Expert: Body dumped after defendant fell under suspicion (SO WHO DUMPED DANIELLE VAN DAM'S BODY??)

Union Trib ^ | July 11, 2002 | Steve Perez/Greg Magnus

[spectre]

I wouldn't admitt to watching her "talk show" if my life depended upon it...She has literally made me ill, and I am not kidding. She is out of control, crazy...rabid with her feelings about DW.

I'm glad they don't allow HER in the Court Room...talk about giving Mad-dog looks to someone? Can you all just imagine?

sw

[Don Joe]

"You cannot 'retry' someone based on 'More conclusive evidence.' That is known, if you didn't know it, as 'double jeopardy,' and is specifically forbidden by the Constitution."

Can't the judge "dismiss without prejudice"? Or does that only apply in civil trials?

[MizSterious]

Yes, I think you have the gist of it. Probably there will be some transcripts up pretty soon on this brief session. That phone call to Brenda on the 16th sounds pretty important, and if it's, say, someone calling her to say, I just dumped your daughter for instance, then it should be allowed into evidence. Period. I see that as being reversable error on the judge's part.

[FresnoDA]

This is a misleading interpretation of the testimony. As was determined on cross, this conclusion was based on the life cycle evaluation of the flies which was subject to other factors, not the least of which is climate. It was also established that although the time frame between the remains being dumped and found would not be shorter, with high probability, it could indeed be longer.

B

U

Z

Z

O

F

F

 

[MizSterious]

Perhaps--or maybe someone said "I just dumped your daughter's body" too? Hearsay? Well, it seems pretty important to the case to me, but then I'm no legal eagle.

[mommya]

It looks like Feldman will have 2-3 days more to go - at least - and that he has 2 more expert witnesses that will need use of the gruesome type photoboards - and he will call Armstrong - I don't think those 3 will take up 3 days - so maybe we will get to hear from Bill Libby, Barb, or Neal? (Hopefully all three) Feldman was saying to the judge that the pros. should not be allowed to adress anything in rebuttal that should have been presented in the case in chief - I think he was heading for the supposed Dehesa witnesses he alluded to before. If the pros. does have some witnesses lined up who say they saw RV at Dehesa or something - I do think they should have had to present it in the main case. Of course I am assuming and speculating - what do you think?

[Illbay]

If you think there is something simple about any of this case, you are different indeed.

I am playing devil's advocate, as I realize there is no way I can know based on such scanty knowledge as the media put out, what the evidence is against Westerfield.

However, by "simple" I mean you have to ignore a lot of circumstantial and physical evidence in favor of appearances.

The average FReeper is socially conservative, and we are nauseated by the whole "spouse-swapping" thing. We have to consider--with some justification--that those who indulge will be morally reprobate in other areas of their lives.

The notion of "compartmentalization" is a Clintonian one that we know is utterly false.

However, this guy is a creep, as well. Since he was single, he would not have been allowed into the "circle of friends" the Van Dams swung with, if I understand these things. So he was an outsider, but loved child porn and may have felt like an outcast. There are lots of motives here for him to have done what he did.

Now, you might be right about these other people, but the FACT of the murder has to be taken into consideration. Someone did it, and motives abound in our immoral and hedonistic society. But Westerfield seems to have been PART of that climate, not apart from it.

[Erasmus]

also, some of the bugs may have been underaged (or looked that way), and isn't that more important than guilt or innocence? I mean really, isn't it!?

Honest, your honor, I didn't know she was only 11 minutes old! She looked 13 anyway!

(Apologies to Amgwanna Kikbouti and Cheech & Chong!) </font size>

[GoldenBear]

I agree with you. I would like to hear what the call was all about and what did the police do to pursue it.

[UCANSEE2]

You have to remember that there are many on FR who think the Smart family is guilty, too, only because it was THEIR CHILD that has gone missing. There is a tendency on FR to ignore the simple in favor of the convoluted.

Are you implying you speak for everyone ? You don't.

What you said is not borne out by fact. Most on here have no opinion, if anything about the Smart case.

I think she ran off with a new boyfriend. I think there could me multiple scenarios, but in none of them, are the parents the culprits.

Have you conducted a survey, on these threads or the Smart threads? Have you been on the Smart threads?

Since you claim to be psychic and know what all of 'us' are thinking, tell me what I am thinking right now!

[Jaded]

Since March. It was signed over to Feldman in Feb.

[billbears]

If you wouldn't mind, add me to that list. Haven't really gotten into the whole trial but it's kind of interesting reading

[Blue Screen of Death]

Now I know where she is coming from. Just said she wishes she had stayed in the courtroom during the trial of the person who murdered her fiance. (Does anyone know the details of this)

I saw this also just before I found the remote and was able to turn the TV off. If her fiance was murdered and did not have to marry her, consider him lucky. She is one sick b**ch, full of hate and prejduice. Why won't they replace her with a human?

[Politicalmom]

WHAT proof do you have that he "loved child porn"? There is a MINUTE number of "questionable images", and there is strong evidence that much of it isn't even his.
irl
You have NO proof that he ever even SAW those images.

You are being emotional, and equating the PRESENCE of POSSIBLE child pornograpy with guilt.

There is NO evidence that he EVER acted inappropriately with his daughter, or his girlfriend's daughters, all of whom were very accessible.

[mommya]

wow - now tell us what you really think.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

So he was an outsider, but loved child porn and may have felt like an outcast. There are lots of motives here for him to have done what he did.

Really??? Please enlighten us. Especially show where it has been proven that the very small percentage of questionable/child porn was David A. Westerfield's. I must have missed that.

[UCANSEE2]

Pyx, my mind sees something a little more devious than that. If he kills Westerfield (and throw in the defense team for good measure), he'll probably get a light sentence, because he's a "grieving father." If people start looking at Damon too closely, though, he could get a much longer sentence if he did what I think he did. Just my opinion, folks, one to which I'm entitled, and not to be construed as fact.

MORE food for thought.

Damon never appeared to be the 'caring father' up until,,,,,,,, it looked like the Prosecution might lose their case.

Who would suffer if they did? The DA. Might lose his re-election. So, where is all the VD's money (new house) coming from ?

Gee, DA, powerful position, lot's of bribe money, organized crime money, hush hush money, etc.

So, he pays Brenda some money, arranges for Damon to kill DW. DW dead before trial over, it's over. DW will be seen as guilty, case closed. DA wins.

Damon gets light sentence due to temporary insanity, grieving father ( and the DA,prosecutor will be already on his side), and no futher investigations into Daneille's death.

EVERYBODY (except DW and Danielle, and the San Diego citizens, and the US system of JUSTICE) WIN !

[YaYa123]

CNN's Nancy Grace recounting how important it is that the prosecutor got the entomologist to acknowledge insect infestation could have occured earlier.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

More evidence of the uninitiated buying into the media hype.

[UCANSEE2]

Didn't Brenda drive the blue van to Dad's that night?

no.