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

[hoosiermama]

Does anybody know?

[RnMomof7]

Perhaps Damon is no longer in his right mind, I know I wouldn't be!

Damon does not have a "right mind" .."Social diseases" eat your brain

[SouthernFreebird]

Well I would'nt need to see him actually kill her to find him guilty.....blood,DNA,fingerprints and hair of a murdered child in places it shouldn't be is evidence to me.

[GoRepGo]

lol.You guys need to quit..give hugzz and be happy now. (I said the hugz part cuz annoys someone..the rest I meant)

With all due respect Kim, I have no ire with you. I do believe that I will borrow a tired old cliche, and state that "I agree to disagree" with all of the VDA's in this forum. The prosecutions case is not full of holes; it is nothing but a hole.

[Freedom2specul8]

I read where the judge warned that the closing arguments would be really hard on the van dams..from the pics of danielle being in the state of decomposition to the arguments. (if he doesn't bring forth rebuttle witnesses I'll be surprised)

His closing arguments will summarize everything the jury heard.....and that will include giving the time frame of when he think the def entered the house. The only think I can think of that he needs to get the jury to understand is the mummification, bugs and timeframe of when the body was dumped.

[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.

It's really hard to keep it straight sometimes since the prosecution was allowed to bring in 2 witnesses after the defense had started. Some of the 'talking heads' thought those were defense witnesses.

Yes, it could be about the defense but it could also be questions for the prosecution, since they were finishing up and had not presented the case that was promised during opening statements. IMO

By the time they do rebuttals and re-rebuttals and whatever else they do, the jury might be so confused they won't know whether to scratch their watch or wind their butt.

[Freedom2specul8]

of course, we've not heard the rest of the defense witnesses, so things can change!

[hoosiermama]

He can bring NO NEW WITNESSES. He has rested his case. He can only question about things that have already been brought up in previous testimony.

[John Jamieson]

No you don't have to see it yourself.

How did he grab her?

How did he kill her?

When did he Kill her?

Where did he Kill her?

How did he get the body to Dehesa Rd on the weekend of 2/16. Did he have Damon drop it off for him?????

Why did Damon say on the 18th that searches should be looking closer to San Diego?

Why did Brenda say on 2/20 that she felt that something big was about to happen?

Who called the VD house on 2/16?

[Freedom2specul8]

Nor I with you, just an attempt at humor. (Contrary to 4 people's wrong belief, I'm NOT a vda...and it's sick to call people that. I go OUT OF MY WAY to not call people who think the vandams are guilty of murder..names.--it's just wrong)

[Freedom2specul8]

He can bring back rebuttle witnesses.. how they are defined in california I don't know..(meaning..if they can be new or not..I don't know)

[cyncooper]

He can bring NO NEW WITNESSES.

He can bring on witnesses that have not yet testified, if that is what you mean by "new", if they can rebut points made by the defense.

[Freedom2specul8]

Understood, I'm sure they do.. and so do I mam....so do i! That would be awesome to get our questions answered..

[FresnoDA]

Not much to change here....IMO....

Artist:	Metallica Lyrics
Title:	Enter Sandman (WATCH FOR DAMON)
Lyric:	Say your prayers little one Don't forget, my child To include everyone Tuck you in, warm within Keep you free from sin Till the sandman he comes Sleep with one eye open Gripping your pillow tight Exit light Enter night Take my hand Off to never never land Something's wrong, shut the light Heavy thoughts tonight And they aren't of snow white Dreams of war, dreams of liars Dreams of dragon's fire And of things that will bite Sleep with one eye open Gripping your pillow tight Exit light Enter night Take my hand Off to never never land Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the lord my soul to take Hush little baby, don't say a word And never mind that noise you heard It's just the beast under your bed, In your closet, in your head Exit light Enter night Grain of sand Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to never never land

[Freedom2specul8]

are they any on the prosecutors list that have not testified yet?

[hoosiermama]

I only know about Indiana law for certain. The rebutal witness MUST be a previously called witnesses. They are call to Rebute what another witness might have said after they had taken the stand. Therefore, they must stay within the perimeter or previously discussed areas. That is why the lawyers try so hard to get things in that may seem ilrelavant at the time. Example might be: the "poison oak" in "BUG GUYS testimony, so it might be used to question someone like DVD? Who witnessed before that knowledge was presented. Are you following me?

[cyncooper]

"Big Barb", as she is not-so-affectionately known? Other than that, I don't know. I'm thinking back to OJ and that was CA and the prosecution mounted a rebuttal with "new" witnesses.

[Rheo]

Doesn't the prosecution have to go before the judge and ask to reopen their case before they are allowed a witness that has not already testified?....and they have to have a really darn good reason for doing so?

[cyncooper]

Speaking of the poison oak. When one of the detectives, I believe it was, testified for the prosecution, he had gone out to the Dehesa scene and was asked if he took any precautions because of the poison oak. He stated he was immune. The prosecutor asked a couple of questions to follow-up and moved on. It has now been presented to the jury that a person may be immune to the effects of poison oak.

[cyncooper]

I believe I recall from the OJ trial in particular, which was in CA, that the prosecution's rebuttal case included witnesses who had not yet testified. Their purpose was to rebut points made by defense, so is not re-opening their case. Any lawyers can confirm?