Can't a person be "against the Van Dams" for their hideous lifestyle (as I am) and be kinda convinced by the forensic evidence to (at this point in time) be in favor of Westerfield being convicted? There seems to be a feeling that if you think Westerfield is guilty then you must be approving of swinging. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am perfectly willing to understand those that are already convinced of DW's guilt.
Likewise, I am one and therefore understand others, that want more and better evidence before convicting a man to die.
I am (and I think most others are as well) open to the idea of Westerfield's guilt. That may ultimately be proven to my satisfaction.
However, the problem for me goes back to the beginning. There were just way too many creepy characters in and around Danielle's life and home. They should have been very closely looked at, yet it appears they weren't.
Because we know that corruption exists in high places (see Heidi Fleiss) there is the potential for plenty of looking-the-other-way when it comes to sex-related secrets.
Compare Westerfield's history to the van Dam's lifestyle and realize that a lot of people think the suspicion turned from the parents & friends a little too quickly.
We all know that frame-ups have occurred or there would be no such term understood by us all. This case has all the POTENTIAL makings of the finger of blame being pointed at the wrong person.
That's why so very many people, who are usually on the side of the prosecution (such as myself), find themselves in the extraordinary position of listening to and fairly analyzing what the defense has to offer.
In short, there are quite a few people that believe that the ugly and risky activities of the van Dams may be what killed their child.......directly or indirectly. Either way, ALL of the truth needs to be told.
I remember reading early on that Danielle bit her fingernails, and how many 7 year olds scratch mosquito bites,etc..., never mind dog scratches that do not bleed at first, but then scab over and are ripe for "picking", and consquent bleeding...
Even if her hair, and her blood were found in DW's RV would not convince me "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did her in, given the fact that he was a close neighbor, and that his RV was an "attractive nuisance"...
Too much experience with four scabby kids, nose-pickers, nail-biters, etc... And, by the way, they are all grown up now, raising the next generation, and would no longer would admit publically, at least, to ever having been nose-pickers or nail-biters, never mind bed-wetters!
For whatever it is worth!
exactly!!! What I've been saying..wish more would say it..cuz that's the truth.
The converse is also true, sad to say ... if you are not convinced DW did it, you must be a sanctimonious Puritan railing against the VD lifestyle.
Both of these presumptions are equally false, and believe it or not, most here don't fall into those categories. I tend to think most of us on these threads are waiting for all the evidence, and want justice to be done fairly. We just differ on which 'horse' we think is going to cross the line first.