Skip to comments.
DAVID WESTERFIELD TO FACE JUDGE AGAIN: Van Dam Murder Update 2:00 P.M. Pacific Time
KFMB-CBS ^
| March 28, 2002
| KFMB-CBS
Posted on 03/28/2002 7:54:29 AM PST by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-333 next last
Comment #301 Removed by Moderator
To: demsux
Hiya Dems... Haven't heard of any threads being pulled..but there's been sneaky stuff happening. :) Or SOMETHING. Maybe luis was so confused he didn't know who he was talking to. Have a nice holiday weekend.. I'm outta here for awhile.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Cry Uncle, Kim...go ahead! It won't hurt. I promise...
sw
303
posted on
03/30/2002 11:28:33 AM PST
by
spectre
To: FresnoDA
Luis???? Just kidding...
304
posted on
03/30/2002 11:45:22 AM PST
by
demsux
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Apparently, when you change your screen name these days, they can save your home page and attribute all the things you posted properly. John Robinson has made it all very smooth. But I have not ever been banned, despite your best efforts. (And how do I know you tried? My little secret, and I'll never tell.)
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
There's nothing "sneaky" about getting your screen name changed, Kim. Freepers do it all the time. Real "sneakiness," in my opinion, is saying something, then not having the guts and integrity to admit it. To say you're not a VD apologist is something akin to a fib, but to be polite, I'll just say you did your best to evade the label. Big woops on your part--you left too much of a posting trail.
To: MizSterious
Well it was pretty darn interesting seeing as how I didnt' see you try to "explain" that you are golitely when others were welcoming you to the thread. I HIGHLY resent your lies about me trying to get you banned. For all the Christian type of morality sentiments you posted on that particular thread... I find it very strange to see you make false accusations against a fellow Christian. Rather than point fingers, maybe you should take a hard look in the mirror and say "I'm not insecure and people are not out to get me".
To: MizSterious
"we just want the facts mam, not rumors and gossip."---Police Investigator"Mam, it's best to not speculate about whether the parents had sex with their chid at this point. Let us do our job--Police Investigator
To: MsLady I think it's a valid question to ask if the little girl might have been part of some of the "swinging" arrangements, too. The neighbor reportedly had child porn when they searched his house. The neighbor was reportedly friends with the family, and supposedly danced with the girl's mother during the bar crawling event that night. Who else that the parents brought in to their house might have wanted the daughter instead of the mother? Sick. 23 posted on 2/11/02 8:24 PM Central by MizSterious [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You don't know that. I would argue exactly the opposite. Because they were "swingers" (whoring around might be a better word for it), they are exposing themselves and their children to huge risks. They get drunk/stoned and pick up barflies, then bring them home with them. Aside from sexually transmitted diseases, they should worry about perverts, serial killers, home robbery (excellent casing opportunity, after all) and any number of vile things. Despite claims to the contrary, child molesters often use a parent, usually the mother, as the quickest route to the child. 461 posted on 2/12/02 7:54 AM Central by MizSterious
Anyone who would do the things these "parents" do, would not necessarily be above bringing their children into that "lifestyle." ...why wouldn't they think it in the "best interest of the child" to bring them into it, too? ... 474 posted on 2/12/02 8:20 AM Central by MizSterious
The problem is having it with a housefull of lowlifes dragged home from the local bar. The problem is bumping and grinding with the next door neighbor, ... 484 posted on 2/12/02 9:05 AM Central by MizSterious
To: MizSterious
And Luis, I would like to add that Jim Robinson has asked us not to use this board for personal attacks. Liar is an ugly word, and not necessarily true in this instance, since most of us--including you--are speculating about what might have happened that night. Debate is one thing, but now it's getting personal, and it shouldn't.865 posted on 2/14/02 8:28 AM Central by MizSterious I'm willing to agree with you on this post..
To: MizSterious
MizSterious, here is a collection of several of them from one thread. READ 'EM AND WEEP!"
As it says in the good book, "once those words leave the tip of the toungue (or keyboard in kimmies case) one can't get them back......BUMP...
Long live Golitely....
Welcome home, MizSterious......excellent post.....
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
And your point is...? I have been very consistant in my opinions about the van Dams, and have not been even slightly evasive about them. I think they're lowlifes, and frankly, while I am not a witness to what happened that night, I would not be at all surprised to find out the VDs were involved in it. As for lying--Kimmie, let's get real. You said you'd never been a VD apologist. Your own posts prove otherwise. I give you the benefit of the doubt: perhaps you have a bad memory.
If you were so proud of what you said in those posts, why are you so upset?
To: MizSterious
Upset? LOL In your world, maybe. No, just disappointed that you can't follow your own suggestions. I've not wavered from my stance. If you don't understand my stance by now, you shouldn't give i t up. Have a nice day
Opinions = 2
5= facts
2 + 2 = 5
These are not defending whatever ''cause'' you think the apologists are defending.. LOL I have to laugh yet again
Kim said --I am simply praying that the rumors proved unfounded. (But I was told to find the prayer thread..LOL)
busy bodies can make mountains out of molehills (This is true and not defending)
To: MizSterious
And you wonder..well, never mind. I readly do have to go now... But I thought I would leave you with these..
Well, I guess what I'm wondering is, did Danielle maybe exhibit some of that kind of inappropriate behavior (blaming the victim?) while out selling Girl Scout cookies? At the time of that other case, it was discussed on the local teevee shows that often abused children did behave sexually inappropriately--not realizing, of course, that it was inappropriate. 53 posted on 2/23/02 1:00 PM Central by MizSterious
This morning NBC aired some videos of her--I hadn't noticed before, but after reading that other Freeper's comments, I did notice. She had what appeared to be very pronounced breasts. That much is at least true. (She was also wearing that red choker people have been commenting about.)
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I did not, to my knowledge, lie lie about your role in the thread pullings and the bannings. That is my firm belief, and it remains unshaken. I cannot prove it's so, but I believe it to be so. On the other hand, your accusation that I had been banned three times can be proven to be patently false.
To: FresnoDA
To: FresnoDA, spectre, amore, ~Kim4VRWC's~
Hey I haven't got the hang of the new style Freeper Format so someone please ping me for threads about Van Dams/Westerfield, especially when they contain some good old cat fights! thanks!
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
When you quote someone, please have the decency to post the link to the thread, so that if people so desire, they can read it in context. I did that with yours. In this post, I was referring to the possibility that Danielle had already been sexually abused--sometimes these kids develop earlier when they're being sexually abused. But then, what can one expect from someone who would claim they never said something they obviously (and verifiably) did.
To: MizSterious, Rolling_stone
banned/suspended...whatever. When one sees a handle as no longer existing, that is the normal assumption--it has happened to fres..and spectre did say RIP to golitely, having fres discuss hitting the abuse button, that's another thing. Your suspicions are one thing, stating that I did in public to ALL the lurkers is another..and I told you to ask Jim rob before to confirm that I've NEVER tried to get you banned or suspended. If there is a way that I could get you to believe me, I'd do it. But like the freepmails I've been getting say, sometimes ya gots to let things go and that's why I'm oing to do..and let you stew on your own awhile. K? I'd say trust me, but I have a feeling that you won't listen. Sorry bout forgetting my manners and FAILING to post a link for you....
Rolling Stone..no problem
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I have never been suspended either. Not even once. And you said three times in the last 35 days. What's the purpose of saying something like that? Cheap shot? Tsk, tsk.
To: MizSterious
Got ya confused with fres..SORRY!!!! My mistake..
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320, 321-333 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson