Posted on 04/09/2002 11:30:44 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Not in a rush to locate him, IMO. That is done with an APB. If DW was a hot tip, or the parents had strongly hinted at, much less blatantly pointed a finger at him, there would have been an APB, possibly a federal one. If you have a strong suspicion of a traveling MH with a possible kidnap victim, that might possibly cross state lines, you put out an APB. Not wait for them to return home after disposing of the victim.
The theory that DW was a prime suspect or fingered before the first interview does not fit, not in LE procedures, or LE behavior. Look how aggressive they got after first contact, when their suspicions were aroused. If their suspicions were aroused prior to that interview either from tipline info, or parental statements, where was that aggression then?
Do you suppose she is a VERY close "family "friend??
Tis true, I did accurately call FDA names and I retract none of them. His primary motivation is titillation of his readers.
But it was weeks ago and a different thread.
You can ask until the moon turns blue why there was no apb, and while you're at it, you can also ask why the police wouldn't permit Westerfield to call his attorney even though he asked some 22 times in 19 hours. You can also ask, while you're at it, why they misled the press about the porn, the bleach, and other items. The real "logic problems" here seem to be with someone who assumes that the police are following standard procedures, when it's apparent that they are not.
Spectre.....seems that this question was posed to you above, and by the VD apologist rules, I can not answer...boo hooo....it is so easy dashing their vapid arguments.....so, you can have at it......
FresnoDA!!!
Please point out posts where I have name called.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/634811/posts
Westerfield became the main suspect within days of the girl's disappearance when he consented to, and failed, a polygraph test, several sources have said
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/644715/posts?page=56#56
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/
Neighbor: Scratches and sweating, overly cooperative Posted: 6:19 p.m. PST March 11, 2002 SAN DIEGO -- A scratched-up David Westerfield was "overly cooperative" when detectives questioned him two days after 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was discovered missing, according to preliminary hearing testimony Monday. Detective Johnny Keene said Westerfield had numerous small scratches on his hand and arm when he was interviewed on his front porch the morning of Feb. 4. Keene was the final witness on the first day of the hearing to determine if there is sufficient evidence to send the girl's accused killer on to trial. "In my opinion, he was overly cooperative," Keene said. "I've been doing this for 16 years. Typically, when we search people's houses, they don't point out places to look. Usually, they ask why we're searching their house."
How do you know what time he returned home? What time did he drop clothes off at the cleaners? It appears there were people waiting near his house, maybe they were going to "surveil" him as mentioned at the briefing then changed their mind. Does DW have a place of business and would he likely be there on the weekend after taking off in his MH? How would the PD know where he stores his MH, it is a private location. Besides that, the PD might have taken a morning run for coffee and donuts and such before they got to really looking for him.
You have your opinion, and I have mine, I don't know what Brenda said but it appears to be an issue in the case. Amazing, nothing was brought up at the PH about what Brenda told the PD. We might see more about this issue at the motions hearing....
The more contact the prosecution can show between the suspect and the victim's family the better it is for the prosecution to show means and opportunity.
The scant relationship attested to by the Van Dams does not benefit them or the prosecution of the alleged killer of their daughter. They have no self benefiting motive to lie to make the relationship appear less and lying in such a manner could harm the hoped for conviction.
They have a real and plausible motive to lie and make the relationship appear more extensive to create a greater appearance of means and opportunity.
However, they are not engaged in the rational, self benefitting latter, but same claim they are engaged in the irrational self harming former.
I think they might be doing neither, but telling the simple truth, that there was a simple, shallow, casual neighborhood aquaintance and no more.
As for the dancing dispute, I have two working theories, one BVD was "toasted" and can't really remember if she danced with him or not, but thinks/hopes/wishes not. Two, that Feldman has come up with some real rotters/barflies who are willing to perjure themselves for money, fame, attention, or to feed some grandiose delusion of their own.
I do not discount the theory that BVD did have an illicit relationship, unkown to her husband, but we will never know because the defense won't go there. Not only do father's kill children to punish the mother, but so do ex-boyfriends and spurned lovers.
Don't do it kimbo....the heat will get hot, but it will refine you, like fire......
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.
