Posted on 07/11/2002 6:47:45 AM PDT by FresnoDA
Is that really necessary? I "get" it just fine, thank you.
I don't understand them either, but with everyone a little punchy, maybe we should just all cut each other a little slack, huh?
(07-11-2002) - During a drive in the desert to show detectives where he camped the weekend a neighbor girl disappeared, David Westerfield commented the area would be a "great place to dump a body," according to an affidavit released Thursday.
Later that day, when a detective said it would be nice to know where 7- year-old Danielle van Dam's body was located, Westerfield told him to just be patient and police "will get the information they need," the affidavit states.
When asked when that would be, Westerfield said it would be sooner than they think, according to the affidavit.
A total of five affidavits used to support search warrants during the investigation of Westerfield were released Thursday at the San Diego County Courthouse.
The release came at the beginning of an 11-day break in Westerfield's trial on charges of murdering and kidnapping Danielle, who disappeared from her Sabre Spring home the first weekend of February. She was found dead Feb. 22 east of El Cajon.
The warrants allowed for searches of Westerfield's computer equipment, other possessions within his house on Mountain Pass Road and cellular telephone records.
The judge in the Danielle van Dam murder case ruled today that her father will be allowed back into the courtroom where her alleged killer is on trial, providing that he refrain from staring at the defendant.
Superior Court Judge William Mudd said he would give Damon van Dam another chance because he was satisfied that "he's had enough time to think about this."
"You should know, Mr. van Dam, if I get one report of one incident, I will bar you from the courthouse," Mudd said.
Mudd was ruling on a motion by Van Dam asking to be reinstated as an observer in the trial.
"They want to be in court to provide emotional support for each other," said attorney Spencer Busby, representing Van Dam.
Saying he had "reached the limit," the judge barred Damon van Dam from the courtroom and third floor of the San Diego County Courthouse on June 25 on grounds that he was stalking and trying to stare down accused murderer David Westerfield.
"Mr. Westerfield's position is, he has no problem with their presence, but we do have safety concerns," said defense attorney Steven Feldman.
On Wednesday, the defense called its star witness, an insect expert, whose testimony was expected to create a time-line as to when Danielle van Dam's body was left in Dehesa.
The defense was hoping to show that the body was dumped during a time when Westerfield was under surveillance.
The expert, David Faulkner, says insects infested Danielle's body about 10 to 12 days before it was discovered. But the prosecution pointed out problems with the timeline, saying it's possible Danielle's body was covered.
"If the victim was dead longer and something was used to exclude entry by insects, it could have been there longer. I can't rule that out," said Faulkner.
Westerfield's ex-girlfriend also took the stand.
She says it wasn't unusual for him to sweat. And it was normal for him to shut his house up before leaving for a trip.
The trial is now in recess until July 22, while Mudd vacations with his wife.
You mean, like the bug guy, who said that the body was not dumped after the 16th, because of only one generation of fly larvae, and wasn't dumped much before the 16th because of the lack of beetle larvae?
But you can bet if he gave a plausible explanation as to how, when or why Danielle got in the MH it would not have been excluded.
Right, which is what happened. Testimony was given by the neighbors to show that the MH was often parked outside for several days before camping trips, and it was, on at least one occasion, left unlocked.
Swingers, sluts and creeps....Sure would be a great place to dump a body....nah..think I'll do it at a populated dump site near town instead.
Previous Story || Headlines || Next Story
SABRE SPRINGS ---- Brenda and Damon van Dam are considering creating a foundation to help find missing children with $24,200 left over from donations to the search for their murdered daughter, a family friend said Monday.
"That is one of the possibilities," said Bill Libby, 45, of Rancho Penasquitos, adding that the couple has not made a decision.
Since Danielle van Dam was reported missing on Feb. 2, nearly $10,600 in donations was given to her recovery efforts. After the 7-year-old Creekside Elementary School second grader's body was found in Dehesa on Feb. 27, another $22,800 was donated by people across the country in her memory bringing the total to $33,400.
"It was all quite amazing," Libby said.
About $4,200 was spent on banners, fliers, buttons and other office supplies for the Danielle Search Center, he said. The center orchestrated thousands of volunteers who spent numerous hours scouring areas from Mexico to east San Diego and Imperial counties.
Another $5,000 was donated to the Texas-based Laura Recovery Center, which helped the family and volunteers organize the Danielle Search Center.
The rest of the $24,200 is in an account sponsored by the Community Bible Church of Scripps Ranch. Libby said only the church treasurer can access the account on behalf of the van Dams.
"When enough time has elapsed following the death of their daughter, the van Dams will turn their
attention to the appropriate use of those funds," according to a statement on the family Web site.
Meanwhile, Libby said, Danielle's parents are still in the early stages of mourning their daughter's death.
"No enough time has passed," Libby said. "They are still working on the grieving."
Damon van Dam did, however, return to his job as a software testing engineer for Qualcomm on a part-time basis during the first week of March, according to Libby.
------------------------------------------------------------
3/26/02
From Millennium Children's Fund
Please stop the ill-gotten money!
van Dam Family Trust
c/o Community Bible Fellowship
Church member: Bill Libby
Bank Accounts: As of 03-28-2002
Wells Fargo Bank
Branch Number #6417
Account Numbers #2091-94054, #2091-94052
MCF is thankful for your caring member Bill Libby and the faith based institution mentioned. We respectfully ask you to disassociate from van Dam Family. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The transcript
21 A YES, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LATER. 22 Q AND WHERE DID YOU GO? DID YOU GO ANYPLACE 23 OTHER THAN DAD'S? 24 A NO. 25 Q WAS THIS ALSO A GIRLS' NIGHT OUT? 26 A YES. 27 Q AND HOW MANY GIRLS' NIGHTS OUT PER WEEK DO 28 YOU GENERALLY HAVE, MA'AM?
Page 589 1 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; IRRELEVANT.
2 THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
3 BY MR. FELDMAN:
4 Q IS DENISE KEMAL AN HONEST PERSON?
5 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; IRRELEVANT.
6 THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
7 BY MR. FELDMAN:
8 Q ON THE 25TH, HOW MUCH DID YOU HAVE TO
9 DRINK, IF YOU RECALL?
10 A I DON'T RECALL.
11 Q HOW MANY DRINKS DID DAVID WESTERFIELD BUY
12 FOR YOU, IF YOU REMEMBER?
13 A I DON'T RECALL.
14 Q ON THE EVENING OF THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY, DID
15 YOU INVITE BILL LIBBY TO MEET YOU AT DAD'S BAR?
16 A I DON'T RECALL. I MAY HAVE.
17 Q AND IS BILL LIBBY A FRIEND OF YOURS?
18 A YES.
19 Q AND IS HE A PERSON WHO SPENT THE NIGHT AT
20 YOUR HOUSE BEFORE?
21 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; IRRELEVANT.
22 THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
23 MR. FELDMAN: ACCESS.
24 THE COURT: HOLD ON. OVERRULED MYSELF.
25 OVERRULED. YOU MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
26 BY MR. FELDMAN:
27 Q IS BILL LIBBY A PERSON THAT HAS STAYED AT
28 YOUR HOUSE BEFORE?
Page 590
1 A NO.
2 Q BILL LIBBY HAS NEVER SPENT THE NIGHT AT
3 YOUR HOUSE; IS THAT CORRECT?
4 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION; IRRELEVANT, VAGUE AS TO
5 TIME, 352.
6 THE COURT: OVERRULED.
7 HAS HE EVER SPENT THE NIGHT AT YOUR HOME?
8 THE WITNESS: NO.
9 THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
10 BY MR. FELDMAN:
11 Q WITH REGARD TO BILL LIBBY, YOU CALLED HIM
12 ON THAT FRIDAY, MEANING THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY, AND
13 TOLD HIM THAT YOU WERE GOING TO MEET SOME OF YOUR
14 FRIENDS AT DAD'S BAR; IS THAT CORRECT?
15 A YES.
16 Q AND YOU SUGGESTED THAT HE COME BY AND MEET
17 YOU SINCE HIS WIFE WAS OUT OF TOWN; ISN'T THAT
18 CORRECT?
19 A I ASKED HIM IF HE WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US. I
20 DON'T RECALL HIS WIFE BEING OUT OF TOWN.
21 Q FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR
22 RECOLLECTION, BILL LIBBY TOLD VESTIGATOR --
23 MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I'D ASK THAT
24 SHE BE SHOWN THE DOCUMENT.
25 THE COURT: YES. THIS TIME YOU SHOW HER THE
26 DOCUMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A QUOTE --
27 MR. FELDMAN: CAN I APPROACH?
28 THE COURT: -- FROM EVERYBODY THAT TALKED TO THE
Page 591
1 POLICE.
2 OF COURSE YOU MAY.
3 MR. FELDMAN: COUNSEL, 497.
4 BY MR. FELDMAN:
5 Q MA'AM, YOU'LL SEE HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS PIECE
6 OF PAPER A PARAGRAPH WHICH I'M NOW CIRCLING.
7 THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, WHAT PAGE IS IT IN
8 THE DISCOVERY?
9 MR. FELDMAN: I THOUGHT I GAVE IT, YOUR HONOR.
10 497.
11 THE COURT: YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.
12 WOULD YOU READ THAT, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
13 BY MR. FELDMAN:
14 Q I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO READ THIS TO
15 YOURSELF.
16 A OH.
17 Q HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE
18 DOCUMENT?
19 A YES.
20 Q DOES REVIEWING THE DOCUMENT REFRESH YOUR
21 RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAID TO BILL
22 LIBBY "WHY DON'T YOU COME BY DAD'S AND MEET ME"
23 SINCE HIS WIFE WAS OUT OF TOWN?
24 MR. DUSEK: SAME OBJECTION. WHETHER OR NOT THE
25 DOCUMENT REFRESHES HER RECOLLECTION.
26 THE COURT: EXCUSE ME. OVERRULED.
27 GO AHEAD.
28 THE WITNESS: NO, IT DOESN'T.
Page 592
1 THE COURT: NEXT QUESTION.
2 MR. FELDMAN: I'M GOING TO TRY TO REFRESH HER
3 RECOLLECTION ON THE SAME SUBJECT. ONLY THIS TIME I
4 WISH TO USE A DIFFERENT PIECE OF DISCOVERY,
5 PAGE 499.
6 THE COURT: IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, WALK UP TO
7 HER, SHOW IT TO HER, AND ASK HER IF IT REFRESHES HER
8 RECOLLECTION.
9 BY MR. FELDMAN:
10 Q I'M SHOWING YOU ANOTHER DOCUMENT WHICH IS
11 AN INTERVIEW, AND I'M TRYING TO DIRECT YOUR
12 ATTENTION TO THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH, MA'AM, AGAIN IT'S
13 HIGHLIGHTED. READ ANY PARTS YOU WISH JUST TO GET
14 CONTEXT.
15 THE COURT: THIS IS AN INTERVIEW OF THIS WITNESS
16 BY THE POLICE; IS THAT CORRECT?
17 MR. FELDMAN: NO. THIS IS A WITNESS OF -- BY
18 THE POLICE, YOUR HONOR, OF BILL LIBBY.
19 THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND.
20 I DON'T WANT A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU
21 SAID. I DO NOT WANT A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT HE SAID.
22 BY MR. FELDMAN:
23 Q MA'AM, HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
24 REVIEW THE DOCUMENT?
25 A YES.
26 Q DID READING THE DOCUMENT REFRESH YOUR 27 MEMORY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AWARE -- STRIKE
28 THAT.
Page 593
1 DOES REVIEWING THE DOCUMENT REFRESH YOUR
2 RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU TOLD BILL
3 LIBBY THAT HE OUGHT TO COME TO DAD'S BAR THAT
4 EVENING BECAUSE HIS WIFE DOLLY WAS OUT OF TOWN?
5 A NO, IT DOESN'T.
6 THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, COUNSEL. HOW MANY MORE
7 OF THESE ARE WE GOING TO HAVE?
8 MR. FELDMAN: NOW, I GOT HER STATEMENTS. I'M 9 MOVING THERE.
10 THE COURT: HER STATEMENTS ARE CERTAINLY FAIR
11 GAME.
12 MR. FELDMAN: YES.
Is that really necessary? I "get" it just fine, thank you.
Your comments suggest otherwise. If you "get" that she wasn't in the MH that weekend, and wasn't in the SUV, then why do you persist in your belief that DW killed Danielle?
During a drive in the desert to show detectives where he camped the weekend a neighbor girl disappeared, David Westerfield commented that the area would be a "great place to dump a body," according to an affidavit released Thursday.
Later that day, when a detective said it would be nice to know where 7- year-old Danielle van Dam's body was located, Westerfield told him to just be patient and police "will get the information they need," the affidavit states. When asked when that would be, Westerfield said it would be sooner than they think, according to the affidavit
A total of five affidavits used to support search warrants during the investigation of Westerfield were released at the San Diego County Courthouse.
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.