[Illbay]

I don't have to "prove" anything. That's the job of the prosecution. This is simply my opinion. I think the guy is a predator, and I think it more than likely he slaughtered that little girl.

[MizSterious]

I guess, Illbay, we're just wondering how you came to your conclusions, based on what is now known. If the man was not able to kill her and dump her body at Dehesa because he was under constant surveillance, how can you logically conclude that he did it? And why not one of the van Dam horndogs, some of whom seem to be very strange? Are you saying DW did it just because, to you, he "looks like" someone who might do such a thing? Uh oh, middle aged, balding men--look out, Illbay thinks you're pervs!

[UCANSEE2]

This is simply my opinion. I think the guy is a predator, and I think it more than likely he slaughtered that little girl.

Thank YOU. It is nice when a poster states their position so clearly. At least we know where you are coming from.

What others have tried to say is that the media hype has turned out not to be true. The witness statements were misconstrued by police. Some witnesses downright lied.

All testimony has pretty much proven DW was the neighbor people knew and associated with. He was the one that had a normal social life, (camping, RV's, MH trips, etc).

The VD's were the ones with the aberrant sexual behavior and drugs social life.

SO, in my opinion DW does not look guilty at all. I don't think he had anything to do with killing Danielle.

I think you made up your mind a long time ago, and have closed it like a steel trap.

No amount of facts or reality will ever change your mind.

Well, you stick with that. You are welcome to it.