SAN DIEGO ---- The father of 7-year-old murder victim Danielle van Dam will be allowed to attend the remaining days of her accused murderer's trial, Judge William Mudd ruled Thursday. Posted on 07/13/2002 6:28:25 AM PDT by FresnoDA
SAN DIEGO ---- The father of 7-year-old murder victim Danielle van Dam will be allowed to attend the remaining days of her accused murderer's trial, Judge William Mudd ruled Thursday.
But he warned Damon van Dam that one more incident will result in him being banned from the courthouse.
|
|
Two weeks ago, Judge Mudd deemed Damon van Dam a "security risk" for repeatedly staring down his daughter's accused murderer, David Westerfield, in courtroom hallways despite several warnings from sheriff's deputies and prosecutors.
Mudd then barred Damon van Dam from the third floor of the downtown San Diego courthouse where Westerfield's emotionally charged trial on charges he kidnapped and murdered Danielle is being held.
On Thursday, an attorney for the van Dam family requested that Damon van Dam be allowed back in the courtroom so he could provide emotional support to his wife, Brenda van Dam, and dispel any jury speculation that his absence meant he didn't care about the trial or that he had something to hide.
The van Dams were present at the hearing, but did not address the court.
Mudd said he believed Damon van Dam has had time to think about his actions and told him that security officials were willing to give him another chance.
"If I get one report of one incident, I will ban you from the courthouse," Mudd told van Dam.
Mudd also cautioned the couple that closing arguments in the case may push them to the limits of what they can handle. The prosecution has indicted it intends to use photos of Danielle's decomposing body while presenting its argument that Westerfield molested the second-grader before she was suffocated and her nude body dumped along a rural road.
Danielle disappeared from her second-story bedroom sometime after her father tucked her into bed on Feb. 1. The next morning she was gone. Westerfield was arrested for the crime five days before her body was discovered by search volunteers on Feb. 27.
The medical examiner has testified that her body was too badly decomposed to determine time of death or whether she was sexually assaulted.
The defense is likely to attack the van Dams' integrity and argue their lifestyle choices ---- including the van Dams' admitted drug use and previous sexual relations with other couples ---- put their children at risk. The van Dams also have two sons.
Prosecutors and the defense attorney have made it their practice to notify the judge before showing jurors graphic photographs of Danielle's body during the six-week trial so the van Dams could be asked to leave the courtroom.
Mudd said he expects the van Dams to leave if any part of the trial becomes too much for them.
"I don't think anybody is downplaying the emotion that both Mr. and Mrs. van Dam are going through," Mudd said.
Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, said Westerfield did not object to Damon van Dam returning to the courtroom, but there still were security concerns. Feldman said Damon van Dam was "mad-dogging" the defense team, or shooting dirty looks at the attorneys.
Feldman said the van Dams have been "verbally attacking" potential buyers who are looking at Westerfield's Sabre Springs home, which is two doors down from their house. Westerfield signed the house over to his attorneys.
Feldman also accused Brenda van Dam of muttering a curse word at one of Westerfield's friends who testified earlier this week.
Prosecutor Jeff Dusek told Mudd that Brenda van Dam denies making any such comment and a victim witness advocate who accompanies her each day backs up her account.
Testimony in the Westerfield trial is on hold until July 22 when Mudd returns from a vacation. At Thursday's hearing, Feldman said he expects the defense will take two or three days more before resting its case. Prosecutors may then present rebuttal witnesses before closing arguments begin sometime in late July or early August.
Contact staff writer Kimberly Epler at (760) 739-6644 or kepler@nctimes.com.
7/12/02
WRT: the jacket and why didn't he burn it..That very thing crossed my mind too... Why didn't he just burn the green jacket or get rid of it. So we have to ask, did he know the blood was on there before he took it to the cleaner? Maybe he thuoght it was his own blood, from when he scratched up his arms??Hi "Kim4VRWC's":
Thank you for asking. I joined b/c of the Westerfield debate/discussion, mainly because Court TV was driving me mad. I find the input you and many others here provide provacative and informative. So that's why I'm here.
You can see my previous posts about the "thought it was his own blood" theory, but the "did he know the blood was on there?" question is a good one. My argument was based on the prosecution's assumption that he took it to the dry cleaner BECAUSE he wanted to clean the blood BECAUSE OF the source -- i.e., he KNEW there was blood on it.. If he took it merely to clean a stain of his own blood, then his actions are innocous at best.
I appreciate your insight because it helps balance out this board.
Stiv
California Criminal Trial Procedure click me
rebuttal evidence
: evidence that tends to refute or discredit an opponent's evidence
STATUTES
C. Control by Court.
1. [§542] In General.
2. Over Witnesses.
(a) [§543] In General.
(b) [§544] Examination by Judge of Witness or Defendant Who Testifies.
(c) [§545] Restriction of Cross-Examination.
3. Admission and Exclusion of Evidence.
(a) [§546] Restriction of Cumulative and Rebuttal Evidence.
(b) [§547] Exclusion of Evidence on Court's Own Motion.
(c) Reversible Error.
(1) [§548] Admission of Inadmissible Evidence.
(2) [§549] Exclusion of Admissible Evidence.
Can find the explanation for these statutes..
here
http://california.lp.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/index.html
http://california.lp.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/ http://www.lawsource.com/also/usa.cgi?ca
CALIFORNIA JURY PROCESS
GLOSSARY
http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/superior/index.html
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/2002/titletwo/
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules/2002/titlefour/
I believe this is the portion being questioned. Later in the transcript the weight is mentioned again. (I am on record as saying she sounds like she is saying "blond" not "brown" to me):
Brenda: Um, I don't really know... She has brown short hair, we just had it cut, it's right to her shoulders...Um, she's probably about 60 pounds. And um, um, I don't know how tall. I don't, I just can't....
In fact, reviewing the transcript, it is proven Brenda said "60 pounds" earlier, because after they discuss about how tall Danielle would be the dispatcher repeats back the previous info she was given, that is "
Brenda: Yeah. Yeah. Maybe a little shorter.
Dispatcher: Probably about 60 pounds, right?
Brenda: Yeah.
You know, I thought of this after my earlier reply to you! He must have been under the mistaken notion that drycleaning would destroy DNA. (JMO)
staring down is a crime!
The phrase that some think they are hearing is "6 feet tall"
You need to listen to the tape to realize how close it sounds. Nonetheless, she is saying 60 pounds.
I don't know about official. I heard the call very clearly the first time it was played for the public and was surprised when Court TV or some such put out the first transcript and had the six feet thing in there. The context is very clear, and I just pointed out that the dispatcher repeats the sixty pound thing back to her after they figure out the approx height for Danielle.
How does the dispatcher know to return to the earlier info Brenda gave of 60 pounds? It is because that is what Brenda said earlier.
"The Criminal Justice Establishment," by Mark Green, written around the late 1970's predicted this day would come, and that we would see even worse in that there is a subtle bureaucratic self-creating need for more and more police, prisons, judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, lawyers, jailors, etc. built into the system. Green noted first that the actual amount of crime was basically a statistical constant except when new laws are passed and in that case crime increases since new conduct is criminalized. When the war on drugs was commenced, nearly every police agency in the country requested extra funding for the coming year based upon rising crime rates. The crime rates rose at first because of new laws being passed. Then, the agencies receive the additional funding and were able to hire additional officers or agents to put on the streets. A higher total number of officers on the street led logically to a higher number of arrests and therefore a higher number of crimes reported to the federal government which gives its' annual report on the rising crime rate. Thence, each year, each agency would urge an increase in its' budget based upon rising crime rates so that it could hire more officers or agents and as a result would be able to show even higher crime rates for the next year's budget.
This is the Crime Control Establishment and its' raw material for manufacture is human beings, the destruction of personality, of families, and of freedom. It has led us to be ranked first in incarceration rate in the history of the world and two of our states to be ranked third and fourth. It has led to a revolving door for most people that once experience the system because the system is designed to inspire into the product hatred so great that he or she will surly rebel, but without the political sophistication to organize that rebellion. It politically marginalizes anyone who happens to get caught in its' web by taking away their right to vote and their right to own a handgun so that they cannot vote for change or lead a movement for change without fear of assassination in that they must remain unarmed.
And the Beast continues to grow at a record setting pace. Now we hire private firms to build and manage our prisons so that they and we make even a greater profit from imprisoning the population. Thus, the motivation to incarcerate increases. It is from this Beast that we had to be taught the hard lessons of Waco and Ruby Ridge. There must be no resistance to the Crime Control Establishment. There is simply too much profit there.
In short, good luck out there; keep your head down, and never plead guilty. Don't take the government's train if you are ever the man in the cross hairs, but count on your fellow citizens and their commons sense and you will come out much better, most of the time.
Naahhh, he could have just taken an eye-dropper and put a few drops of clorox on the spot. Out damn spot, out!
sw
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.