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

Skip to comments.

Judge Allows Danielle's Dad Back In Court: (Damon was banned for MAD-DOGGING Westerfield!)
North County Times-San Diego ^ | July 13, 2002 | Kimberly Epler

Posted on 07/13/2002 6:28:25 AM PDT by FresnoDA

Judge allows Danielle's dad back in court

KIMBERLY EPLER
Staff Writer

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 180frank; vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 701-707 next last
To: Rheo
They've already cross examined the friends of the VD's--remember the barflies the prosecution called during the first few days? And when it comes to the neighborhood "friends"--could it be because they don't have any friends in the neighborhood? The prosecution had every opportunity to load up the trial with people singing the vD's praises, but only came up with people who had only seen them a couple time, or the barflies.
441 posted on 07/14/2002 7:14:18 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
[On the jury asking questions] I kind of like the idea if the question goes to the judge and both sides "approve" it.

I agree with that idea.

442 posted on 07/14/2002 7:21:38 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP
There were a few cases, about twenty years ago) in the Philly suburbs (not related to sex, btw) where nursery school pets (rabbits) were viciously killed. Strange. I don't remember that they were solved.
443 posted on 07/14/2002 7:27:41 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Well rabbits are more reasonable to believe than elephants, giraffs (sp?) and gorillas blood. LOL!
444 posted on 07/14/2002 7:42:35 AM PDT by gigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: gigi
BTW that's the least of San Diego County, as I'm sure you're already aware. Then there's the Crowe Case in Escondito. That investigation was turned over to the SD Sheriff's Department and the AG is prosecuting. Overzealous prosecutors and pd or what?
445 posted on 07/14/2002 8:25:17 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Not according to some here. To hear some people tell it, if the police accuse you of something, you must be a dirtbag in the first place. Even if you didn't do it, there must still be something wrong with you or the cops wouldn't have focused on you. Being "creepy" might be enough reason, or sweating, or cooperating, or not cooperating. And on and on.

The American justice system is in deep trouble, if this board is representative of the rest of the country.
446 posted on 07/14/2002 9:14:35 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
It is, and the drug war, as much as anything is to blame. The drug war being the modern incarnation of the Temperance movement, which replaced individual responsibilty with "social" laws that restricted activites and mere possesion of things on the grounds that those activities and things are sometimes, even often, dangerous, while leaving no allowance for appropriate use by responsible people.

Are prisons are full of people who have never committed a felony -- by the truer and older understanding of what that word means.

Here in this case, mere possesion of pornography -- with no evidence, testimony as to how it was used -- is compelling enough for many to hang a man. We used to distinquish violations of soical mores from criminal felonies, but now the chamberpot also serves as the soup pot -- in our criminal law, every "social" violation is in it.

"Temperance" meant that the individual was subsumed to society, and failure to toe a current social line means one is felonious, that social "feelings" weigh more than evidence and the testimony of reliable witnesses.

Twas, once in a golden era in that regard, that the individual was king of his own actions and responsibility. That other men and women respected the individual, even when he colored outside of the normal social lines. As long as no violence was done, no contracts broken, no thefts occurred. No longer.

Coloring outside the lines is now adequate indication of evil. Yes, Mr. Westerfield, you shal be hung for closing your curtains, for driving around at whimsy, for leaving you house out -- those are serious social violations, Mr. Wesetrfield and society can no longer abide your life within it.

447 posted on 07/14/2002 9:34:15 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Thanks for your effort. However, without a copy of the California Code infront it me, having the section and/or paragraph numbers is of little value. We need a California lawyer or a CA law library..
448 posted on 07/14/2002 10:01:56 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

http://california.lp.findlaw.com/ca01_codes/index.html
449 posted on 07/14/2002 10:04:52 AM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: All
Is this the current thread??? I've been out of town and my internet connection failed me (so I had to golf, go to the beach, dine out, etc.).
450 posted on 07/14/2002 10:58:29 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone; cyncooper; Valpal1; redlipstick
Thanks I forgot about this one!!

bookmarked
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

451 posted on 07/14/2002 11:14:50 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
The court rules and statutes are the important stuff for trial procedures..
452 posted on 07/14/2002 11:16:37 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Rheo
Argh, I'm not a trial attorney, so I really don't know the answer to this question. Also, different states may have different statutes as to this sort of procedural question. Sorry I'm not much help here!
453 posted on 07/14/2002 11:17:09 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
The numbers or title of the section (ie rebuttal) in question helps you research..
454 posted on 07/14/2002 11:18:17 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta; Amore
Have you met Amore yet? She works in appeals and was quite a benefit to the threads....Amore, meet Henrietta.

Henrietta, did you say you were getting read to take the exam or just took it?

455 posted on 07/14/2002 11:22:54 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: stryker
Wow, great post! I so agree with everything you wrote, except that last part about our fellow citizens and their common sense. Anyone charged with a crime can count on a jury biased toward the prosecution, because our fellow citizens seem to overwhelmingly believe that one who is arrested and charged with a crime is guilty.
456 posted on 07/14/2002 11:25:58 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kim,

I saw your post about "who the LE leaker is?"

I am still wondering how this leaker knew some of the "inside information", that the VD's had not yet revealed to LE.

IMO, the leaker was somehow "close" to this close knit group of friends, tho not necessarily "part" of the group.

This brings me to BRENT BALLARD of the Chula Vista Police department. The last name of BALLARD shows up on "former name" on BARBARA EASTON'S real estate license info. posted here before by Fres.

Could Officer Ballard be BARBARA (BALLARD) EASTON'S BROTHER, COUSIN, ETC? Maybe Officer Ballard is the leaker or maybe he confided what he had heard from Barb to a fellow LEO.

If she was going to be questioned, don't ya think she would have called someone she knew in LE, in order to "know how to act"

457 posted on 07/14/2002 11:29:04 AM PDT by demsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
I'm admitted to practice in two states already; getting ready to take the exam in a third.
458 posted on 07/14/2002 11:29:22 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Henrietta
Congratulations for the third exam!
459 posted on 07/14/2002 11:34:59 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Kimmie, don't congratulate me yet, I haven't yet passed it...maybe some luck would be in order?
460 posted on 07/14/2002 11:49:57 AM PDT by Henrietta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 701-707 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