Posted on 03/03/2002 7:49:10 AM PST by FresnoDA
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that the police don't know about it. Maybe people from his past talked to the police, and that's why they kept on him as the only suspect. He was ALWAYS the ONLY suspect. The Police had to know things that we don't.
They started out front with persons who were white upper middle class, respectable figures, and found some of them were pedophiles despite their "innocent images."
Garbage in, Garbage OUT! LOL!
No lower-class, suspicious-image persons were even looked at. If they had been, probably a far higher proportion of THEM would have had deviant tendencies.
..it would take a person who has a computer,firstly, and secondly, a person who has the internet..
..do you think poor people or even the working poor can all afford that...no , they all can't
It also takes a person who has plenty of computer time and does not have to break his back for a living...
so yes, white males with upper incomes would be heavily represented in these cases.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cvvoatvx.txt
*Inmates who victimized children were less likely than other inmates to have a prior criminal record--nearly a third of child-victimizers had never been arrested prior to the current offense, compared to less than 20% of those who victimized adults.
I realize that not all people have computers.. But not all computer owners are upper middle class. There are plenty of blue collars..and I'd say more blue collars own computers than rich folks maybe becaues blue collars outnumber rich folks.
In defense of crypt, this comment he made is a carry over from a different thread, pointing fingers at people who were in disbelief that the family is grieving.
"The only tremendously strong characteristic is wanting to be around children," he said. "Normal adults, particularly men, don't want to be around other people's children unless they're being paid for it."
Ergo, if you are male, and spend uncompensated time around other people's kids, you must be a pedophile? What about all the people who are unpaid coaches, counselors, sunday school teachers, etc? Are they all pedophiles? Is any man who talks to a another's child a pedophile? This guy is strange indeed. Must be looking for contributions from the totally clueless.
TODAY'S INNOCENT IMAGES
Today, the FBI's IINI focuses on:
individuals who indicate a willingness to travel interstate for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity with a minor; and major producers and/or distributors of child pornography.
In addition, the IINI works to identify child victims and obtain appropriate services/assistance for them.
Online child pornography/child sex exploitation is the most significant crime problem confronting the FBI that involves crimes against children. Throughout the FBI, there was a 1,264% increase in the number of IINI cases opened between fiscal years 1996 and 2000 from 113 to 1,541. It is anticipated that the number of cases opened and the resources utilized to address the crime problem will continue to rise during the next several years.
Unfortunately, there's nothing about the characteristics of a typical pedophile or serial child sex abuser that would set off alarms for parents or administrators:
Here's how pedophiles generally target their victims and allay suspicion:
Warning signs for parents:
Sources: Dr. W. Richard Fossey, associate dean of the college of education at Louisiana State University; Craig Emanuel, investigator with the Arizona Department of Education Sources; Child Abuse and Neglect, a book by Roland C. Summit; and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette series, "Dirty Secrets," by Jane Elizabeth Zemel and Steve Twedt.
Return to January 2000 contents
I've heard this mentioned, but I don't know many people who party into the wee hours of the morning with a trip planned the next day. Seems most people might be up late the "night before" just PACKING, especially if they were talking three kids along. I haven't heard police mentioned luggage or the reason for the trip. As someone else mentioned, the trip would be a quite expensive luxury for someone with Van Dam's income to pull off.
That does put it into perspective...
What if any of them had a child that had spent the night with little Danielle and instead of Danielle being abducted, it was their child.
Perhaps these hypothetical parents knew Brenda through Girls Scouts and thought the house was a safe one.
If they learned that the VDs may well be "swingers", how many do you think would be willing to stand on their opinion that the lifestyle wasn't relevant?
How many would be satisfied if LE looked right past it and didn't delve into it deeper? Would they want to know every detail of that night and the identities of each person who visited the home? Would they closely question the timeline? How content would they be with accepting only Damon's story of what happened in the earlier part of the evening?
You get the picture. They would be clamoring for all these answers and much more. Why should it be any different because the child just happens to have lived in the home? Heaven knows we have seen plenty of parents who harm their own. These questions are valid ones and it is unfair to Danielle for them not to be asked.
And that can be done without the sordid wild accusing speculations.
Perhaps. But maybe they wiil make a deal with Westerfield that spares his life. It happens all the time.
Can you think of a way to bring these questions up for consideration without speculating? Are we to simply accept what little we have been told as the absolute, undeniable truth and never ponder other possibilities?
Then why do we have jury trials? If an arrest means all the facts are in, I guess we could save a lot of money by doing away with courts, judges, juries and attorneys.
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.