Posted on 07/11/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Naturally you would explain this story and it would check out since the child's parent, for example, would support your story.
Relax, you'll be OK-----if you're innocent, that is.
That's good. I'd missed that.
OK, it's obvious that the prosecution is claiming Danielle was in the motor home, right? I mean, that is what all the fiber and hair stuff is about. So why do they say the dog didn't alert? Or don't they mention it at all?
I remember the bit about the corpse-sniffing dog being debunked - but did the defense make anything of dogs not alerting inside?
Drew Garrett
Of course you are welcome to your hunch, but frankly, I don't put much faith in someone else's hunches (you know what they say about hunches, they're like armpits--everyone's got one, and everyone thinks everyone else's smells). On the other hand, if you read up on the case, study the transcripts, read the past articles on it, and figure out who's bs'ing who, then I might give your posts some credence. Until then, they're just more opinions--which, in a way are a lot like hunches and armpits.
IIRC, he showed up at the dry cleaners early in the morning and gave them some items to do.
Then he showed up later, around noon or just after noon, and wanted to have some items done, and wanted them back at the same time he would be picking up the items he brought them that morning. They told him that would be considered a rush job and that they would have had to have been in by a certain time to get out at that time.
I believe the Dry cleaning clerk had testified she thought he was barefoot and wearing some thin shorts.
That is all I remember, perhaps someone can fill in more details, or direct you to the exact part of the transcripts, if you need.
I've always been fascinated by your type. I picture an old Little Rascals episode where the guy that no one likes and that doesn't get included, hides behind a fence and throws rocks at the passers-by. You know........anything to be noticed.
Well....we see you. Now won't you be kind enough to run along and bother someone else.
I expect you aren't mature enough to notice that there are definitely different points of view here, but the majority of them, regardless of sentiment, are expressed by people who have followed the trial.
Pretty desperate, aren't you?
I put this in the same category as the blinds being open, the blinds being closed, bleach on the shopping list, the meandering desert trip, the Linens N Things advertisement, etc., etc.,. Maybe he was just in a bad mood...no, not possible he was in a bad mood, he was behaving like that because he had just killed a 7 year old and dumped her body in a desert. (sarcasm off)
When I hear hoofbeats, I think horses, not zebras.
And you know DW didn't tell the police how she might have gotten in there, how?
And if this parent is a lier like BVD or has an agenda, then what?
You have asked some meaningful questions, and I have tried to give you the best information I have.
'Kay. You think the Jury'll be interested?
By the same token, if JonBenet died as a result of Patsy Ramsay's hitting her, and Ramsay covered it up to make it LOOK like an accident (as was alleged in the book that came out a year or so ago), then she is guilty as well.
I'm having an ever-harder time sympathizing with those who think he did, because it just seems like they have closed their minds to any evidence that would tend to be exculpatory. Particularly in light of the bug guy's evidence, I'm having a hard time understanding why some still think that DW did it. I had serious doubts about this case, but the bug guy pretty much put those to rest with his testimony.
I don't know who did it. I just know it wasn't DW.
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.