posted on June 5, 2002 06:51:00 PM new
So..the trial is going full force. My question is, do any of you think the lifestyle of the parents should be admisable in court? Did it have anything to do with Westerfield taking the little girl and killing her IF he is the one that did it? Whats your thoughts on this?
posted on June 5, 2002 07:05:42 PM new
From the looks of things (KD's thread about sexual predators registry), looks like everyone will soon have to lock themselves in tight, especially where their little girls are concerned. The next door neighbor could be a child molester and nobody would ever know...after all, they are entitled to DUE PROCESS. Rights of the perps, dontcha know, versus rights of the victims or POTENTIAL victims. Makes me sick.
posted on June 5, 2002 07:08:15 PM new
Remember the woman in WA a few years ago who walked into a courtroom where the alleged molester of her son was on trial and shot him in the back of the head? What became of her. I could see myself doing that. Could you--anybody?
posted on June 5, 2002 07:13:48 PM new
So what do you think, nycyn? Should the VanDam's sexual preferences and history be allowed in court? And do you think it has any bearing on the case? If they charged Westerfield with the murder, partly because they found child porn in his house, then why shouldnt they look alittle closer to the VanDams for what was in theirs? I.E. swing lifestyle, drugs, etc?
posted on June 5, 2002 07:23:37 PM new
>>The next door neighbor could be a child molester and nobody would ever know...<<
HEP:
Wait. What happened to Megan's Law? I recently got a letter frm my kid's school naming all the addresses of the neighbohood perps.
>> Should the VanDam's sexual preferences and history be allowed in court? And do you think it has any bearing on the case? If they charged Westerfield with the murder, partly because they found child porn in his house, then why shouldnt they look alittle closer to the VanDams for what was in theirs? I.E. swing lifestyle, drugs, etc?<<
I'm not up on their sexual lifestyle. Kinky? Bi? What? If this is what you mean I think we're getting into Blame The Victim. I haven't been following this except for that last I heard the alleged perp had her blood in his whatever-you-call those, had a lousy alibi, took a "trip to the desert" that day, and was antsy when interviewed.
posted on June 5, 2002 07:30:21 PM new
nycyn, all I know is what scuttlebutt says and what I read in the paper. Westerfield pleaded innocent. They said they found her blood in his motorhome and he had kiddie porn in his pc. Read the links on the cnn site and you can catch up more on whats what. As far as the vandams are concerned, I dont know about them. My female intuition is kicking in big time that they know more than they are letting on. Or, they feel guilty about something. And they did lie about drugs in the house the night the child disappeared. Just alot of wishy washy stuff from them. And that Brenda VanDam. The way she cut her husband off everytime he tried to open his mouth...something about her I cant put my finger on. The meeting him at the bar (westerfield) for "girls night out"; the claims from the press that she and the mister were in partner swapping; the drugs. I dont know...the whole thing seems weird. Not being in the courtroom and hearing what the jury is, I cant tell whats what. However, I think their lifestyle SHOULD be admisable, due to it COULD pertain to maybe someone else who was part of the "partying" and COULD have info, or COULD bring them into it as well as Westerfield.
posted on June 5, 2002 07:44:42 PM new
>>By contrast, he said, Westerfield was "completely cooperative" with police.<<
Well, I would think sexual carrying-on and pot-smoking is not something one would quickly admit to cops with kids in the house. Admissions like that could have the kids removed for one thing. I could see why they might try to cover that up, as would any politician, etc.
Marijuana use and sex-play are not unique to this family. In fact it is a past-time of some of the wealthiest and/or biggest achievers in this country.
In short. I don't know who *really* killed the kid, but I do know that if they drag sex & (I use the term loosely) "morality" into this, it's a clever ploy on the alleged perp's attorneys.
posted on June 6, 2002 06:31:17 AM new
Of course his life style could have paved the way for someone to see the kid and case the joint - but if he was just a friendly fellow who had BBQs for the neighborhood the same could be said. No matter how careless he was that does not excuse someone dragging a little girl off to a terrible death because it was easier than if he had done something else.
posted on June 6, 2002 10:41:18 AM new
I keep asking this Question and no one is able to answer it: Statistically, 50 kids a day are kidnapped in America. Why then did the VanDams get all of the press coverage? I mean, what about the other 49 kids who got kidnapped on that date? What about them? Why does THIS family rate over the other 49 greiving families?
posted on June 6, 2002 01:47:28 PM new
Good question, borillar. But I doubt there are any clear cut answers. Seems the media focuses on just one of many, sweeping the others away. Or there are just too many to cover all at once, which is truly a sad thing if true. Too many? Something is wrong when 1000 children are "lost" to the system that is supposed to be taking care of them....something is wrong with the media focuses on ONE child out of 50 on any given day...something is wrong when ways to keep track of those who "like" children in "certain ways" are removed from data bases because its "unfair" to the person in question. Drive on. We'll sweep up the blood later!....Katharine Hepburn Quote
posted on June 6, 2002 02:01:09 PM new
The vast majority of children "kidnapped" in the US are taken by non-custodial parents, not too news worthy.
The Van Dams lifestyle should be open territory for the investigation/trial.
The drug use and sex parties lend themselves to the possibility that one of the "partyers" was involved with the murder.
Having ongoing illegal activity in the home exposes the family to myriad actors that may be proned to commit other crimes, including murder.
Persons involved in drugs at some point directly or indirectly come into contact with some pretty rough charters. At many levels of the drug trade, murder or kidnapping is an option for business reasons.
While I personally don't hold any prejudice against their swinging lifestyle, the jealously factor, with an emotionally injured partner might cause them to stoop to kidnapping and murder of a child.
Being under the influence of drugs, having multiple sex parnters and having a minor child in the house pretty much leaves the possibility of anything happening, and committed by anyone in the house.
However, to what extent should this lifestyle be allowed to cast doubt on the guilt of the suspect on trial?
It could be that someone under the influence of drugs "partying" in the home tried to molest the child, she resisted and was killed and taken out and dumped.
You don't know to what extent the police looked at other possibilities.
For instance- what type(s) of pornography did the parents have in the home ? Who has been at their house using drugs ? Who did they buy their drugs from ? How many sexual partners did the parents have and who are they ?
These are the types of complications that this type of lifestyle brings, rightly or wrongly.
posted on June 6, 2002 10:09:21 PM new
I believe Reamond is correct in saying that most of the child abductions are by family members and so not as newsworthy as a stranger abduction...especially when the stranger goes right into the girls room to take her. That would seem to be the reason that we only hear about a small percentage of these abductions on a daily basis.
These stranger abductions are getting more and more daring every year. What would go through a mans mind to make him go into someones house to steal their child? Beyond sick.
posted on June 7, 2002 07:52:41 AM new
hep said, "do any of you think the lifestyle of the parents should be admisable in court?
Yes, I do. The defense is trying to show the jury that there are others who might have had the opportunity to take this child.
I've only heard bits and pieces of testimony....it's not clear to me what point the defense is trying to make asking the father questions about their dog, his knee and the blood found on the side of their house. Also someone said something about scratches on the childs back and either the mother [I believe] or the father stated that their dog had jumped on her back a day or so before she was taken. Anyone know?
posted on June 7, 2002 09:01:08 AM newThe defense is trying to show the jury that there are others who might have had the opportunity to take this child.
Yes, but more than that the defense attorney is trying to point out that the Van Dams, and Brenda in particular, had a history of poor judgement when it came to the safety of her children. For instance, Brenda leaving her children alone in the house while she went to pick up pizza. And the most glaring lapse in judgement, is when she actually left Danielle ALONE in the Mervyns department store and left the store to go to the other store where her boys were purchasing a toy (also alone). I absolutely cannot fathom leaving a 7 year old child (girl or boy) alone in a department store, actually leaving the store premises. Brenda doesn't know who talked to her while she was gone. She doesn't know anything about Danielle might have come into contact with while she was alone in the store. This was on the last day before she disappeared, Feb. 1st.
The DNA evidence is going to be hard for the defense to explain away. Feldman is highly regarded here as a very aggressive and very competent defense attorney. He is very good.
KatyD
(clarity and spelling)
[ edited by KatyD on Jun 7, 2002 09:02 AM ]
posted on June 7, 2002 09:10:10 AM new
I just heard on the morning news that taking children from their bedrooms in the dead of night is "rare"...only about 5 per week throughout the states. ONLY??? Thats 5 too many!
I dont understand the mindset of Brenda VanDam. If she left her 7 year old alone in a department store, what else did she do that was non responsible for taking care of her children? We know she was out on "girls night" and we know they didnt bother to check her bed (as most parents do from time to time throughout the night..or at least resonsible ones do). What else do we NOT know? Drive on. We'll sweep up the blood later!....Katharine Hepburn Quote
posted on June 7, 2002 09:34:01 AM new
Hi KatyD - I agree.
I do have one question....maybe you're heard/read....The DNA evidence is going to be hard for the defense to explain away I heard the defendants motorhome was a play area for the neighborhoods children. Might not the childs blood, found in the MH been from... say the scratches found on her back?? Possibly while the children were playing...she was scratched and the that's the blood found in the MH?
I know how you feel, Hep....I think we all feel when we're in our homes we're safer than anywhere else. Now with these children being taken from their own bedrooms....god. But as KatyD said it doesn't sound like Brenda was doing the best job of caring for her childrens safety...especially in these times.
posted on June 7, 2002 09:55:08 AM new
Well exactly! Here's the scenario...
Brenda comes home, her husband is already upstairs in bed, she sees the alarm light "blinking" on the control panel, and tells her friend there is an open door somewhere and she has to find it, THEN goes upstairs and CLOSES HER KIDS DOORS WITHOUT LOOKING IN ON THEM! THEN goes downstairs and closes the side garage door, assuming that is why the control panel light was blinking. Now, seeing that blinking light and knowing a door or window had been left open, WHY wouldn't she have looked in on her kids BEFORE she shut their doors?? The blinking alarm light should have made anybody else want to "check" their kids, just in case, don't you think? Was Danielle even there at that point or was she already gone? I just don't understand that part.
posted on June 7, 2002 09:56:13 AM new
hep101 I gave the parents a "benefit of the doubt" until I was watching Court Tv the other day. The defense attorney asked the mother how many times did you smoke marijuana? It took her approximately three minutes to say "30."
The point IS NOT the fact she toked, but IMO THAT she was avoiding answering that question and WHY???
Yes, I think that their lifestyle didn't prevent the kidnapping. Also, I heard somewhere that the father wasn't at the home but instead elsewhere with his girlfriend, which meant the children were home alone (the mother was elsewhere too).
However, like many other things, it happens no matter what. If the parents were bringing people into their home, this was putting the children at risk.
We built this city, we built this city on rock an' roll
posted on June 7, 2002 10:01:06 AM new
Linda, there is dna evidence in the motorhome. Also Danielle's palm and/or fingerprints. The defense is trying to establish that Danielle was not always so closely supervised that she didn't have the opportunity to get into the motor home and "play". I suspect we'll hear more of this when the defense presents their case. I haven't heard of the motor home being a "play area" for the neighborhood kids, though. However, it was parked on the street frequently and alot of neighbors complained about it because it violated the CC&R's.
BUT, regardless of whether their is an explanation for Danielle's prints and blood and bedroom carpet fiber in the motorhome, HOW would Danielle's blood get on Mr. Westerfield's jacket??? This, I think is where the defense will attack the dna methodology (a la O.J.) since the jacket was tested AFTER it was dry cleaned.
posted on June 7, 2002 10:09:49 AM new
As for the allowing the information about the parent's lifestyle into the trial, it depends on the judge and the rules of evidence.
I think it should, though which would help to give him a fair trial as long as it doesn't cloud the real reason they are there.
A few weeks ago, I heard they found evidence of semen in her bedroom. Never heard if it was linked to the defendent. Anyone else?
We built this city, we built this city on rock an' roll
posted on June 7, 2002 10:46:30 AM newI haven't heard of the motor home being a "play area" for the neighborhood kids, though. However, it was parked on the street frequently and alot of neighbors complained about it because it violated the CC&R's. I believe I heard that on Fox news when a neighbor of the Van Dam's was being interviewed. They mentioned he moved the MH, as needed, to try to avoid violating the CC&R's...and then stated that besides the violation they were upset that the children were allowed to play in it.
Who knows? The jacket does present a problem, agreed. But what I can't work out in my mind is why a man who was interested in joining the 'sex' group, [it sounds like Brenda's girlfriend was interested in him too] would then do this to a child. Rejection?
posted on June 7, 2002 10:56:45 AM new
Unless he DIDNT do it and this is one of those awful cases where all the evidence points in someones direction like a glove on a hand (pardon the pun) but it isnt correct...just fits. The blood on the jacket could have been from her rubbing against it while playing in the MH, or him picking her up when she fell while playing and mom wasnt around, or any other things that COULD have happened. Brenda VanDam is running around being spokesperson for other lost kids and shes the WORST to be doing any sort of "representin'", IMHO. She and her husband are nasty (again, just MHO), and all they thought about was playing with everyone besides their spouse, and/or sharing and "watching". Sick. Drive on. We'll sweep up the blood later!....Katharine Hepburn Quote
