Posted on 07/11/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
It would seem to me that living two or three houses down from someone, the wind alone would transfer fibers. I am sure that every time I walk outside, I get fibers from my neighbors, and they get mine. Fibers, hair, what have you.
Further, neighborhood children play in, around, on top of, underneath anything and every thing they can. They are, by nature, curious little creatures and if they thought they could get into a motor home parked on the street and play around a little - well what an adventure that would be!
With the life style the van Dams lead, why would any one just assume that this child was kidnapped and murdered simply on the whim of Westerfield THAT night - evidently the first night he'd actually interacted with them in any meaningful fashion? With this life style, they would have had strangers running in and out of their house all the time. It could have been someone from as long ago as 6 months prior who had partied with them. There is no evidence that Westerfield was ever in their house, correct? Perhaps the little girl wandered outside and some previous 'party attendee' grabbed her. Maybe someone who had wanted to be included in the party that night, but wasn't and was angry about it.
Brenda van Dam wore an orange sweater to court one day this week. Every one sitting around her and walking behind her probably now has orange fibers on their clothing.
These are just a couple of thoughts. So many things about this trial trouble me.
It just seems to me that too many people assume that simply because a person is arrested they are, therefore, guilty. God forbid that we have to prove our innocence in courts. It is the prosecution's job to prove guilt. In my opinion, this prosecution has definitely not proven guilt.
I believe he is a sexual pervert ..
1. When and how did David Westerfield kidnap Danielle? 2. When and how did David Westerfield murder Danielle? 3. When and how did David Westerfield dispose of Danielle's body?
That isn't entirely fair. The prosecution has presented theories that are sufficiently specific, and some evidence to back it up. While I side with the people who suspect DAW is innocent, there have been some scenarios posted that reasonably point to Westerfield as the perpetrator. Let me try to answer them, then.
1. Kidnapping - when? Obviously, on the night of Feb 2. The alarm lights and open doors provide windows for someone to access the house. The implication, clearly, is that Westerfield is that person. How? By entering through the doors. As a neighbor, and one who had just recently seen BVD at the bar, he may have known enough about their habits to know they would be otherwise occupied. A risk, certainly, but perhaps manageable.
2. Murder - when? Either immediately or during his trip. There's sufficient time during his trip to commit a murder. How? Uncertain, but most likely suffocation. That was, as I recall, the ME's suggestion. The presence of fibers indicates at least some struggle, and those fibers are (at least tentatively) linked to DAW.
3. Disposal - When? Again, during the trip, as he was under observation afterwards. The bug testimony makes this look less likely, but if you accept only his bit about the 16th being the earliest date, you can still go backwards and get to the 2nd-4th. How? Well, by dumping her there, and getting extremely lucky that no one found her for so long.
Again, I don't actually agree with these theories, but they're clearly the ones the defense is putting forward, and that I assume most VDAs agree with. Also, I don't follow the trial as much as some people here do (this is my main source of info on it, in fact), so feel free to correct any errors.
Drew Garrett
That's not entirely accurate.
There is one poster who did respond. I won't mention this posters name --out of regard for her recently-departed theories: "Two drives" and "Plastic mattress cover".
She's prolly wondering how she got on that side of the fence ...
You mean the one who said (early on this thread) she was fixing to go out and plant something? ;-)
And trouble us all.
It is called MOB PSYCHOLOGY.
When Danielle disappeared, it caught the attention of the nation. WHY? Because it was an attractive blonde-haired blue-eyed white girl with parents that had a decent amount of money.
THe news jumped on it because it would sell newspapers, TV news, (I.e. Advertising money).
The local DA jumped on it because he is in a bid to win RE-election and he needed something BIG to get the voters to pick him. The opportunity was there (the girl was gone). The Van Dam's had hired a PR team right away and had taken over the Laura Recovery Center , put their own people in it (including their retired LEO friend Diane Halfman), and renamed it the Danielle Recovery Center.
SO the DA needed a PERP that he could charge, arrest, and CONVICT. The police were directed by the mother to a likely PERP , and from then on seemed to lose interest in other suspects, and concentrate on DW. Then they concentrated on FINDING PROOF (whether it was really there or not) that he did it.
The News media helped out by exxagerrating and outright LYING about events/times/statements and plastering them all over the MAGS/NEWSPAPERS/TV.
They got practically every MOTHER to swallow every word about DW because he had some PORN. Take a MOM with children, mention a MAN with PORN and the MOM will ACT LIKE a MOTHERBEAR protecting her CUBS. CLAW AWAY and KILL HIM.
It is an understandable EMOTION.
However, it has nothing to do with this.
BUT the DA, the MEDIA want it to have everthing to do with THIS CASE, because the EMOTION will SELL,SELL,SELL. The TRUTH won't.
I totally agree with this. A few threads back I even posted how my son had gone to play in a neighborhood kid's neighbor's MH, thus relating how it was possible. The poster who responded in the negative to me was, yes it possible, but it is not probable. It just seems to me that too many people assume that simply because a person is arrested they are, therefore, guilty.
When they were doing jury selection, many potential jurors were excused because they felt DW WAS guilty because he had been arrested.
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.