Posted on 07/12/2002 7:06:01 AM PDT by MizSterious
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."
I'm reading from the affidavit talking about 2/4. Was there a second date when Hopi went in? I'll keep reading, I just wondered. From the affidavit:
Additionally, on 2-4-02, sometime around 2000 hours a search and rescue canine was utilitzed to check for a scent outside of Westerfield's motor home.....The canine did not alert nor display any interest in the location. However, it was discovered during an interview with Westerfield that he had just completed an approximately 250-mile trip in the motor home. The freeway wind could remove a scent from the exterior of the vehicle.
Does that remind anybody else, of high school girls? (No offense intended, gals)
This is the general rule most people go by:
REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm
This article deals with "moral certainty'.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cri09.htm
Here's another very interesting article:
http://gopher.princeton.edu/~mddavis/doubt.html
An exerpt from another site:
"A 'reasonable doubt' is a doubt based on reason and common sense after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. In the event you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt after considering all the evidence before you, and these instructions, you will acquit him and say by your verdict 'Not guilty'."
http://www.txmca.com/geesadct.htm
Hope this helps a little.
If you like that one, you'll love this part:
http://library.lls.edu/Perjury14.doc
CALIFORNIA LAW
The California code also contains numerous perjury statutes. The most important sections are Penal Code §§ 118, 118a, 119-126, 128, and 129. The basic perjury provision is Penal Code §118. It covers perjury committed in a wide variety of circumstances, including preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, depositions, legislative hearings, and statements made before a notary public.[1] Another perjury section with broad applicability is Penal Code § 118a, which applies to affidavits. There are also many perjury statutes that are limited to narrower circumstances. For example, Government Code § 1368 addresses perjury made during a public officer's oath of office.
The requirements for perjury under § 118 are: 1) the person either takes an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, or testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury; 2) California law authorizes an oath to be administered or the testimony, declaration, deposition or certification is permitted by California law to be made under penalty of perjury; 3) the person wilfully states as true any matter which he or she knows to be false; and 4) the statement is material. The elements under §118a are 1) the person swears, affirms, declares, deposes, or certifies in an affidavit taken before a person authorized to administer oaths; 2) that he or she will testify before any competent tribunal, officer, or person in a particular manner or to a particular fact; 3) in such affidavit wilfully states as true a matter which he or she knows is false; and 4) the statement is material.
There are several notable aspects to California perjury law. One is that prosecutions under Penal Code § 118 can be made for statements, testimony, declarations, depositions, or certifications made or subscribed outside of California.[1] Another is that recantation of false testimony is not a defense to a charge of perjury. However, it can be considered as evidence as to whether the defendant intended to testify falsely.[2] Also, California has departed from the two witness rule. Until 1969, Penal Code § 1103a[3] required that perjury be proved by the testimony of at least two witnesses or one witness with corroborating circumstances. Proof can now be established by direct or indirect evidence, although evidence based solely on the testimony of a single person is still deemed insufficient.[4] These evidentiary requirements are currently codified at Penal Code § 118(b).
The penalty for perjury committed under §§ 118 or 118a is two, three, or four years in state prison.[5] A person convicted of perjury may also be fined up to $10,000[6] and is excluded from being able to serve in public office or on juries.[1] In addition, perjury procuring the conviction and execution of an innocent person is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.[2] Perjury during trial may also be used as an aggravating factor when a defendant is being sentenced for another offense.[3]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cal. Const. art. VII, § 8(b).
[2] Cal. Penal Code § 128 (West 1988).
[3] See Dalton, supra note 33, § 20.07 at 20-51-20-52.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Cal. Penal Code § 118(a) (West Supp. 1999).
[2] See Dalton, supra note 33, § 20.05[J].
[3] Repealed by Stats.1989, c. 897, § 29.
[4] See generally Witkin, B. E. & Norman L. Epstein, 2 California Criminal Law §§ 1195-1199 (2d ed. 1988).
[5] Cal. Penal Code § 126 (West 1988).
[6] Id. at § 672 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Dalton, Douglas, West?s California Criminal Law § 20.02 at 20-11-20-14 (1995).
Mind you, I look at dogs as tools and not proof. But even on 2/4, the comforters had been removed and DW had engaged in self-admitted cleaning.
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.