Posted on 06/24/2002 9:06:32 AM PDT by FresnoDA
I was curious if you had been following it ..and what you thought about all the emtionally laden words, rumors, innuendos etc., about the vd's over the past few months while some of us just wanted to focus on the crime itself and were called vd apologists for it. Defending the constitution is more important than worrying about a joint or consensual extra-marital affairs too.
Defending the constitution IS more important than personal agendas...but what is ALSO important is defending victims of crime, stopping child porn..etc., and even if DW IS foudn innocent of murder, he should not be let go on child porn charges if jury sees that he had child porn.
What has bothered me about that statement is when in their short bar conversation did this get brought up and how?
Thank you for you service!
unexplained shell casing found in the girl's room. The PROSECUTION failed to mention this during their turn.
unidentified fingerprints in VD home (none of DW's) The Prosecution failed to mention this during their turn.
blood in VD home (with no DNA/prints of DW ever having been in the house). THIS the prosecution brought up.
multiple sexual partners of the VD's, including IN THE VD HOME DURING/AFTER A HALLOWEEN PARTY. THIS had to be dragged out of the VD's after a drunk Barb bragged about it. Sexual deviants come in many forms (go ahead and flame me).
Prosecution better have DEVASTATING evidence against DW before Feldman starts his turn. All this circumstantial stuff wouldn't cut it for me, if I were on a death penalty jury.
Rheo, I don't have one, but none other than FresnoDA, himself, posted on a thread that he has one and the receptacle never dries out completely.
Good point. It's not exactly the next thing you would say after hello, is it?
Next experiment for you..
Assignment accepted. Results pending. :)
That said, there just isn't strong enough evidence here YET for me to find him guilty of anything but violating the community rules regarding his motor home, and annoying his neighbors!
Cyncooper's comment was to question what MIZs meant when she stated this :
Frankly, I consider people who seek to bypass the justice system simply because they think they know who did it (in any crime) to be enemies of country as much as any other terrorist.
I cannot answer for her. But I can answer for myself.
I believe that the statement fits elements of this case. When a Judge, Prosecutor, Law enforcement official decides that without benefit of TRIAL or EVIDENCE; Without following our SYSTEM OF JUSTICE and our CONSTITUTION; that they are now the POWER and they can decide who is GUILTY or who is not GUILTY; Then those people are the enemy of OUR CONSTITUTION, our LEGAL SYSTEM, OUR COUNTRY, and are the same as TERRORISTS, because they would MURDER innocent along with guilty for their own selfish purposes.
It was only a matter of time..I'm not surprised at all. There was a guy here in kc that actually jumped over the divder and grabbed the defendant. he was gonna kick beeeehind. Of course there was more evidence..ie:body parts in the guys backyard.
Well, you certainly would be familiar with what I am talking about! There are fluffy things or sparkles or some such on just about everything. :)
Brenda did say Danielle's carpet was steam cleaned a couple of days? before she disappeared...
I don't think it was Danielle's room but someone else may know for sure.
Because it was in the context of saying that Damon was taking Danielle to a father/daughter dance. Exactly the sort of small talk one engages in with someone they don't know very well----"Oh, my husband is taking our daughter to her first dance. It's a father/daughter dance. He thinks she growing up too fast." Sounds like parental chitchat to me.
I know others feel differently about this, and certainly they are entitled to their opinion, as long they don't try to pick fights with me for not agreeing with them.
You got to be kidding!!!HOw many times have I said or others have said that their children grow up too fast. I dont think you can interpret that statement as any evidence of wrong doing on the part of Damon. I will state for the record that I am suspicious of the actions of Damon but not from that statement.
You are probably right about that. I see a possibility in something, then I can later see flaws.
You are a good 'detail' or investigator. It bothered me because I had read about the sparkles, and heard nothing since in the trial about them. Your comment was good, you saw something that could have been a clue that others didn't.
It may still be. But, in the "REASONABLE" category, I could see why they would be there, and not only might not mean anything, but would be darn hard to prove anything about, even if they did.
So, they could be a clue, but the only way they will be able to prove anything is if that OUTFIT is not in the closet (or drawer). That is where my mind has settled on the 'sparkles'.
One experiment less for Karson to do now.
I'll double check that, just to make sure, but I think I read it in the transcripts over the weekend. When I find it again, I'll post to you whether I was mistaken or not.
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.