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

Skip to comments.

Damon Van Dam Testifies Tearfully, Fends Off Lifestyle Attack:Day 3 of Westerfield Trial
CourtTV ^ | June 6, 2002 | CourtTV

Posted on 06/05/2002 11:36:24 PM PDT by FresnoDA

DAY 3: Westerfield On Trial



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860861-876 next last
To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
the bible isn't used in the court system

Last I heard it still was!

841 posted on 06/07/2002 9:09:55 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Intimidator
The child did not deserve to be murdered. Everyone agrees on that. But what's this about the parents not "deserving" to lose the child? They should have "lost" her long ago--she and her brothers should have been removed from the household by the authorities. But I reiterate--the child did not deserve to be murdered. And she did not deserve the rotten parents she had, nor the kind of life she no doubt had to live with them.
842 posted on 06/07/2002 9:13:33 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: Quila
The defense doesn't need to be asking the store owner if he hung around the wrong crowd.

Actually, I was thinking of a case locally, where because the owner belonged to such-and-such a club he was broken into. I think in this van Dam case, wityh the high likelyhood of a sexual motive for the potential crime, that the sexual life of the parents is pertinant and necessary, not only in investigation and grand jury, but also in defense during trial.

843 posted on 06/07/2002 9:16:41 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
HA, :D

the judges use their ''own'' words of wisdom to make their decisions..IMHO.

844 posted on 06/07/2002 9:23:45 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 841 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Thanks for your reply; yeah I too have noticed inconsistencies in the testimony of the Van Dams. The sad thing is that by distorting the truth, a reasonable doubt could be construed and if Westerfield is guilty he may not be convicted. This is what is so disturbing. Another One: During the Pre Lim, Brenda testified that Damon slept in underpants. Yesterday, she testified that he slept nude.
845 posted on 06/07/2002 9:27:05 AM PDT by Felicity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
If not, then why leave blinds open when it is pitch black outside ????????

I'm way behing on the threads, but I thought I'd answere this question.

They live in a suburb of a large city. It is NEVER pitch black. The ambient background light of the city will be lighter that of the BR, and open blinds will provide enough light to relieve the inky blackness children so dislike when they go to bed.

I don't think that opening a blind, because the nightlight is burned out is unusual or suspicious at all. Nor would it be hard to check the bulb to see if it is indeed burned out. I don't see why this testimony is an issue, although I can see why LE would want to establish how the blind were opened to preclude the possiblility that Danielle opened them herself that morning.

It is possible that Danielle, awakened by the early morning light streaming through her opened blind, got up and went outside herself and was taken from the street. The initial reports that LE believed she was taken sometime between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. indicates they may have considered that a possiblity. I wonder what her brothers had to say about what time they got up and if they noticed Danielle was not in her room. That is one of the things I am waiting for at trial, did the boys (specifically the older one) have any useful information or where they oblivious, watching t.v.?

846 posted on 06/07/2002 9:39:20 AM PDT by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: spectre
No trial today.
847 posted on 06/07/2002 9:42:53 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
the judges use their ''own'' words of wisdom to make their decisions..

I hope the use "the law"...which has been highly influenced by church teachings over the years.

848 posted on 06/07/2002 9:55:09 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 844 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"If these parents had had several friends over for a night of gin rummy, nobody would be even questioning them.

Quila, If this were a charge of cheating at cards, I would likely agree with your statement, but this is about a likely sex related crime, involving the murder of a 7 Y.O. girl.

The people that were in the VD household that night may have not technically been breaking any sex related laws. But, their (now admitted) lifestyle is clearly outside the norms and values of most American citizens, just as DW's collection, would fall outside those parameters. Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable to me, to question why they have not been given closer scrutiny than they have recieved, especially given the admitted withholding of information and conflicting testimony surroubnding them.

I don't care to know what individuals do in their bedroom, but, IMO, a vial and tragic murder has trumped the VD and comany's right to enjoy this privacy.

849 posted on 06/07/2002 10:16:18 AM PDT by theirjustdue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: theirjustdue
And consider: in yesterday's testimony, Feldman started getting into the subject of the van Dams' own collection of porn involving very young girls. The question got and objection and a sustained, but once the prosecution puts their own porn expert on the stand, I wonder if the same question will be allowed. If they have kiddie porn, too, can we reach the same jump in logic that obviously that makes them pedophiles too? Seemed to be ok in Westerfield's case.
850 posted on 06/07/2002 10:45:38 AM PDT by MizSterious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
"And consider: in yesterday's testimony, Feldman started getting into the subject of the van Dams' own collection of porn involving very young girls. The question got and objection and a sustained, but once the prosecution puts their own porn expert on the stand, I wonder if the same question will be allowed. If they have kiddie porn, too, can we reach the same jump in logic that obviously that makes them pedophiles too? Seemed to be ok in Westerfield's case.

I think there is much yet to come out in this trial and you could well be right, that Feldman had not laid a foundation yet, to bring in that particular testimony. Whatever might exist, it may first take calling LE to testify that it was found, etc.

It is apparent that, as many of us had speculated, Judge Mudd has already let Feldman probe well beyond what some felt would be very tight parameters. As more is revealed he may decide that the scope should be widened even further, in the interest of justice.

IMO, it is very relevant, until whatever the VD's seem yet to be hiding is revealed.

851 posted on 06/07/2002 11:13:35 AM PDT by theirjustdue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
The law that has been so what's a polite term? ripped apart, has been watered down due to the opinions of judges.. I would like to believe that it started out in with the right frame of mind...
852 posted on 06/07/2002 11:42:38 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I mean it started out in with the right intentions..
853 posted on 06/07/2002 11:43:03 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Plus! If they based the laws on the bible...nothing would be legal except stuff that God approves, wouldn't you agree?
854 posted on 06/07/2002 11:49:46 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Sorry, I responded.
855 posted on 06/07/2002 12:56:11 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: theirjustdue
I have no idea if someone else answered to your theory as I am just now reading through replies posted since last night. Anyway, you don't pay for GS cookies at the time of order, you pay upon delivery. There may be another dated piece of material (possibly there WAS a receipt for the charitable contribution of one box of cookes for the troops)that will show a definitive date.
856 posted on 06/07/2002 2:30:14 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: Helen;jaded
Third, it's hard to imagine any adult pressing against a 60-lb child's face hard enough to break out her upper teeth in the process of smothering her. I have no clue as to what could have happened to cause the broken teeth, but my guess is it was something other than smothering.

A forensic dentist testified the teeth (of a child?-- they're not permanent) could loosen from decompostion-- and smothering.

857 posted on 06/07/2002 2:37:22 PM PDT by let freedom sing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 776 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
No, let me apologize because my patience has gotten a bit short today.. Please forgive..
858 posted on 06/07/2002 2:50:46 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 855 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Apology accepted.

Interesting article on Judge Mudd:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/20020403-9999_2m3mudd.html

859 posted on 06/07/2002 3:10:42 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper;;dougherty;theirjustdue
There may be another dated piece of material (possibly there WAS a receipt for the charitable contribution of one box of cookes for the troops)that will show a definitive date.

Thanks-- I belive you inadvertently answered my "question."

BvD (in trial) did not know the ACTUAL cost of the GS cookies they sold.

The orders are taken and written on the girls' order sheet-- which was shown to BvD in trial. Unfortunately, Danielle did not live long enough to distribute her cookie orders, or collect the money and checks-- except for those donations, possibly. In trial, BvD did was not asked if DW wrote a check or paid cash, but she verified that DW ordered a box (for donation.)

Cookie delivery time, a parent pays close attention to the little details of accounting. For the vDs and their neighbors and friends, the old adage,-- "if you have to ask how much-- you can't afford it."

860 posted on 06/07/2002 6:32:26 PM PDT by let freedom sing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860861-876 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