Posted on 02/28/2002 2:54:47 PM PST by FresnoDA
But . . . but . . . but . . . I have it on good authority from any of a number of libertine-loving posters that pornography is harmless fun, a healthy bit of recreation that separates the sexually healthy and well-adjusted hair-chested men from the sexually frustrated and dysfuctional prudes.
I'm sure they have quotes from Jefferson or Paine along the same lines. ;-)
In a brief phrase--at least partly so. More so when you consider the entire chain of events--doors left open, alarms tripped but unchecked, no one bothering to check any of the children until late the next morning (thankfully, at least the two little boys were left alone this time). Mothers who allow husbands or boyfriends to abuse children are also held legally responsible for allowing it to happen. Why shouldn't these parents be held to the same standards?
This is not good news if Westerfield actually did it, alas. While I do hold the VDs partially responsible for their reckless lifestyle, the last thing I want to see is for them to be put on trial in this trial. Personally, I'd rather see them on trial in family court, when they try to get those other two children out of that dangerous home. If Westerfield did it, and gets off because of what the VDs have done with their lives, then they are also responsible for their daughter's murderer to go free. I pray this does not happen.
The news reports so far have not named the "guests" that evening, but they have stated that she went to the bar with two female friends, and picked up two males. Rumor-reports tell of other goings-on before they got back to the house, but these are as yet unconfirmed.
Now, put 2 and 2 together, so to speak. Consider that Westerfield's statement was that he was there at the bar with a male friend, someone named "Gary." He claims they danced; Mrs. VD says no. But she admits that he wanted an introduction.
So you have Mrs. VD with 2 girlfriends, looking for 2 guys to make it a 6-some (counting Mr.VD). Were Westerfield and his friend the two unnamed males in the house? Might that have been the reason for the quick focus on him and his RV when little Danielle was found to be missing? Could that have explained Mrs. VD's strange statement about "someone" knowing where little Danielle was?
Actually, yes, they seemed to have had quite a sound system set up in the garage. It is unlikely any of the "guests" would have heard anything, and if they were occupied in the rumored activities that night, they would have been unlikely to have paid attention even so. But even if none of that had been true, chloroform or a gag might have silenced the little tyke. But what of the largish dog? At first it was claimed he was debarked, then we learned he was not. Surely he would have set up some sort of ruckus, wouldn't he? If not barking, at least attempts at protecting Danielle?
Unless, that is, it was someone who was familiar to the dog. If, for instance, Westerfield had been a visitor there before...
Naahhh, I'm sure their lifestyle had nothing to do with what happened to the little girl...
So now the dog barks? The worm keeps turning.
Westerfield has one heck of an attorney, and from what I have read, the van Dams are going to have to defend what went on in that house that evening and into the early morning...no stone will be left unturned by the defense. Oh, they can always plead "the fifth".. So those who think it's no one's business are in for a rude awakening when the trial starts.
The saying goes "Innocent until proven guilty"...but in Westerfields case, alas, it is "Guilty, until proven innocent". And if he did it, I have no sympathy for him, but if he is innocent, the real killer is still out there.
sw
Because I have been suspicious of the parents from the beginning, I paid very close attention to things they said and their body language.
Now I know some here think that is cruel and unfair, but each of us see what we see.
When Brenda said that, I thought it was really strange. She said, "Someone knows where Danielle is and it's not me. The last three words really jumped out at me. What an odd thing to say. Maybe it was nothing but innocent rambling, but I thought it was really weird to say something like that when it should be a given.
First of all, anyone could bring a sexual predator into a house, from GRANDPA, uncle to a handy man.
I guess I'll repeat myself from an earlier post...
"I know for a fact that parents all over the u.s. do their best to hide their bedroom activities from their children..from turning the tv on loud to turning the radio up so the kids ''can't hear them''. THAT is nothing new. oh and gasp, lock their bedroom doors so the little kiddos won't enter the bedroom "
So trying to hide their sexual activities, IF, and that's a big IF that is what they were doing, is NOTHING NEW.
WRT their alleged lifestyle..."Granted, that is deviant..but so is having extra marital affairs, going to bars every weekend, drinking too much and smoking cigarettes..There are all kinds of deviant lifestyles. "
"Almost every kind of lifestyle carries with it a risk. There are three local families here whose single daughters were never found...but were victims of sexual predator. The violent sex offender was a painting contractor who worked for the apartment buildings of the victims. He had keys and access to the victims. SICK right? It hasn't been that many years ago when it was considered deviant for women to be alone on the street let alone live by themselves.....it was proper for them to have escorts. "
Do you think that it's the young single women's fault because they didn't have an escort and lived alone?
Just because adults trade partners doesn't mean the partners are pedophiles. This is kind of getting close to the argument that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Mind you, I'm NOT defending the deviant lifestyle that people are claiming the parents lived. "
Please explain to me how denying a false allegation would have hurt this case?
If the allegation is ridiculous, and far from the truth..why address it at all? You guys aren't the investigators here. Let the investigators do their job. Frankly, the "National Enquirer" method of reporting, as was done in this case is sick sick sick.
And you talk about "sick, sick, sick"? Strange world we live in today. Good is bad. Black is white. And some of these people even believe what they say.
I'm not going to deny that a deviant sexual lifestyle could increase one's risk of harm....but so does a lot more than just that!
A new safety precaution (mentioned in the news lately) in the prevention of violent crime is to not assume your co-workers are friends...they are strangers too..and to not accept rides from them JUST BECAUSE you met them at work. There is a young women from eastern kansas who lost her life violently because she gave a sexual predator (co-worker) a ride home from work..so yes, you just never never know. Better live in a bubble.
I have heard through the LE grapevine that Pfingst is not widely respected by rank and file LE. I don't know a lot of details but I guess he is known for timidity unless he is practically guaranteed a conviction and is also known for moving cases out of the county when possible.
This is just hearsay, of course, but yet another interesting facet to think about.
Do any of the these things you listed involve inviting any number of strangers into one's home.....strangers that are already established as sexually deviant? This is hardly a rational comparison.
Oh, so now smoking cigarettes is deviant, in your humble opinion! I highly resent you lumping the adult American who chooses to smoke into the same category as the sicko that killed this child!
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.