Skip to comments.
Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?
Union Trib ^
| July 2, 2002
| Union Trib
Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 441-442 next last
To: Mrs.Liberty
Didn't remember that. I assumed that a missing 7-year-old in the dead of night would have promted an immediate call to police.But Westerfield, if he's the culprit, could not have safely assumed that police would not be called as soon as the abduction was discovered.
To: UCANSEE2
WHen did you get to be the JUDGE of what applies in a court of law? Note to UCANSEE ... I NEVER said I am a judge. I'm part of the public expressing myself like an American.
To: BunnySlippers
Uh yeah, so not matter what, Westerfield is innocent. Uh, Yeah, so are you gonna answer any questions? Or are you the type that is only interested in what you have to say?
I welcome your contributions to this conversation. I have asked you to contribute, are you incapable?
To: FresnoDA
You missed the one at the NECD Origins link :-)
184
posted on
07/02/2002 9:03:23 PM PDT
by
nycgal
To: nycgal
Check your freepmail..
To: RnMomof7
Do you have proof that DVD was molested? Have you got proof that DW EVER molested a little girl? My opinion based on the evidence ... and you?
To: Jaded
He did say we. I heard the police recording of their interview with Westerfield.
To: luvbach1
Apparently there is more to the relationship between DW and BvD. Feldman alluded to it in his opening. This would certainly change the shape of things. Doncha think?
188
posted on
07/02/2002 9:03:57 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: nycgal
Missed which one? Rats....tell me.
To: UCANSEE2
Ihave answered them. You are about 75 messages behind. I work in the stockmarket and get up at 4am and am almost ready for bed. I'll hang around for awhile but feel free to FreepMail as well.
To: BunnySlippers
We're justa asking you to prove it. Show us how he did it.
191
posted on
07/02/2002 9:06:54 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: BunnySlippers
No problem that someone has an opinion ... but they shouldn't be "holier than thou".
Post 22 the person stated they THOUGHT that DW was NOT GUILTY. They were very nice in their response to you.
They were stating an opinion.
You however, have STATED that you KNOW that DW is a CHILD MOLESTOR. Who has the holier than thou attitude?
To: UCANSEE2
My point is that it is extremely unlikely they would have gotten there in any other way than during the abduction and murder. That makes the issue of when rather moot.
To: nycgal
Thank you,We pray for the reason this happened to this little girl to be exposed.
194
posted on
07/02/2002 9:07:35 PM PDT
by
fatima
To: UCANSEE2
They were stating an opinion. I have been repeatedly condemned for having an opinion. THAT IS MY POINT.
To: luvbach1
Did he murder her in the MH do you think and at what point?
196
posted on
07/02/2002 9:09:51 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: BunnySlippers
prove that no one else was considered. You're dodging. An article please. I have answered your questions over and over. I have clarified what I said. I never said the didn't check anyone. You have refused to answer any questions.
You have stated you KNOW DW is a CHILD MOLESTOR. I have asked for proof. You don't have any. You can't show any.
If you have a contribution to these conversations( whether you are pro-DW or anti-DW) give it. Refusing to answer any questions and making baseless charges shows you are acting like a DISRUPTOR. Is that what you are? Be truthful.
To: Rheo
In my opinion the term, "knowing the accused" is not justified as it applies to Danielle. Barely acquainted is more like it. As far as I know she was only in his direct presence once, when, accompanied by her mother, he was solicited for purchase of girl scout cookies.It's true the mother was better acquainted.
To: Jaded
We're justa asking you to prove it. Show us how he did it. Perhaps you have not read the thread where twice I have stated that it not incumbent on the prosecution to state how the crime was committed ... ie: how the perp moved from A to B. TRUE ... it does count in their favor but they must prove motive and opportunity. Sadly some on these threads will not "convict" without a photo (and that would be called into question).
To: luvbach1
THis sounds good, but explain how he got in and out of the house without leaving a trace of evidence.
Explain how he did this when he was drunk. How did he get a live Danielle out of her own house without her screaming?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 441-442 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson