Dear Alex Roth:
If David Westerfield using "we" a few times instead of "I" in his taped interview is suspicious and significant enough for a headlined story ("Defendant Said "We" in Telling of Trip to Desert, Tape Reveals" http://www.uniontribune.com/news/metro/danielle/20020613-9999_1n13tape.html), what about Brenda Van Dam, in her testimony of June 6th, wishing "they" had taken anything other than Danielle?
From a few paragraphs into a June 6 article on the channel 10 site (my emphasis):
Brenda van Dam told prosecutor Jeff Dusek she disclosed to officers everything about her "open marriage" once they made it clear that it was important.The mother said she didn't discuss her decision not to disclose information with her husband.
"I would have told (the police) anything they needed to get Danielle back," the mother said.
Brenda van Dam said nothing else was taken the night Danielle was abducted.
"I wish they'd taken everything else but her," the mother said tearfully.
http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/sand/news/stories/news-150094320020606-210615.html
They'd? Shouldn't she have said "he'd?" After all, this was nearly four months since Westerfield had been fingered as the sole perpetrator, and she had all that time for that fact to be burned into her consciousness. Perhaps she knows there was more than one person involved in Danielle's abduction and death.
Of course, it might not mean anything, just as Westerfield's "we" might not mean anything. But shouldn't fairness dictate you point out such inconsistencies on both sides of this trial?
Regards,
(signed)
Note: the channel 10 article was posted on FR at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/696054/posts