BREAKING: BRENDA VAN DAM DANCED WITH WESTERFIELD: (Modern Day Westside Story?)7-9-02 Trial Watch

(07-08-2002) - Three defense witnesses testified Monday that Brenda van Dam and David Westerfield, the man accused of murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, danced together the night before the girl was discovered missing.

"Mr. Westerfield and Mrs. van Dam were dancing," said Patricia LePage, describing the scene at Dad's Cafe and Steakhouse the night of Feb. 1.

Since the prosecution introduced hair and fibers found at the defendant's house and motorhome, the defense has tried to show the evidence could have been transferred in some other way, such as dancing.

The 50-year-old defendant would face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping and killing Danielle van Dam, who lived two houses away in Sabre Springs. He is also charged with misdemeanor possession of child pornography.

In testimony near the beginning of the trial, Brenda van Dam told the court she did not dance with Westerfield.

But LePage said van Dam rubbed her hips and chest against Westerfield during several dances together, recalling the movie "Dirty Dancing." That was just part of what LePage described as "frisky" behavior exhibited by van Dam that night.

LePage said she was in a smoking lounge at Dad's with her daughter, Cherokee Youngs, when van Dam came in and struck up a conversation with the younger woman.

"Well, she did ask my daughter if she liked girls," LePage said when asked to describe the conversation. Van Dam, she said, asked Youngs if she wanted to come to her house for a party later that night.

Youngs testified about the encounter last week.

Duane Blake, a fisherman who said he goes to Dad's a couple times a week, said he caught a glimpse of the defendant dancing with van Dam.

alt

Blake confirmed an interview with the District Attorney's Office, in which he described their dancing as, "huggy, huggy." He testified he even thought Westerfield might be trying to pick up on van Dam.

Earlier Monday, another woman testified she saw Westerfield dance with Danielle's mother.

Glennie Nasland, who began her testimony last week, said she was on the dance floor and saw the pair turn toward each other while dancing with other people.

Nasland, who described herself as a friend of Westerfield, said she watched them for 20 seconds before they turned away again.

In other testimony Monday, Dave Laspisa said that going to the desert to look for friends, and without bringing an all-terrain vehicle, was not an unusual activity for Westerfield.

The witness, a self-employed Poway man, said he's known the defendant for 15 years and has camped with him near the Imperial County community of Glamis for 10 years.

The witness was one of several people who testified as the defense began to move away from what happened at a Poway night spot the night before Danielle was discovered missing Feb. 2 to Westerfield's weekend wanderings.

Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman asked Laspisa to explain why someone would avoid Interstate 8 while taking a motorhome to the desert. Laspisa said high winds and black ice were common on that route, which traverses altitudes over 4,000 feet.

Heather Mack, a security guard at Coronado Cays, testified that she saw Westerfield drive his motorhome into the exclusive neighborhood in the afternoon or evening hours of Feb. 3.

Mack said Westerfield smiled and waved at her as he drove past her security kiosk, but she never saw him again.

The witness told Dusek that she originally told a police officer that she "vaguely remembered" seeing the defendant's recreational vehicle.

Glen Seebruch, an engineering manager at Nokia, testified earlier that Westerfield called him the morning of Feb. 1 and told him he planned to go to the desert that weekend.

Feldman, told Judge William Mudd that his case may be completed by the end of the week.

Insect expert David Faulkner is expected to testify about how long the victim's body may have been in the East County before volunteer searchers found it on Feb. 27.

Feldman has said Westerfield would have had no opportunity to dispose of the body because he was under constant police surveillance from Feb. 4 until his arrest Feb. 22.

******BTW, right now he is charged under state law, a misdemeanor. He can be tried again under Federal law for felony posession.

http://www.missingkids.com/html/ncmec_default_ec_chldporn_laws.html

In 1977 the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act (18 U.S.C. 2251-2253) was enacted. The law prohibits the use of a minor in the making of pornography, the transport of a child across state lines, the taking of a pornographic picture of a minor, and the production and circulation of materials advertising child pornography. It also prohibits the transfer, sale, purchase, and receipt of minors when the purpose of such transfer, sale, purchase, or receipt is to use the child or youth in the production of child pornography. The transportation, importation, shipment, and receipt of child pornography by any interstate means, including by mail or computer, is also prohibited.

The Child Protection Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 2251-2255) defines anyone younger than the age of 18 as a child. Therefore, a sexually explicit photograph of anyone 17 years of age or younger is child pornography.

On November 7, 1986, the U.S. Congress enacted the Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act (18 U.S.C. 2251-2256), that banned the production and use of advertisements for child pornography and included a provision for civil remedies of personal injuries suffered by a minor who is a victim. It also raised the minimum sentences for repeat offenders from imprisonment of not less than two years to imprisonment of not less than five years.

On November 18, 1988, the U.S. Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (18 U.S.C. 2251-2256) that made it unlawful to use a computer to transmit advertisements for or visual depictions of child pornography and it prohibited the buying, selling, or otherwise obtaining temporary custody or control of children for the purpose of producing child pornography.

On November 29, 1990, the U.S. Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. 2252 making it a federal crime to possess three or more depictions of child pornography that were mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or that were produced using materials that were mailed or shipped by any means, including by computer.

With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, (18 U.S.C. 2422) it is a federal crime for anyone using the mail, interstate or foreign commerce, to persuade, induce, or entice any individual younger than the age of 18 to engage in any sexual act for which the person may be criminally prosecuted.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 amends the definition of child pornography to include that which actually depicts the sexual conduct of real minor children and that which appears to be a depiction of a minor engaging in sexual conduct. Computer, photographic, and photocopy technology is amazingly competent at creating and altering images that have been “morphed” to look like children even though those photographed may have actually been adults. People who alter pornographic images to look like children can now be prosecuted under the law.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.