Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Barb Easton next witness in the Van Dam Murder Case!!
Union Trib ^ | June 11, 2002 | Kristen Green

Posted on 06/10/2002 10:17:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 741-756 next last
To: sbnsd
I am not overweight at all, in fact I am in pretty good shape.

I drink coffee in the mornings. When I first begin to any physical activity at all in the morning, I sweat, even in the dead of winter.

Also, they said he was sweating profusely from under the arms. He was wearing a shirt, so they had no way of knowing if it was new or just recent sweat that moistened his shirt.

681 posted on 06/12/2002 2:51:39 AM PDT by Yeti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
None of the above, the court documents say so:

"Other motions remained sealed on the judge's orders. The sealed motions discuss other potential evidence in the case, including evidence that Westerfield's lawyers label in court documents as "nearly as explosive as a confession." The lawyers didn't specify the nature of this evidence. "Westerfield's lawyers want to keep these sealed motions secret from the public through Westerfield's trial and until all his post-trial appeals are exhausted if he's convicted, according to documents made public today.

The stated LE motive has also been supressed.

682 posted on 06/12/2002 3:16:14 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Uni-Poster
Haven't found it yet huh? Oh well forget it. I'll tell you right now what I think of the Van Dam's...Of course I can't know for sure what these people are since I've never met them but I have met alot of other people. From hippie pot smoking liberals to hardrock GOP'ers who loved to belt down good scotch and other assorted spirits,(even some GOP tokers!!) to Bible thumping hellfire and brimstone Christians who raised their kids in ways I would never dream of. And swingers of various stripes who carried on their "affairs" in private and some not so private. Yeah I've known wide variety to be sure....

Including my own parents. Dad was the kind of guy who enjoyed having a few friends over on occasion, nothing too wild. I'm fairly certain that no "swinging" or illegal drugs were involved. Certainly none that I ever saw at least. Just some beer drinking, cocktails etc.

But what I'm thinking now is what if myself or one of my siblings had been snatched and murdered by some perverted scumbag some evening while my parents were in the backyard socializing? What if they caught the SOB? Would some sleazbag defense lawyers have played the same game they are playing now it the Van Dam case? "JUST HOW MUCH WERE YOU DRINKING MR.WESTON?" "HOW OFTEN DO YOU HAVE THESE GET TOGETHERS MR.WESTON". "HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT WERE OVER MRS.WESTON". "WHY WERE YOU NOT KEEPING A CLOSER EYE ON YOUR KIDS MRS.WESTON". "ARE YOU SURE THAT THERE WAS ONLY ALCOHOL DRINKING GOING ON!!!!".

I suppose if that happened back then there would some self righteous tsk tsker's like we have on this board right now going around getting their jollies saying how bad my parents were. I'm certain of it.

MY take on the Van Dams? Not "model citizens" but not horrible monsters either. And I don't doubt that they love their kids. They just were not very wise. But not being smart or wise deserves the savaging they are getting. They probably never dreamed that something like that could ever happen. I guess the only way to prevent it 100 percent is to outfit your kid with his or her own secret service 24/7.

Maybe that isn't even enough to stop some monster who is hell bent on doing something so evil.

683 posted on 06/12/2002 3:31:35 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Possible explainations to be offered by the defense:

1. Kids played in the RV while mommy did the nasty with Westerfield.

2. (PH Docs) They don't have Danielle's unique DNA patterns. They're using mitocondrial DNA (same as Brenda's) and/or a mix of assumed mommy and daddy's.

684 posted on 06/12/2002 3:32:47 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
PS. I'm sure the supressed information I've been talking about is very damaging to Westerfield's case. I think it should all be out. I'm working both sides of the street for now.
685 posted on 06/12/2002 3:38:53 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: Uni-Poster
"Drive up window that busy?"

You look down on people that do that huh? I guess they are good enough to make your Big Mac but not good enough to get any respect for it. That's sad.

686 posted on 06/12/2002 3:47:43 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
I don't think either side is going to call Barbara. She may have something to do with the supressed information. She could be explosive to both sides; too risky.
687 posted on 06/12/2002 3:52:52 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: sbnsd
Maybe the prosecutor didn't call Barbara because they were afraid she might lie just like Mrs. van Dam and Denise did. If I'm correct, both Brenda first admitted on the witness stand under oath that there was group sex one Halloween, then denied it was a sex party. From what I read, Denise did the same. Also, Barbara might contradict some of the prosucution's other witnesses.

What is odd that the defense lawyer did not question further what appeared to be perjury by Mrs. van Dam.

I've read about several other cases where a child was kidnapped at night from her own room -- but I can't recall how the kidnappers took the children.

Hannity has commented that he believes the right man is on trial. Although the life style of the van Dams placed the children at risk and this might never have happened if they had been more concerned about the safety of the children, this does not mean they murdered Danielle. There is the forensic evidence against Westerfield, especially the towel and the blood on his jacket.

Many on FR have disagreed with me when I've said that parents have to be very careful about the people they allow into their home and to protect their children from sealzy elements. This case helps to support my previous arguments.

688 posted on 06/12/2002 4:28:18 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
"protect their children from sealzy elements"

Yeah like preists, your kids soccer coach or school teacher. Just check the headlines. The only foolproof way is to never let your kid leave your house, never let anyone on your property. And watch that mailman like a hawk.

689 posted on 06/12/2002 4:58:16 AM PDT by Greg Weston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Great catch, Rheo!
690 posted on 06/12/2002 5:34:34 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 621 | View Replies]

To: Uni-Poster
It sure would be nice to have people work on all perceived insults, and not just those who dont' agree with oh how should I put this..the side of fres.. But that is the way it's been ..that's why some of the fence sitters have quit posting..per their freepmails to me.
691 posted on 06/12/2002 5:37:30 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
Would some sleazbag defense lawyers have played the same game they are playing now it the Van Dam case? "

I know you didn't address your post to me..me let me take a shot at it. It depends on how much public sympathy has been created.. since RR's got the public split probably 50/50 on *who to blame*...it encouraged him to influence the jury the same way too. yee haw When a little girl was snatched, raped and killed from a really bad neighborhood in kansas city , the public sympathy was tremendous and the parent's lifestyle wasn't on display so to speak. Does that mean the parents were model citizens...we have no idea. But the creep got caught..broke his own leg tryin to get away..

692 posted on 06/12/2002 5:43:35 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 683 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Since Court-TV is so pro-defense, with a few exceptions, their bias clouds their judgment. Rikki Kleiman is the most obvious example.

For example, Andrea Yates, so the conventional wisdom went, should have been found guily by reason of insanity. But she wasn't. The jury found her guilty period.

Michael Skakel by all accounts was going to walk. He didn't. The dog mauling case that happened in San Francisco but tried in LA had an outcome that shocked the defendants (one could tell by the look on the female defendant's face). How could this happen? They were lawyers after all.

So, here we have 3 recent jury verdicts that didn't fit with the conventional wisdom, especially that espoused on Court-TV. Things seem to be changing on that cable outlet and they have a wider diversity of opinion. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that people who watch complained about the bias and they changed their on-air personalities accordingly.

693 posted on 06/12/2002 5:46:23 AM PDT by yikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
If DW had any kind of ''special'' hidden relationship with brenda, he would know intimiate details about her body, maybe her clothes, family anything... There's no way the prosecution could hide that and since the insider LE is no fan of the van dams or the prosecution..there is no way that could have been kept secret for this long.. If anything, she and her friends rejected him and get got revenge..
694 posted on 06/12/2002 5:46:35 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Uni-Poster
Agree with your evaluation.

OTOH, there is plenty to back up what people on both sides are posting on this thread.

Now, there are those, who simply jump into the conversation with intentions of disrupting the flow of things, act like they know more than anyone, just to ruffle some feathers. It is transparent and we know who they are.

Those of us who have followed this case from day one, don't have to go back and "source" all the information. If we are wrong, there is always someone who can refresh our memory pro or con..

Thank you for your comments.

sw

695 posted on 06/12/2002 5:46:58 AM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
SIGH

If anything, she and her friends rejected him and get got revenge.. ..

Should have said

If anything, she and her friends rejected him and he got revenge

696 posted on 06/12/2002 5:47:33 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: Greg Weston
To talk about foolproof way is absurd. Tragedy can strike the best of families. But parents can do a great deal to REDUCE THE PROBABILITY of their child being harmed. This includes many common sense precaution, among others, not inviting into the home a known pedophile, locking the doors at night, checking up on your children if you find an intruder might have entered the home, placing porn filters on computers, monitoring what the children watch on TV.
697 posted on 06/12/2002 5:49:45 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Well, this is a surprising turn of events. Good to see the thread back. I hadn't archived some of the articles when it went poof last night. The way things go, I'd probably better get these archived post haste, lest it disappear again.
698 posted on 06/12/2002 5:49:55 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: yikes
As your name indicates, YIKES! are you telling me the court-tv anchors were disappointed in the outcome of those verdicts, and that it's suprising to not see them on the side of dw's defense?
699 posted on 06/12/2002 5:51:06 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: yikes
Yes, Yikes you are correct. You can see from the polls they are giving, disguised under the subject "Did the opening statements help the Prosecution or the Defense" that it has taken a "change" from Pro 80% to Defense 30%...TO Pro 50% .. Defense 50%...at one point yesterday.

The e-mails must have been overwhelming to get them to see "both sides", even if they had to lump it.

sw

700 posted on 06/12/2002 5:54:05 AM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 741-756 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson