the van Dams have lied quite a bit already, what would be surprising if they lied about knowing Westerfield? Or it might be another guest altogether. But it seems more and more like they came in and left through a regular door, not over that wall.
or was already dead when she left the VD property.
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.