Posted on 04/25/2002 9:15:24 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Any credibility you had is quickly evaporating, with denials like this Kim. The standard Clintonian "I don't recall" defense is also the favorite of the VanDams, you know. I can't say that the brother-in-law was given as the source, but you were clearly urged to contact LE yourself, if you wanted confirmation that AWOL charge was an error.
Just for the record, I do distinctly remember it clearly being pointed out to you and couldn't believe my eyes when I read your response to #681 from Mizsterious.
Yikes...I can see yer confusion!! Yes, she and a couple of others said the awol charge was a mistake and I DO agree that she suggested I call san diego myself. I don't believe she's brought up the brother-n-law claim to me. My apologies for the confusion.
That changes the whole thing if his family etc. are actually coming out and denying it. I stand corrected of this was pointed out to me by mizsterious NUMEROUS times. If so, my apologies.
To fully understand my reason for calling you on what I perceived as your feigning of ignorance about the bogus AWOL claim, we need to go back to your #643 to AMORE, where you again brought it up, having been told several times to contact San Diego LE if you still doubted it was in error. Your #643 to Amore follows:
"That's the same questions I had, when they erased the AWOL charges, the porn charges etc.. Granted the AWOL charge is a military matter, and only military can enforce their own rules and regulations..it's just all weird.
IMO, you are parsing in using the Brother-in-law excuse, because the real issue here is your seemingly disingenuous slipping of the bogus AWOL charge back into these threads, as if it were fact.
I can see why you thought that..but to see charge after charge disappear from the sheriff's website until only one is left..I can't be anything but curious. I've decided to just wait until the end. I'll freepmail you the rest of my thoughts.
My original post, for your re-reading pleasure (since you seem to be having difficulties in that department), said:
Kim, for umpteenth time, the AWOL charge was a typo in the first place. It never existed. It only appeared on the internet. I know you'd like it to be real, but it's not. I gather you chose not to call the SDPD about that? Some folks did, plus his ex brother in law also says it never happened.
681 posted on 5/1/02 8:46 AM Central by MizSterious
Since I added the ex-brother in law after the fact (it was not included in any posts until today), you can't use this bogus excuse. Now, go put out the fire in your undies, saw off the new section recently grown on your nose, and look up the meaning of the word "integrity."
I can see why too. Maybe because this person can see through the smoke and mirrors. The trouble with lying about something that's been posted in a place like this is, people can look up what you really said. So you might as well own up to it straight away. Someone will find your posts and display them. I've been known to do that a time or two myself.
Telling the truth is just lots easier.
But back to your post #712--
"Yeah, all those "bogus" ponography pics...60,000, the now legal animated rape scenes..all normal for a normal kind of guy right fres??"
First, we do not know that there were 60,000 (or whatever your latest number is--you change it with the wind). Look at the testimony. Except for the 100 that they call "questionable" and then proceed to describe, they seem to refer to all of these as images, not pornographic images. If they were pornographic images, believe me, they would have stated so, and repeated the term as often as possible. They want that sort of thing on the public record. I'm sure you'll correct me if my reading of the transcripts are wrong--and that you'll provide the proper portion of it as proof if so.
Second, regarding the "now legal animated rape scenes"--how many movies and books depict rape as part of a legitimate story? Do you own any? Most of the "romance" novels and movies, for instance, are called "bodice rippers" with good reason--rape is often an integral part of the story. Do you own any of these? Would that make you a perv?
Finally, and I know this has been brought to your attention before, it should also be considered that Westerfield was not the only person in the household, nor was he the only person with access to those computers and disks. He had an 18-year old son. Anyone here have any experience with 18-year old sons? Or perhaps nephews? At that age, they have raging hormones, and lots of curiosity.
I saw, "pshaw!"
Another poster claimed to have inside evidence that Danielle had a history of nose-bleeds. I haven't heard this substantiated. This same poster claims to have sources within SDPD who insist the police have arrested the wrong man. He also claims that the Feldman possesses fingerprint evidence that many of the children from the neighborhood had been in Westerfield's RV.
pshaw!
Individuals who cannot analyze the evidence and argue the validity of specific points on their own must resort to "inside information" in order to lend any credence to their assertions.
I suppose it's possible there are people with inside info. who *might* break the gag order and post messages to public forums, but that doesn't mean I'm going to believe them. It would be better for all involved if everyone refrained from using that ineffective tactic. All it does is start arguments, and it doesn't really convince any but the most gullible.
SDPD Media Release Friday May 6th AM
The search of the Miramar Landfill continues today. As of 11:30 a.m., there were about 150 active searchers, mostly San Diego Police Department personnel. We do have some Marines from Miramar, with additional Marines expected late this afternoon from Camp Pendleton. We're attempting to line up U.S. Navy volunteers for weekend duty at the landfill. Last night, approximately 40 Navy personnel from two ships (one was the U.S.S. Boxer; don't have info on the other) worked from about 7p.m. to midnight. Search organizers estimate that they should be halfway through the 5,000 tons of trash to be searched by this afternoon. The effort could be completed as early as Monday. If that changes, we'll advise you.
Regarding documents possibly relating to the David Westerfield case being found at the landfill: a detective who was part of a search team yesterday afternoon spotted an envelop with attorney Steven Feldman's name on it. He is Mr. Westerfield's attorney. The envelop was taken to the command post and turned over to an evidence technician, who placed it in an evidence bag. The bag has been impounded until we received instructions from court authorities. Mr. Feldman and the District Attorney's Office are aware of yesterday's discovery.
Is it just me - or do others smell the ever present aroma of something very fishy?
-Jahi missing
-Van Dams to the "rescue"
-Landfill being combed
-San Diego Police Dept. personnel find a questionable legal document and, by golly, lo and behold it belongs to none other than David Westerfield's attorney.
Gee wonder how that legal document got there, must be a one- in- a- million lucky coincidence. /sarcasm off
Connect the dots and see what kind of a twisted picture you come up with.
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.