Skip to comments.
Expert: Body dumped after defendant fell under suspicion (SO WHO DUMPED DANIELLE VAN DAM'S BODY??)
Union Trib ^
| July 11, 2002
| Steve Perez/Greg Magnus
Posted on 07/11/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980, 981-1,000, 1,001-1,020 ... 1,301-1,318 next last
To: UCANSEE2
But, just like us, you have to back up things with proof, if you want anyone else to listen.Are you kidding? I back up what I say. And the article you want me to look up for you I already posted on the threads around the time of the dog handler's testimony.
To: cyncooper
Excuse me, but I clearly stated in an earlier post on this thread that the dog handler evidence factors not one whit in my opinion. Therefore your assertion that I am bound to produce documentation regarding an issue I consider of little or no import is baseless. Same pattern. I am tired anyway, so I don't really care anymore.
To: dread78645; All
Again: Has anyone seen the actual report of the Medical Examiner? Does anyone know what the credentials of this ME? A lot of cases have been given appeals because the ME was not experienced in Criminology. If you know the link to look at this info, please share.
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Are you taking about the white body sheet that the body movers used to transport her into the body bag?..yes, that sheet was used....it was removed from it's plastic and placed under her body.
984
posted on
07/11/2002 9:04:03 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
It's the ME and he testified right after or shortly after Damon, I think.
To: UCANSEE2
The glossary is great!
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Like you're joking? About the swinging?
987
posted on
07/11/2002 9:04:38 PM PDT
by
Jaded
To: cyncooper
Thnx! now..if only the stupid newsites would have provided a decent index of transcripts.
To: cyncooper
I could be a juror, think he did it,, but feel the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Thank you...I do not know if DAW is innocent or not. I do not believe he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. My concern has been that some are ignoring the beyond a reasonable doubt part.
To: Rheo
Kinda destroys the "sheet kept the bugs away" theory, as if that would keep them away anyway.
990
posted on
07/11/2002 9:05:17 PM PDT
by
oremus
To: cyncooper
Are you kidding? I back up what I sayNo you don't. You keep backing off on what you say. Doesn't matter. You have shown your methods, and everyone can see plainly. Just going back and reading your posts, you keep backing off your own statements, each time you get asked to prove them. Then you say you don't have to prove them. Then you say they are only opinion. Then you say.... Like I said, I am tired. Maybe you are too.
LEt's see what happens when the trial resumes.
To: rolling_stone
What if the body, and the ground immediately around it, was doused with a bottle or two of BLEACH?
To: cyncooper
If the dog handler isn't credible, then why are you basing your conclusion that Danielle wasn't in the MH over that weekend on dog handler testimony?
180-Frank was the VOLUNTEER handler of "cadaver" dogs. The SD PD has a separate and distinct K9 Units that have QUALIFIED scent tracking handlers.
180-Frank was not credible because he did not note the "hit" at that time of the inspection. He mentioned it only AFTER he had heard through the media that DAW had arrested and he had heard about it.
993
posted on
07/11/2002 9:09:58 PM PDT
by
pyx
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Good luck. I begged an extra hour on the computer from my husband but he needs it NOW! Later...
To: BigBobber
There would have certainly been evidence of that and it would have been detected on the body.
995
posted on
07/11/2002 9:10:58 PM PDT
by
oremus
To: All
Just something I've been thinking - that's probably been thought of already - anyway - it sounded like DW's friends really could have been out at Glamis that weekend - they had been there that same weekend in the past. The DA wants us to think DW may have still had Danielle with him at Glamis - but why on earth would he have gone out here with her if he could have indeed run into Dave and Debbie or anyone else he knows for that matter. If he did see Dave and Debbie - was he just going to hightail it outta there - that wouldn't look suspicious now would it - or was he just going to keep her stashed away secretly somehow while he attempted to appear normal? I don't get it.
996
posted on
07/11/2002 9:11:53 PM PDT
by
mommya
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I would move
To: UCANSEE2; pinz-n-needlez
Both interesting theories.
I do think there is a chance DVD was not in the home from 11-1:30 or so.
Still not comfortable on the molestation/sex for sale/stuff w/Danielle.
I do wonder who might have turned Neil on to the porn sites tho....the VD's somehow knew that it was in the house.....is there any connection that links Neil to the VD's?...sports, surfing, computers, etc?...any chance they met or talked somewhere?
998
posted on
07/11/2002 9:12:46 PM PDT
by
Rheo
To: BigBobber
I think that could be easily detected, including damage to hair and necklace and plants nearby. I did not notice any testimony if bugs were analyzed for drugs...
To: Jaded
I just thought of an animated bug version of the Randy Newman "I Love LA" video: "Rollin' down, Imperial Highway, Big Nasty Slutbug, by my side!, Santa Ana Winds Blowin' Hot from the South, and we were born to ride!"
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 961-980, 981-1,000, 1,001-1,020 ... 1,301-1,318 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