[P-Marlowe]

Pray with me that this basically good man will be found not guilty of anything serious.

This basically good man is a child murderer. Get over it. He was a sicko. He is a sicko. If you think he's basically a good guy, then I think I would have to include you in that assessment.

BTW this will not be overturned on appeal. This is an airtight conviction. I'm just amazed it took so long. My guess is that they were hung up on the "special circumstances" allegation. Nevertheless the evidence allowed for the inference that he kidnapped her rather than that she walked over to his house in her sleep.

You are going to have to find a new basically good child murderer to fawn over. Perhaps this Avilla guy in Orange County is a good target for your affections.

[Peach]

You told it like it is - good for you. I've never seen such ignorance in FR before.

[wimpycat]

I hope these threads get the death penalty. But I'm afraid we'll never hear the end of how this "good man" was framed by a vast conspiracy of swingers, law enforcement, crooked judges, crooked attorneys and stupid jurors.

[crystalk]

No, Avila is guilty. I only fawn over the innocent ones.

[PrairieDawg]

Sigh. Have you actually been following the trial? Or are you just restating what Nancy Grace told you today?

There are holes big enough to drive Mack Trucks through in the prosecutions' case. Included in the items that haven't been shown are:

1. Motive
2. Ability to dispose of body (all bug forensic guys said Danielle's body was put there *after* police started watching Westerfield 24x7
3. Evidence that he was in the house. Ever.

If it can't be shown that he was in the house, that he couldn't have disposed of the body, and that he showed no signs of motive (it was shown in the trial that Westerfield liked *adult* women) then how is it that he was convicted? Simple - thread and DNA evidence. What the defense failed to show was this:

1. That the thread evidence could have been via cross-contamination.
2. That the DNA evidence (hair) could have come from the mother (who was shown to been bumping and grinding on the dance floor with Westerfield in a bar).
3. That Danielle could well have gotten in the moter home and played previously w/out Westerfields' knowledge.

Let's see what happens on appeal - so far this is a travesty, IMHO.

[EggsAckley]

Whew! Thanks for your voice of reason. I was beginning to think I was in some sort of co-dependants anonymous meeting or something.

Time to move on, folks. I can't help but think of how hard Westerfield would be laughing if he read this thread.

[truth_seeker]

BTW this will not be overturned on appeal. This is an airtight conviction. I'm just amazed it took so long. My guess is that they were hung up on the "special circumstances" allegation.

I listened real careful, when they read the verdicts. The porn verdict was dated 13 Aug. 2002.

Not being an attorney, I don't profess to know the technical ins and outs. It doesn't look like anything is wrong with the case, for appeal.

The SaveDave fanatics were obsessed from the very start with Swinging. To them, nobody else but the Van Dams could be guilty, not anybody, not even poorDave.

They have conjured up a world, where blood isn't blood, hair isn't hair, fingerprints aren't fingerprints, DNA isn't DNA, porn isn't porn, etc.

Aber "bug science" uber alles.