[RnMomof7]

Now, the really interesting question is: if the 'bug' evidence is correct, then DVD had to have an accomplice free (and willing) to dump the body on or about the 16th. Another of the lying 'swingers'? Who knows?

I do not believe the parents were under surveilance like DW was. I think they were free to come and go pretty much..

The folks here keep pointing out DVD long sleeve shirts. At first we thought they were covering track marks, more recently some have speculated that they covered Poison oak (where the body was found)

Also they sold the van..would the dogs have smelled her?

IMHO This guy is being protected for a reason..perhaps a politician that would not want his swinging lifestyle outed??

[Rheo]

Detective Holmes testified that the VD's were under MEDIA surveillence..not police.

Can't imagine why we didn't hear about their every move then.....don't imagine the PR firm or Diane could have called them off at times.

[winstonchurchill]

IMHO This guy is being protected for a reason..perhaps a politician that would not want his swinging lifestyle outed??

Well, I'm not sure about the politician angle, but the cops surely knew that 'political correctness' covered the VD's 'rights' to engage in their 'lifestyle of choice' whereas, (at least currently) the liberals' political correctness does not extend to pedophilia. So, it was easier to hang this on a random pedophile than on two scumbags 'exploring' their 'enlightened sexuality', particularly when an investigation of the parents would have necessarily explored the relationship between marriage perversion and parenting perversion. Obviously, in view of the liberal enamorment with 'queer parenting', drawing such an obvious relationship is a no-no. Can't you imagine the liberals waxing eloquent on every talking head show that "this doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the parents' lifestyle choices ... yada yada yada."

In James Q. Wilson's latest book (and current best-seller), The Marriage Problem, he mentions obliquely this effect in the context of cohabitation prior to marriage (aka "shacking up"). He cites a late 90's poll which showed that about half the American people had no objection to people living together prior to marriage, but when the same poll asked respondents about their own daughter almost none found it acceptable. Wilson concludes that "tolerance is a virtue with fuzzy edges" and, in liberal America, being 'judgmental' is not a good thing unless it involves something (or somebody) we care about.