Why on earth would the defense bring up the "swingers" angle?
The case being tried is the murder of Danielle van Dam, not any criminal charges against the van Dams.Think about it for a second, even if you leave your car unlocked, with the keys in the ignition, the person who takes it gets arrested for theft.
Even if the van Dams are found to be negligent by not checking on Danielle, or even for inviting Westerfield into the house, the killer is still 100% responsible for the murder.
Even if the van Dams are found to be criminally negligent, that would be a different case, and a different trial.
This is probably the best strategy Westerfield and his attorneys and come up with. If they can get the idea out there that the Van Dam's were partying with other people that night, then one of these folks could have been the perp. Somebody else or the Van Dams may have then gone on to frame `the wierdo down the street'.
Remember, all Westerfield and co. have to do is establish a reasonable doubt to avoid a conviction. It worked well enough for OJ with that ``Colombian necktie'' bit. If they can do this using the media before the trial, then the DA's office may be willing to accept a manslaughter plea or something.
Maybe they have Sidney Blumenthal's conspiracy flowchart. You know, start with Rick Roberts or Art Bell or whoever, and then begin moving up the media foodchain. Eventually a legitimate source like Drudge gets his mitts on it, and then it's open season.
"Loss of or damage to your car arising from theft when ignition keys are left in or on your car".
What you just read is an "exclusion" in most motor insurer's policies. It's in the small print. So you were saying about who's to blame if something valuable is left unlocked?
sw