Judge Allows Danielle's Dad Back In Court: (Damon was banned for MAD-DOGGING Westerfield!)

North County Times-San Diego ^ | July 13, 2002 | Kimberly Epler

[Karson]

received and replied. Thanks!

[Jaded]

Some of the newer ones were probably invited over from The Ned Forum. The venom and name calling is much the same. Then again they could be from the DU.

[cyncooper]

She says "they're green" present tense, is that what you mean?
Did you read along with the transcript? Then it will be clear that she is saying "60 pounds".

[Jaded]

Here it's grand jury only that gets to question.

[cyncooper]

Interesting isn't it? Between Condit and such I am glad to know that grand juries really wield a great deal of influence on investigating a case, though lawyers say the DA'a office guides them, of course. It is good to know the way it works in case any one of us ever gets on one!

[Karson]

Aside from whether or not she said "they're green" present tense or if she said "they were green" past tense, why did she say green? Weren't Danielle's eyes blue?

[cyncooper]

Obviously Brenda considered them green. My brother has green eyes, but green eyes can be considered a shade of blue (They're rarely emerald green, for instance) if that is how her eyes are officially listed somewhere.

[Rheo]

Wonder why if BVD considered them green, they used blue eyes on all the flyers and promo's.

[Karson]

If descriptions for missing children are important, Brenda flubbed up bigtime. She said Danielle had brown hair and green eyes but as you pointed out, all the other stuff described blonde hair and blue eyes. Even Danielle's friends mothers talked about her blue eyes.

Personally I have a hard time looking at her eyes in her photos because they look so sad to me.

[Karson]

post 409 was partially in response to your post also.

[Jaded]

Put on your thinking caps... who is it a description of?

[Krodg]

She says "she's probably about 6 feet tall". Then she says she's not sure and aks Damon how tall she is. This is not the same time that 60lbs was mentioned. I've listened to it at least 20 times tonight. Also, I do hear a dog bark.

[Karson]

I don't even need to put on my cap. Jumped out at me purty quick when I first heard the tape.

[Jaded]

Recently HPDO and I were talking about it. He said grand juries can ask any thing they like. As opposed to say, regular court where scope is limited. Apparently that is why somethings are no-billed and the peeps scratch their head, because, I know this is hard to believe, but the news doesn't tell both sides or sometimes even the truth.

Last jury I was on, I kind of wished we could tell the attorneys to shut up and just ask questions ourselves. Would have been much easier, much less b/s.

[Karson]

I've listened to it several more times tonight too --- thanks to you! You really have a knack for catching stuff, don't you? :-)

[Krodg]

Who've you been talking to tonight? BTW, what do you think about the tape?

[185JHP]

Two other indicators against him you didn't mention: barefoot at the dry cleaners (don't need to draw you a picture about THAT, do we?), and, whatever he was wearing, ahem, below the waist, was THIN!

[Rheo]

He surely does!

[Stiv]

Your right about one thing.
1:) It's "you're," not "your."

Westerfield is no innocent.....her blood was found on him... and in his motorhome, that alone would do it for me....
2.) I never said Westerfield was an "innocent." Regarding your reply, no one ever claimed blood was found "on him." A few drops -- a precious few at that -- were found on the jacket (see my earlier post about that) and in the motor home (see earlier post). The "CHILD porn" is definitely questionable as to who downloaded and who viewed; in fact, I find it INCONCEIVABLE the defense did not point out that it is entirely possible to dowload MULTIPLE binary files (and I mean hundreds if not thousands) via USENET to a folder and never view them...i.e., you would have no idea what they contain from the file name. To put it bluntly, fat Dave could have marked a thousand binary files to download from a USENET newsgroup, gone to bed as they downloaded, and then never looked at the plethora of pulchritude(sp?) he had on his "hard drive."

What other conclusion / explanation could there be?
3) There are a multitude of conclusions/explanations, many of which are more viable than an extremely drunk fat guy disabling an alarm system, wandering in a house without alerting a Weimariner, abducting a child, AND LEAVING NO EVIDENCE OF HIS PRESENCE.

Many here don't like the VDam
4.) I have no opinions about the van Dams. I do, however, understand the concept of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." You, sir, do not seem to grasp that concept.

SoI guess I will head back to mulletville North/SouthCarolina where we don't cotton to perverts who rape and kill our babies.
5.) To my knowledge, there are no cities /states that "cotton" to "perverts" raping and killing their babies, and my remark about South Carolina was admittedly out of place (I live in NC, BTW). But I think even you would agree we need to PROVE someone guilty of a crime before we KILL them. Or at at least I hope that's what you think.

In the spirit of debate... Stiv

[Karson]

Let's just say I hope the jurors play the 911 tape for themselves, without the transcripts, before they reach a verdict. Let's hope they play it over and over. I notice something new almost every time I hear it. Better without the transcript to "guide" you into thinking BvD said something that she didn't really say and vice versa!

After a full day and evening of baby-sitting 2 small grandchildren, I have foolishly stayed up way past my bedtime, again. Goodnight.