Replies

Hello! The esteemed Jaded pointed the way to this forum for me. Strange that I never knew about it, since I do consider myself a card-carrying member of the VRWC. ANYway: Quickly about myself: I am a fence-sitter in this case. I feel there is more to this case than meets the eye. There is something fishy about the Van Dams, and it drives me nuts that they were so quickly dismissed as possible suspects by police. The timelines and the abduction scenario simply do not wash. That being said, I am also not a Westerfield supporter, nor have I decided he is innocent in all this. I firmly believe that the truly *just* course of action is to withhold judgement until all of the facts and evidence are manifest. Because of that viewpoint, I find myself in contention with the "DW is definitely guilty" crowd, who cannot see any other possibility than to accept the events of FEB 2 as the DA has asserted they happened. Given the corrupt nature of our government officials in general, and this District Attorney in particular, and the less than stellar investigative track record of the SDPD, accepting the DA's account as gospel seems imprudent. Jaded cross-posted one of my theories from the SDUT for you all to "have at." Let me say this regarding that theory. I do not assert that the theory is an accurate account of what happened. I *do* assert that it is one of many possibilities. I find myslef forming and submitting hypotheses, again to counter the argument by "Hang DW" activists that the DA's account of events is the only plausible one. In that theory, there is only one thing that I currently see as a "reach," or implausible, which is the idea that the police actually found the body weeks before they publicly found the body. It does seem to be a tremendous coincidence that the body just happened to be found the day after Westerfield was arrested, and it is just one of many coincidences and irregularities surrounding this case. I have received a fair amount of heat for posting that theory on the UTForum, and I believe I have defended the theory well. As I have said, the theory is not a "house of cards." Eliminating one aspect does not destroy the whole theory. If you are interested in viewing that thread, follow the link Jaded provided. It is possible that the biggest mistake that I made while formulating that theory was in presuming that the DA would have a conscience, and that it would matter to him if he convicted an innocent man. ;) Anyway, I am very well versed in the particulars of this case, which is why I'm a fence-sitter. I have been on the UTForum sice FEB 6th following this fascinating story.

Welcome FriarTom. I read your theory on the UT forum and being a fence-sitter myself found it to be a very interesting read. There are still too many questions left unanswered and hopefully we can all hop off of our respective fences, one way or the other when the evidence is presented at trial.

Welcome aboard Friar!!!

Welcome to Free Republic...