Feldman's Questions Show Defense Strategy: Dig into Damon and Brenda van Dam's Private Lives!

KNSD NBC ^ | March 19, 2002 | Lynn Stuart

[FresnoDA]

Experts say attorney Steven Feldman's questioning of the van Dams gives clues to the strategy he will pursue during the trial.

Feldman's questions show defense strategy by Lynn Stuart

SAN DIEGO, March 15 –    When the parents of Danielle van Dam testified Thursday at a hearing to decide if the murder case should go to trial, it gave the suspect's attorney, Steven Feldman, an opportunity to grill them.

Much of the questioning may have seemed like needless digging into the couple's private lives, but experts say Feldman was laying groundwork for his defense.

---

At times during the long day of questioning, Brenda and Damon van Dam appeared openly exasperated by the tough questioning dished out by Feldman. The attorney for murder defendant David Westerfield focused on the couple's drug use, their alleged "swinging lifestyle," and lies they told to police early in the investigation into Danielle van Dam's disappearance. Many of his questions were ruled irrelevant, and at times it appeared to the untrained observer that the attorney was asking the same questions over and over as he tried to find a wording that satisfied the judge. But legal experts gave Feldman's savvy courtroom performance high marks.

"It may just look like not much was happening, but Steve Feldman really got in there, he did his homework and he got the answers to the questions he needed to get," criminal defense lawyer Gretchen von Helms said.

Some of the questioning was an attempt to catch the van Dams in inconsistencies. If Feldman can show that Brenda or Damon answered Thursday in ways that contradict or were inconsistent with their past statements or the testimony of others, it could hurt the prosecution's case when it goes before the future jury.

One example is when Feldman questioned Brenda about her night out at Dad's Cafe.

"You just told me you don't recall dancing with David Westerfield. Is that true?" Feldman asked.

"Yes," Brenda answered.

Feldman claims that he has witnesses who will testify that they saw Brenda dancing with Westerfield the night before Danielle was discovered missing. That could raise doubts about the mother among jurors, legal observers said.

"He wasn't asking those questions for anything but preparing a transcript so that he can use that for impeaching those witnesses at trial and he did that very effectively.," von Helms said. Feldman peppered both parents with questions about their drug use.

"How often did you smoke marijuana?' he asked.

During the preliminary hearing, the judge ruled that many of Feldman's questions about the van Dams' lifestyle were irrelevant. But during the trial, the defense will be permitted more latitude, and von Helms expects Feldman to bring up the subject again.

"It opens up to the defense to go in an say not only were they doing drugs and having sex and all these other things, which in one side of it, but also that it affected their ability to be parents," von Helms said.

The questioning also gave Feldman a chance to see how the van Dam's react to his questions. How the van Dams appear to a jury could plant seeds of doubt that affect their deliberations on Westerfield's guilt. Legal experts say if the parent's don't show any more emotion in trial than they did in court today, that factor alone could hurt them with a jury.

[fivecatsandadog]

So what could possibly be of such enormity that, after all that had already been revealed, she still felt the need to cover up?

Maybe she's protecting her interests, meaning either Damon or DW.

[fivecatsandadog]

"my guess is she was in a blackout"

geez, stay out of her way when she's the designated driver.

[MizSterious]

"...if an alarm had been quickly raised in Danielle’s case, the outcome could have been much different because Westerfield WAS a neighbor, a very near neighbor."

I keep playing with other scenarios, but always keeping the first one (the official one) in mind, it boggles the mind that John Walsh could claim the van Dams had no responsibility in this. They didn't murder her, true. But this point--that had they been doing their job as parents and checked on their kids--is an incredibly important consideration. One can only hope that after this trial is over, the vDs will be attending another one, to discuss their negligence in family court.

[fivecatsandadog]

Hey, Fres... re the picture of the door to side of VD house, looks like someone ran into the door jamb with the lawnmower. The outside trim is ripped up from the doorknob down.

[MizSterious]

"...here on FR we don't have alot of PC/touchy feely soccer mom/the government loves us and is always right types."

Welllll...........that might be true on some threads, but we have our share here, too. (Hence, all the pulled threads and bannings...)

Is this the place I insert the smiley faces, LOLs and "just kidding" comments?

[Freedom2specul8]

Have a safe trip! And will do....

[spectre]

Damon has covered his arse with so many alibi's that we have to look closely at all of them. Especially, when he starts changing the facts more than once.

Damon was ever so quick to come up with excuses how the perp could have taken Danielle. It seems, the circumstances he described, i.e., the cause and effect, cleverly pointing to the possibility the perp went in undetected and without forced entry, but are at it's best "a likely story". Damon leads us down a path of questionable actions, and we must look at them, we have to.

He probably knew when BVD was coming home, she more than likely had a cell phone available to keep in touch with him.

Damon had a greater window of opportunity to dispose of "a body" than Westerfield did, and he is also his own witness, albeit hard to comprehend he might have "done it", since he was the victim.

sw

[Freedom2specul8]

Don't tell me you're one of those people who is grouchy with happy people in the mornings?

Well, let me say it anyway!!

~~~~GOOD MORNING SUNSHINE!~~~~

[spectre]

Morning, Amore...my name is "sw" and I too am a druggie. Yes, I have taken St. Johns Wort, and Valarium (mostly when I get upset Freepin), but my drug of choice is my prescribed "sleepie" antianxiety pill. I'll let everyone know when I go thru the 12 step program...There, I took the first step!

sw

[MizSterious]

"I haven't used klaas to defend the Vd's behaviour."

I'm not sure Amore is singling out anyone in particular. There are others who also post here, after all. Some of them have, indeed, used the PK defense for the VDs.

[Freedom2specul8]

Hi Golitely..Thanks..why is it considered a ''defense'' to compare the two home abductions?

[MizSterious]

Hey, it's not my defense. Ask the ones who put it out there. Personally, I don't buy into it.

[Freedom2specul8]

My point is, defending the vd's is pretty much equivalent to condoning their behaviour. Focusing on the criminal act itself is NOT defending the vd's. SO.....pointing out that it's not unusual to have a child snatched out of the home doesn't mean one is defending them. It's simply reminding ya'll that while it may not happen often, it has happened before...

Trashing the parents is pretty common according to both klaas and walsh...sad but true.

[spectre]

Just read your post. Conditions were different in the VD's house. Pretend Westerfield did'nt exist. Remove him from the picture...even go as far to say that Feldman will have a totally believable explanation for the blood found on his jacket. Stay with me.

Going with this, there are still conditions, circumstances, suspects and a window of opportunity for the perp to have come directly from most anyone at the van Dam house.

Not your normal Brady Bunch.

sw

[Mrs.Liberty]

You are the lucky holder of post #666...My ESP told me you were the one who was going to be on it, LOL!

Coffee spewwed on monitor....bad.

[Mrs.Liberty]

Or, as most people spell it, spewed.

[spectre]

"Bad"...I know, I know...I'm such a little card!

sw

[spectre]

That shot of the latch on the side gate doesn't leave much to the imagination, does it. Easy unlocking from the outside, and Danielle may not have been tall enough to reach it, but holding a board, she could have easily pushed up the latch and gone out. I'm sure the kids knew how to do that.

sw

[MizSterious]

"...pointing out that it's not unusual to have a child snatched out of the home doesn't mean one is defending them. "

You're joking, right? It's not unusual to have a child snatched out of the home? Can you find some statistics to back you up on that claim? Experts will certainly disagree with you:

"In San Diego County, of the 6,342 children reported missing in 2000, two were kidnapped by strangers, according to state Department of Justice figures. Source: Article titled, "Abduction Rare Outside Family: Did San Diego Cops Lack Of Interest Lead To Unsolved Cases?"

Two children out of 6,342 does not seem like abductions like this are at all common.

And yes, when someone makes a claim that is as unsupportable by facts as yours is, it does look like they're trying to raise the Clintonian "everybody does it" defense. Without coming right out and saying it, people who make such claims hope to create the illusion that golly, gee, this happens all the time. Why, little kids are snatched out of their beds nightly, and--here it gets a little Clintonian again--the parents can't possibly be held responsible for not checking on them.

And it is an illusion, because every study I've seen shows that this type of child abduction is extremely rare.

Note: in a Clintonian world, no one is ever held responsible for their own actions or the lack thereof.

[MizSterious]

The gate latch--yes, kids figure these things out quickly. So do dogs--we once had a dog who knew how to push a latch up and let himself out. (And a large cat that could stand on his hind legs turn doornobs with his paws, for that matter.) For kids, it must be a slam-dunk.