posted on June 7, 2002 11:05:45 AM new
Actually Linda_K you reminded me that I heard that the defense is saying his preference is ADULT WOMEN not children.
As for the mobilehome and the neighborhood kids, they probably played it, but not to the extend of beind a "playground." My question is, were there other neighborhood kids' fingerprints in the mobilehome? Or other evidence similar to the victim's ie blood in or on the defendent's property?
We built this city, we built this city on rock an' roll
posted on June 7, 2002 11:27:31 AM new
Regardless of the parents' "lifestyle" or "sexual preferences", they lost their daughter. It's every parent's worst nightmare. They didn't deserve this. Danielle didn't deserve this. And I don't think that Feldman is intimating that the Van Dams are "responsible" for Danielle's abduction and murder, nor that the Van Dams are to "blame". His defense will be that the Van Dams behaviors and "socializing" MAY have allowed someone OTHER than Mr. Westerfield access to Danielle and motive. This is what he will try to prove. Not that the Van Dams were "bad" parents and "deserved" or "caused" their daughter to be taken.
Regardless of the Van Dams personal choices in their lives, my heart is broken for them. I just can't imagine my daughter being stolen in the middle of the night. It's the most horrifying scenario for any parent, and I have no doubt that they have played the "if only" game over and over in their own minds. They are not responsible for what some monster did to their daughter.
posted on June 7, 2002 11:36:14 AM newI don't think that Feldman is intimating that the Van Dams are "responsible" for Danielle's abduction and murder, nor that the Van Dams are to "blame". His defense will be that the Van Dams behaviors and "socializing" MAY have allowed someone OTHER than Mr. Westerfield access to Danielle and motive.
posted on June 7, 2002 11:40:07 AM new
clarksville - Exactly...I heard that the defense is saying his preference is ADULT WOMEN not children. I doubt there are many who are interest in sex with children and adults too. That's where the question still remains in my mind. Now if the DA can prove he was into child pornography then that's a whole different ball game...to me. I heard they searched the defendants home, but never heard what they found.
posted on June 7, 2002 12:11:11 PM new
Linda_K just heard on Court Tv that he "allegedly" had in his possession of child pornography of adult men forcing themselves....
humbly trying NOT to be offensive....will delete upon request.
So I wonder if there is a possibility that he was either trying something "new" and accidently killed her or it was done all in revenge. He was reportedly socializing with the mother earlier that evening/night at a local bar (at least danced once with her).
Also, it was brought out on Court Tv that he has no history of child abuse. I think that this point is balanced on the fence.
This is more on the Utah girl. Seems they spotted someone "brushing away" footsteps in a canyon area, and after being spotted, the man fled. I hope they concentrate more in that area, since he was supposedly "covering" his "tracks"....she may still be alive and in there somewhere...I hope.
edited to remove sigline.
[ edited by hepburn101 on Jun 7, 2002 03:42 PM ]
posted on June 7, 2002 07:57:23 PM new
''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.''
