Posted on 06/05/2002 11:36:24 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Yes, OJ would be analogous. A disinclination to convict based on matters apart from the evidence. But even so, I still don't understand some people's willingness here to believe every horrible thing about the VD's and then excuse away everything about DW and portray him as being a wonderful, great, upstanding person in the community, falsely accused. It wouldn't surprise me at the CTV message boards, but it surprises me HERE.
I see way too many child-sex-abuse cases in my job, and it is not at all common for someone to get to DW's age without a previous police investigation or charge. Someone here suggested early on -- Doughty One? -- that DW's proximity to Mexico may not be a coincidence and he might have been carrying on there (yes, I know there's no evidence of this, but everyone else propounds theories based on no evidence, so I will mention it here as well).
Turn out the lights in the picture and add the atmosphere.
Poor kids.
sw
Haven't watched TV yet today. Hope you and others here will share your thoughts on todays hearing.
FWIW...When the searcher Karsen/Carsen/was testifying where he found Danielle I watched DW closely when camera was on him. DW was IMO, very interested in that picture that was up on the board for viewing. I saw no fear displayed but his eyes and attention were certainly rivited on the scene. I can't forget his interest and wonder what was going thru his mind as he viewed the location. It was like that answered some question in his mind.
Not a mind reader,but wish I was, at times. I do pay attention to little details,more than vaguely, whether that amounts to anything or not.
I find the VanDams DISGUSTING. I also find the pornography purported to be in DW's possession to be DISGUSTING. I hold the VDs to a HIGHER standard. He is single. They are parents of young children. He is responsible for himself. They were SUPPOSED to be responsible for three young children. Instead they gratified their own desires at the expense of their children..in this case, at the expense of one of their children's lives. At the very LEAST, if they had been normal parents, it would have been MUCH harder for someone to get to their children...if that is indeed what happened, which I doubt.
sw
sw
Two times selling GS cookies (2001 and 2002) and twice at Dad's Cafe=4 times.
I find the VanDams DISGUSTING. I also find the pornography purported to be in DW's possession to be DISGUSTING. I hold the VDs to a HIGHER standard. He is single. They are parents of young children. He is responsible for himself. They were SUPPOSED to be responsible for three young children. Instead they gratified their own desires at the expense of their children..in this case, at the expense of one of their children's lives. At the very LEAST, if they had been normal parents, it would have been MUCH harder for someone to get to their children...if that is indeed what happened, which I doubt.
Ok, then we're in total agreement until we get to the last phrase of your post. But I'm sorry, I don't see that that really answers the question I'm asking. Not, of course, that you were the only one my question was directed at.
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.
