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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 701-707 next last
To: pyx; All
Apparently we aren't the only ones who have questions. One of the jurors sent a note to Judge Mudd asking when the jury would be able to question the witnesses. That tells me, things aren't 'adding up' for them either.
321 posted on 07/13/2002 8:21:39 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Hey, what did I do? LOL And don't believe mizs....I did not ask for threads to get pulled..
322 posted on 07/13/2002 8:22:26 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
None of us do. We just have serious doubts that the DA has the RIGHT childkiller.
323 posted on 07/13/2002 8:22:52 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
But, Kim, *When and how did it get there?* That's for the prosecution to *explain* and they've not done it.
324 posted on 07/13/2002 8:23:08 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Karson
I was shocked to hear that some states allow that. Missouri and kansas doesn't allow that unless the rules have changed within the past 4-5 yrs.
325 posted on 07/13/2002 8:23:42 PM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
It's you refusal to look at all the evidence
You didn't just go there did you.....

along with your stated lynch mob mentality that bother me.

That comes from being a mother who is sick and tired of seeing babies being stolen and killed by perverts...I won't apologize for that at all.........give me a rope and a child killer and I'll take care of business, no problem, no remorse.

326 posted on 07/13/2002 8:24:44 PM PDT by SouthernFreebird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Don't sweat it. I just hate John Anderson.
327 posted on 07/13/2002 8:24:57 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Karson
I imagine the jurors want the SAME questions answered that most of us do, too. The prosecution hasn't proven what they said they'd prove and it's very disturbing indeed.
328 posted on 07/13/2002 8:25:17 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
You missed my point Kim. Apparently the jurors (at least one of them) has questions s/he would like answered. As do we.
329 posted on 07/13/2002 8:26:36 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
Ah ha.....YOU'RE A SHIELA!! Sorry, the Crocodile Hunter is on out here on the Left Coast...."Stay away from my potential babies...." LOL
330 posted on 07/13/2002 8:28:14 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Karson
One of the jurors sent a note to Judge Mudd asking when the jury would be able to question the witnesses. That tells me, things aren't 'adding up' for them either.

When was this note sent to Judge Mudd ?
I agree with you. It seems to indicate that at least some of what has been presented thus far is a source of confusion or is in serious doubt and therefore your conclusion about things not adding up, sees apt.
331 posted on 07/13/2002 8:28:25 PM PDT by pyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
In Nevada, it all depends on the judge as to whether or not the jury can ask questions. I've only seen one judge do this in one trial. It sure slows down the trial though.
332 posted on 07/13/2002 8:30:54 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Yah, I already knew that, everyone calls it blood, but has that been scientifically established?

I would think that LE would first do a presumptive test for blood, then a conclusive test for blood (maybe determining blood type) and then do DNA testing. Since people are conditioned to associate blood with trauma, I thing the difference is important. If the prosecution claimed that a Danielle drool spot was in the MH and on the jacket people wouldn't be so quick to say "He killed her then".
333 posted on 07/13/2002 8:31:32 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
I agree. And hopefully the jury wants the same thing we want. The guilty party to pay!
334 posted on 07/13/2002 8:32:24 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Karson
Didn't they send the note during the defense case? It COULD be they had a few questions about the defense. Of course, they may have questions for just the prosecution or both.

I knew grand juries could ask questions and was surprised when some FReepers said several states do allow the jury to question witnesses at trial. Very interesting revelation. I kind of like the idea if, for example (and I don't know how it is done in "real life") the question goes to the judge and both sides "approve" it.
335 posted on 07/13/2002 8:32:36 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
Would stop to be sure you had the right one, or would just anyone do?
336 posted on 07/13/2002 8:33:32 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: pyx
When was this note sent to Judge Mudd?

I'm not sure which day but it was this past week, IIRC.

337 posted on 07/13/2002 8:36:04 PM PDT by Karson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I remember the discussion when this was posted, but did any one ever say who had just testified when the jurist made this request?
338 posted on 07/13/2002 8:36:12 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
I swear I'll mash "abuse" on every one of Kimmies posts !

Kim doesn't seem to have a malicious or abusive nature.

Be of good cheer!

339 posted on 07/13/2002 8:36:27 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Me, I don't know.
340 posted on 07/13/2002 8:37:52 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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