Replies

That was no "highly placed law enforcement officer" calling Rick Roberts (if there was ever such a call at all) that was Westerfield's attorney, setting up the defense. He could pick any number of you in here for the jury.

I have no idea why there is a 'choosing of sides' going on here. There are no 'winners' here; only one little girl who is the big loser.

Having said that, we were all taken aback, I am sure, when we first heard that Mrs was 'out' dancing (w/o Mr) in the middle of the night. While it is certainly true that the 'evidence' of Mr and Mrs 'unorthodox' (and if true seriously evil) lifestyle is fragmentary and double hearsay, it is the nature of these things that the results of police investigations often leak out in dabs and dollops. This, it seems to me, is the symptom of our time. 'Parents' -- using the term loosely -- who do not place the welfare of their children above all other concerns -- including their own 'satisfaction'.

One final point. I am sure we have all been struck by what the pychobabblers would call the "inappropriate affect" of the parents here. That is, they just don't seem to have the right reaction to this catastrophe. In law enforcement, that is often the first clue of involvement, so it is only reasonable that many here have speculated in that direction.

While it is true that we are engaging here in mass speculation based on early news reports, it is foolhardy (and Clintonian) to say that no one can be 'guilty' of anything until charged and found guilty in court. That is just not true. Someone is guilty right now -- and was so from the moment of the dastardly act. Eventually, the prosecutors and judges and juries will get around to formalizing that determination within the rarified realm of our courts, but that is not what makes a person 'guilty'. It is the act, not the process, that determines guilt.

This, it seems to me, is the symptom of our time. 'Parents' -- using the term loosely -- who do not place the welfare of their children above all other concerns -- including their own 'satisfaction'.

Bump to your comments. Winston, there are no "side choosers". The vast majority of posters are in agreement. The actions of the "parents" are deplorable. Putting aside the gritty details of their alternative lifestyle, your statement cuts directly to the core matter here. The VD's did not place their children's welfare above their own. In their world, immediate satisfaction was the primary goal, above all other things.

When a small number of counter post-testors aggressively take the "opposing" side, as LG and L have, the best thing is to step aside, and let them rant.

Unless the press pulls a Gary Condit, and simply walks away from "the rest of the story" there will be more that comes out on this matter......