Posted on 03/19/2002 2:33:12 PM PST by FresnoDA
The DNA evidence currently suggests it could be EITHER. Who's ignoring evidence now? It was a DROP of blood, not A POOL of it. Brenda was dancing with DW at the bar, and denied it. Witnesses saw her. Why did she attempt to keep this fact unknown? Why does her testimony conflict with her earlier statements? You need to examine the evidence, again, my friend.
Hmmm, it's easier to do it than not maybe.. "Loose lips sink ships." I know that was intended for those who could reveal info that could hurt ''our'' side in the war of terrorism..but it can also has other meanings.
The blood spots both in the camper and on the jacket make me very suspicious, too. But they are undated. And it isn't lunacy to speculate that a little girl that age would want to have a look inside the camper when it was parked so near her house on so many occasions. Add to that that the little girl bit her nails and was at the loose-tooth stage, might have scratched herself climbing into the camper, and little spatters of blood are not that impossible.
Moreover, as I understand it, the "further testing" of the blood spots involved matching the DNA found in the blood spots to created DNA from Damon and Brenda, proving that the blood was "from an offspring of Damon and Brenda." Danielle has two brothers. There is clear proof that Danielle was, at some time, in the camper, however: her fingerprint found on a cabinet in the camper. This also proves she was alive when in the camper. It doesn't prove when she was there.
I know some people are hung up on the parents' sex lives. I've never posted about that, myself.
Yes, some wild theories have been posted. But many theories on how DW did it have their share of lunacy as well.
Again, if there is fibre or DNA evidence of DW in the VD house, or at Dehesa, or on the body, I'll be convinced he's guilty. Also guilty if they find lint from Danielle's PJs in DW's house house or SUV or camper. (There's that convenient pair of identical PJs to which they can match lint.)
It's hard to take anyone seriously who walks around insulting people then snickers about it, LOL! Oh well, if the shoe fits, ROTLMAO.. My opinion, it's sooooo immature. :~) LOL!
Old saying..
The squeaky wheel gets the grease....It's also the first to be replaced. LOL!!
Just kiddin, hardy har har...I'm such a card, LOL!
sw
From the same website: "At about 10 PM that evening, an intruder, high on booze and armed with a knife, crawled in through an open bedroom window...She had been brutally raped and strangled...His rap sheet was a pathetic litany of major and minor offences that included robbery, burglary, assault, rape and kidnapping that stretched back 26 years."
I still don't think the type of "situational molester" described in your post fits DW. And I don't think these types elaborately plan their crimes. They are crimes of opportunity, committed in a fit of rage, often helped along by drugs and/or alcohol. At least that's how I read the info on the site.
As I said, DW didn't just take advantage of an open window. If he did it, he had to have planned it. Also, DW has no history of violence. Does this description fit Polly Klaas' murderer? To a T. Long history of violence, took advantage of an open window. Violently raped and murdered victim.
We don't know how Danielle was murdered. It is suspected she was smothered. There were no signs she was murdered violently by an enraged killer (as in stabbing, strangulation, etc). We also don't know whether she was raped. I'm not saying DW didn't do it, just that I don't think he fits into this particular category of "situational molester."
Of course, if it is because that the vd's handed her over to him..icckk.. I can't even fathom it. That has been mentioned before too.
I can't fathom it either, Kim. I don't want to go there. "Icckk" is right.
The criminology aspect is interesting. Glad you brought it into the discussion.
Sure it is not beyond all possible doubt that this guy did it, but nothing is ever beyond all possible doubt. The standard is only REASONABLE doubt. As of this moment, there is no reasonable doubt in my mind to let this guy walk... he will get his day in court, and I believe without question physical evidence on the body will also link him as well, and I am very sure that the prosecution and DA have more evidence than has been published so far.
I am not objecting to him having his day in court, I am pointing out the folly of people here trying to blame the DA's re-election campaign or the parents covering up etc.. its lunacy. Even the defense attorney's tactics so far are consistent with the defense of a guilty man. Not trying to establish alibi or innocence showing he did not do it, but to raise questions and attack the victims. This is a defense strategy attempting to "create" a reasonable doubt, not find or present one.
Neither did Bundy before they caught him....
sw
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.