Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Testimony costs flight attendant her job
SignOnSanDiego ^ | July 12, 2002 | Kristen Green

Posted on 07/12/2002 7:06:01 AM PDT by MizSterious

Testimony costs flight attendant her job

Airline fires witness for admitting pot use

By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 12, 2002

Denise Kemal was fired June 28, more than two weeks after her nationally televised testimony, because the company has a zero-tolerance drug policy.

Losing her job has ruined her life, Kemal said yesterday. "I've always wanted to fly," she said. "It took me years to get my job."

She said she is appealing the dismissal because smoking marijuana "wasn't an everyday thing." While she waits for an answer, Kemal, 28 and recently divorced, watches the Westerfield trial from the couch of her new Florida apartment.

Kemal was called to the witness stand by the prosecution June 10. She was at the van Dam home Feb. 1, the night 7-year-old Danielle van Dam was last seen, and spent the evening with Brenda van Dam, the girl's mother.

The two had become friendly through their husbands, who both work at Qualcomm. A spokeswoman for Southwest confirmed that Kemal had been fired, but declined to elaborate. She said company policy states that the "illegal use of drugs, narcotics or controlled substances off duty and off company premises is not acceptable and may result in termination because it can affect on-the-job performance and the confidence of our customers in the company's ability to meet its responsibilities."

Kemal said she was just answering questions posed to her during Westerfield's trial because "I want to make sure he gets convicted."

"Because of him, it's just ruined everyone's lives," she said.

Kemal testified that she went out with her Tierrasanta neighbor Barbara Easton and Brenda van Dam to Dad's Cafe & Steakhouse in Poway two Fridays in a row, Jan. 25 and Feb. 1. They were celebrating Kemal's upcoming move to Baltimore, where she had been transferred for work.

The second night out, Feb. 1, she was introduced to Westerfield, whom she has described as "creepy." Westerfield is charged with kidnapping and murdering Danielle. If convicted, he could be sentenced to death.

Kemal said the three women first celebrated her move Jan. 25. Kemal and Easton, who lived in the same apartment complex, shared a bottle of wine before driving to the van Dams, Kemal testified. She said she smoked some marijuana in the van Dams' garage before they left for the bar.

The next week, the three women decided to spend that Friday night partying at Dad's again after Damon van Dam canceled plans to go out of town and agreed to stay home with the couple's three children.

On Feb. 1, they smoked pot in the garage a second time, Kemal testified, and she and Easton shared a beer. Later in the evening, they partied at Dad's, where they ran into Westerfield. At one point in the night, they went to van Dam's sport utility vehicle to smoke marijuana again.

Kemal said her supervisors learned that she had smoked pot because customers mailed newspaper articles about her testimony.

She had never had problems at Southwest before the trial, she said. In fact, she regularly received letters of commendation from airline passengers since she was hired in November 1998.

Once, a Texas couple she had met on a flight sent a box of candy to her home. Kemal, in turn, shipped them a set of candles for their living room.

Kemal said that even after Sept. 11, she didn't have any reservations about flying.

"I did it because it's my job, and I love my job," she said. "I get to travel and meet different people. I like to serve the public."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 180frank; danielle; denisekemal; kidnap; michaeldobbs; vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 761-780 next last
To: dread78645
Denise Kemal violated a rule of her private employer.

Exactly right. She knew the result would be dismissal if ever caught. She obviously thought it was worth the risk.

I guess she found out that maybe it wasn't.

161 posted on 07/12/2002 9:29:49 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
It's NORML, but I already told her that...........as if it has anything to do with the trial of David Westerfield. Sheeeeeeeesh !!
162 posted on 07/12/2002 9:32:22 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Was he smoking it? There was a referendum a few years ago about legalizing pot for medicinal purposes. It passed and then the gubmint stepped it. Maybe those are the people he's working for, the cancer patients that would like to use pot. Ever think of that? GO SCREAM AT THEM tell them they can't use anything like that to aleviate the side effects of chemo. All heart.
163 posted on 07/12/2002 9:32:31 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
That woman wouldn't understand a subtle hint if it was dropped on her. Nice catch though.
164 posted on 07/12/2002 9:33:17 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
THE SHORT OF THE MATTER....DUH-KNEES likes SWINGING better than FLYING...go figure...
165 posted on 07/12/2002 9:35:02 AM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
I give up!
166 posted on 07/12/2002 9:35:13 AM PDT by JudyB1938
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Jaded; dread78645
I did promise to drop the legal vs moral issues surrounding poit...but since you mentioned it..Cancer patients are a whole nother topic..prescribed pot doesn't have the chemical that makes one high..right dread78645?
167 posted on 07/12/2002 9:36:23 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jaded; dread78645
:) poit = pot
168 posted on 07/12/2002 9:37:09 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Was she bound? I don't think ME was able to determine that.

And he couldn't determine the cause of death either.

169 posted on 07/12/2002 9:38:28 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
Very interesting about Ott and Keyser. So they have been accused of falsifying statements in the past to get an arrest warrant, huh???

Well now, isn't that a coinky-dink? It definitely plays into the rest of the rush to "get their man", doesn't it?

Again.....more troubling revelations of LE in San Diego. It pains me to say it because my dear son-in-law is a police officer in San Diego County (Not SDPD though).

170 posted on 07/12/2002 9:39:39 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
how many causes are left after he elminated the obvious? (besides suffocation)
171 posted on 07/12/2002 9:39:44 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Check with the transcripts, but my memory of the testimony was that she was not bound, and that they could in fact tell by the skin left on her wrists--I think? Anyway, someone let me know if my memory is wrong.
172 posted on 07/12/2002 9:41:02 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Greetings;

Have you visited www.brendavandam.com? WARNING-It is a porn site.

LOL

173 posted on 07/12/2002 9:42:36 AM PDT by Felicity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Isn't there a psycological term for people who become defensive and must refute every suggestion made to them?

I'll avoid using the TECHNICAL TERM, PRONOUN and SCREEN NAME. How about WHACKO ?
174 posted on 07/12/2002 9:43:39 AM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: redlipstick
~pity the Howling Babboons~
175 posted on 07/12/2002 9:44:22 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Southflanknorthpawsis
Aren't there other documentations that the statment of BvD (whose testimony has been impeached) in getting the warrents were also misrepresented somehow? My question of yesterday is: If the warrents were obtained with false information, does the evidence procurred with those warrents get thrown out of court?
176 posted on 07/12/2002 9:44:49 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
We explain to our children that the choices they make
are so important. This young woman made poor choices that affected her life enormously. I hope she can learn from it and move on.
177 posted on 07/12/2002 9:48:37 AM PDT by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I know you are reasonable and realize that FR has problems with personal attacks and crap. Some are mild and easy to overlook. The clinontese style tactic is to discredit by flaming, point fingers, accuse and slander...that is why people are fed up with it. People are sick of it. They are the reason people lurk instead of post. Look at the first page of this thread. Constant clintonese slams against people "they" don't agree with. ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A LIBERAL to feel for VICTIMS OF CRIMES.

What is that all about?!!! Because I characterized this witness' whine as a "liberal reaction" you call it a personal attack? I call it reasoned commentary. However, I consider being termed "clintonese" to be a personal attack against me.

I don't know who you consider the "victim" here -- the only "victims" I can identify in this sordid story is poor little Danielle, her brothers, -- and perhaps the defendant, DW, if he has been falsely accused. I haven't made up my mind about possible false accusations because I don't feel that all the evidence has been fairly presented yet -- and a lot of evidence has been lost, or swept under the rug.

Somebody is sick here, and it is not me.

178 posted on 07/12/2002 9:48:41 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Well, I'm sure you'll find someone here who will insist he did. Not only that, but he held them at gunpoint and forced them to swing!

Can you point to a regular poster who thinks DW is the culprit who has defended the van Dam behavior? Be sure, I am not one who does.

179 posted on 07/12/2002 9:49:27 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
I think it's more than a little odd that this one is still sealed.

Yes, especially since the affidavits re DW's statements to the cops during his "beach ride" have just been unsealed in time for the unsequestered jury to be able to think about them for the next 10 days while the judge relaxes.

I've never heard of a jury in a capital murder trial being cut loose for 10 days during the trial and not being sequestered, have you? Seems like the judge, the prosecutor, and the media are doing everything in their power to make sure the jury returns a verdict of "guilty."

180 posted on 07/12/2002 9:52:40 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 761-780 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson