Posted on 07/02/2002 6:10:56 PM PDT by FresnoDA
There are several options here:
(1)Go back and invest a little time reading previous threads where this has been discussed over and over, explained in intricated detail, and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It is something called courtesy of trying to understand what has been discussed so you don't force others to re-educate every person that comes to the thread.
I would be happy to take time to explain all the instances (fingerprints, hairs, fibers,etc) where police testified in court that they did not bother to identify this item or that, or id prints, or even take prints from certain items.
Problem is that I know you have been on these threads lurking and replying, so you have read this information just like the rest of us.
That you have read it and choose to play dumb and ignore it means that me telling you would do no good, so I choose not to waste my time
If you are serious about learning, go back and read the threads. There are links, or we can direct you.
THis is my favorite qoute:
"I understand your problem.
I'll be glad to help you out.
Which way did you come in?"
There should be no quarter given to those who abuse and defile the trust placed in them by an innocent child. Child molesters are heinous creatures, destroyers of the future who themselves deserve to be dispatched in the most hideous way possible. Whoever murdered Danielle Van Dam (right), whoever dumped her soft little body into dirty scrub brush by the side of the road to be mauled and desecrated by the fangs of wild animals, deserves to die an equally painful and inglorious death. And, Danielles parents, Damon and Brenda Van Dam, deserve our heartfelt sympathy for their disastrous loss of their little girl in such a horrid manner.
However, disquieting revelations have been floating around this case since Danielle disappeared on February 1st, 2002. First disclosed by radio talk-show host Rick Roberts, these rumors have been linked to an unnamed San Diego Law Enforcement Officer (LEO). The rumors alleged that the Van Dams were swingers, who had a special room set up in their garage - with inside locks - where eager participants had orgies replete with drinking and pot smoking.
The Van Dams, on their appearances on Larry King Live and Americas Most Wanted, seemed evasive, dodging questions about their personal lifestyle. They also almost immediately hired a PR firm, whose spokesman likewise deflected this line of questioning without denying it outright.
Thursday, in court hearings, both Brenda and Damon Van Dam seemed to verify some of these allegations. At the very least, the Van Dam behavior and home life can be said to have been highly unusual.
Brenda Van Dam (left) gave some staggering testimony. Among the stunners were the revelation that she had left 7-year old Danielle alone, trying on clothes, in Mervyns, while she hunted down her 5 and 10-year old sons who were at other stores in the same mall. Then, Brenda admitted that she had noticed her neighbor, David Westerfield (right), the accused killer, at a Poway bar, Dads, the previous Friday, January 25th. Van Dam, who was with two friends, Barbara and Denise, admitted under questioning by the defense attorney, that the three women had been dancing together, suggestively, with Barbara even attempting to fondle Brendas breasts.
According to testimony, the following week, Brenda Van Dam, Danielle and her brother went over to Westerfields house in order to sell him some Girl Scout cookies. Westerfield asked Van Dam why she hadnt introduced him to her friends, who, he allegedly said, looked really fun. She also testified that Westerfield had told her that he often had adult BBQs, at which, according to Van Dam, he said, He would provide the salad, but everyone had to bring their own meat. Van Dam testified that she told Westerfield to meet her and her friends at Dads the following Friday, and she would then introduce him to her friends.
On February 1st, the day Danielle would disappear, the following events transpired, according to Van Dams testimony. Brenda returned with the kids at approximately 5:30, then went out to pick up pizza for dinner, leaving the children alone in the house. After dinner, her two girlfriends, Denise and Barbara, came over and stayed about 15 minutes. The three women each had a beer, then they and Brendas husband Damon, met in the garage, where they smoked part of a joint (marijuana cigarette).
At approximately 8:30 p.m., the three women went to Dads where they met up with Westerfield. Westerfield bought them all drinks (Brenda testified that she had three cranberry-vodkas, one shot of tequila and one Red Bull). Westerfield says he danced with Van Dam, she initially denied it, but testified under oath that she couldnt recall. She did admit to slow dancing with an older man, and testified that Denise and Barbara were sexual dancing with each other and with other women in the bar.
Van Dam also testified that the girlfriends met up with two men named Rich and Keith. Rich was alleged to be the pot connection, in later testimony given by Damon Van Dam. Supposedly, Keith was very interested in Barbara, and confided to Brenda that he had popped a V, apparently referring to a Viagra pill. He allegedly asked Brenda to facilitate a tryst between the two.
At 2:00 a.m., when closing time was announced, the three women got in Brendas truck (allegedly taking hits from the same joint they had smoked earlier) and the two men drove in another vehicle to the Van Dam home. Damon, who was allegedly asleep in his underwear in his own bed, was awakened by Barbara, who climbed on top of the bed. Damon admits to kissing Barbara, and rubbing her back.
Brenda Van Dam came upstairs about 15 minutes later, and informed the couple that they were being rude and that they should join the rest of the ensemble downstairs. Yet, after pizza, the remaining guests allegedly left. The Van Dams assert that they went to bed at approximately 2:30 a.m. They did not consider checking on their children then, and did not realize that Danielle was missing until approximately 9:30 a.m. the next morning.
Danielles naked and decomposed body was found by volunteer searchers on February 27th.
Whether her parents lifestyle had anything to do with her death is debatable. Surely, the Van Dams love their children, aged 10, 7 (Danielle) and 5. Yet the Van Dams appear to have engaged in a lot of activities which could be directly and indirectly injurious to their family. There arent too many families, for example, where the mother leaves her young children alone while she runs out to pick up dinner. There arent too many devoted mothers who routinely spend Friday nights dirty-dancing at the local bar. Wise parents who exercise sound oversight do not partake in the heavy drinking and pot smoking which appear to have occurred on a regular basis in the Van Dam household.
And, most parents simply do not invite a group of drunken, pot-addled barflys over to their home at 2 oclock in the morning, while their innocent children sleep only a few rooms away. One wonders whether either Damon or Brendas friend Barbara, ever considered what the children would think should they awaken and find their father with a woman who wasnt their mother rolling around on their parents bed.
Many dark theories abound as to what might actually have transpired between the Van Dams and David Westerfield. According to the defense attorney, witnesses have offered to come forward to testify that, not only DID Brenda Van Dam dance with Westerfield, but she did so exclusively and in a suggestive manner. Nevertheless, Westerfield may indeed be solely responsible for the murder of Danielle, and if he is found guilty than he should fry.
However, the Van Dams do appear to have fostered, at the very minimum, a home environment where the least suitable people would often be around their most precious assets. Their little girl, unfortunately, was the one who paid the price. ***
lol
I agree. In fact I understand that it is NOT incumbent on the prosecution to lay down every step of the crime ... how he got her from point A to point B ... but rather that he had the means and the motive. And the DNA.
Don't be silly. Point me to any article ... ANY PROOF AT ALL that no time was spent on any other person or persons. Your answer was vague in the extreme. Proof.
The prosecution has already provided this to the jury. The defense LAWYER can provide this to the jury. It is a matter of record.
As others theorized earlier, I believe that they rushed to take this to trial before the fiber, dna, etc. results came back, very sure that they would prove his guilt. Unfortunately for the prosecution things have not worked out as they expected so they're stuck looking like liars. I can only hope that the jury remembers or has taken notes during the opening statement. Whether they did or not, I'm sure Feldman will be only too happy to refresh their memory. That's why DW is paying him the really big bucks :-)
Two things. 1. The jury has been instructed to presume innocence until all the evidence is in. 2. If the jury is really watching the same evidence we're watching, they'll have questions. Probably many, perhaps all, of the same ones we have. In a sense, the jury is the general public, just a small sample of us.
Well, cool. It's just that they are held to a different standard than we are. I'm sick and tired of the Westerfield fans pretending that we can't judge someone that we TRULY believe is a child molester.
Most attorneys say that a circumstantial case is stronger. An eyewitness can be impeached by their eyesite, their motivation and their ability to see in certain conditions. Circumstantial cases are very much okay.
As we speak, Michael Skakel (the Kennedy cousin) is sitting in jail on a circumstantial case 27 years old ... and NO DNA evidence.
Ludicrous. There has, however, been a concerted effort to silence those of us who still have questions about the evidence, or lack of it.
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.