Skip to comments.BREAKING: BRENDA VAN DAM DANCED WITH WESTERFIELD: (Modern Day Westside Story?)7-9-02 Trial Watch
Posted on 07/08/2002 10:23:15 PM PDT by FresnoDA
WITNESSES SAY BRENDA VAN DAM DANCED WITH DAVID WESTERFIELD
(07-08-2002) - Three defense witnesses testified Monday that Brenda van Dam and David Westerfield, the man accused of murdering 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, danced together the night before the girl was discovered missing.
"Mr. Westerfield and Mrs. van Dam were dancing," said Patricia LePage, describing the scene at Dad's Cafe and Steakhouse the night of Feb. 1.
Since the prosecution introduced hair and fibers found at the defendant's house and motorhome, the defense has tried to show the evidence could have been transferred in some other way, such as dancing.
The 50-year-old defendant would face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping and killing Danielle van Dam, who lived two houses away in Sabre Springs. He is also charged with misdemeanor possession of child pornography.
In testimony near the beginning of the trial, Brenda van Dam told the court she did not dance with Westerfield.
But LePage said van Dam rubbed her hips and chest against Westerfield during several dances together, recalling the movie "Dirty Dancing." That was just part of what LePage described as "frisky" behavior exhibited by van Dam that night.
LePage said she was in a smoking lounge at Dad's with her daughter, Cherokee Youngs, when van Dam came in and struck up a conversation with the younger woman.
"Well, she did ask my daughter if she liked girls," LePage said when asked to describe the conversation. Van Dam, she said, asked Youngs if she wanted to come to her house for a party later that night.
Youngs testified about the encounter last week.
Duane Blake, a fisherman who said he goes to Dad's a couple times a week, said he caught a glimpse of the defendant dancing with van Dam.
Blake confirmed an interview with the District Attorney's Office, in which he described their dancing as, "huggy, huggy." He testified he even thought Westerfield might be trying to pick up on van Dam.
Earlier Monday, another woman testified she saw Westerfield dance with Danielle's mother.
Glennie Nasland, who began her testimony last week, said she was on the dance floor and saw the pair turn toward each other while dancing with other people.
Nasland, who described herself as a friend of Westerfield, said she watched them for 20 seconds before they turned away again.
In other testimony Monday, Dave Laspisa said that going to the desert to look for friends, and without bringing an all-terrain vehicle, was not an unusual activity for Westerfield.
The witness, a self-employed Poway man, said he's known the defendant for 15 years and has camped with him near the Imperial County community of Glamis for 10 years.
The witness was one of several people who testified as the defense began to move away from what happened at a Poway night spot the night before Danielle was discovered missing Feb. 2 to Westerfield's weekend wanderings.
Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman asked Laspisa to explain why someone would avoid Interstate 8 while taking a motorhome to the desert. Laspisa said high winds and black ice were common on that route, which traverses altitudes over 4,000 feet.
Heather Mack, a security guard at Coronado Cays, testified that she saw Westerfield drive his motorhome into the exclusive neighborhood in the afternoon or evening hours of Feb. 3.
Mack said Westerfield smiled and waved at her as he drove past her security kiosk, but she never saw him again.
The witness told Dusek that she originally told a police officer that she "vaguely remembered" seeing the defendant's recreational vehicle.
Glen Seebruch, an engineering manager at Nokia, testified earlier that Westerfield called him the morning of Feb. 1 and told him he planned to go to the desert that weekend.
Feldman, told Judge William Mudd that his case may be completed by the end of the week.
Insect expert David Faulkner is expected to testify about how long the victim's body may have been in the East County before volunteer searchers found it on Feb. 27.
Feldman has said Westerfield would have had no opportunity to dispose of the body because he was under constant police surveillance from Feb. 4 until his arrest Feb. 22.
Alright-ee then. I was going to say, if it was CTV, then your source (at least in that case) is like getting your meals out of the open end of a sewer pipe. (JMO)
Since the other source is hopefully a much more informative and balanced format, I think it will be a little easier to discuss this case.
Do you think the Prosecution has proven their case?
I agree we both want the killer. But I don't think that way only because of the CHILD porn. I think that because of the forensic evidence and the the fact that this guy thinks the rape of children is entertaining. But the forensics weighs the most for his guilt.
So here's the rub. I would say someone who views child porn on their computer and murders their neighbor's child is worse than someone who swings. I think you understand.
Yes, I do. You are afraid to answer the question. You can't give an honest answer. You do this time and time again when you post. You ignore questions, and pose other questions as a way of avoiding the issues. You only care about one issue. I can understand you view of the importance of that issue. None of us think that pornography leads to angelhood.
But we live in the United States, and our system of Justice says that We are NOT GUILTY until it has been PROVEN IN COURT.
Apparently, as your earlier statement indicated, you have already decided he is guilty of murder, based on his possession of PORN.
Tell me you believe different!
So, in the end, it will be up to the jury to decide if it belonged to the Father or the son and what significance it has to the kidnapping and murder.
Your comment could be interpreted as, at the least, minimizing child pornography.
B.S. this is where you will get the greatest fight from people on FREE REPUBLIC.
YOU ARE ADVOCATING MIND POLICE. MIND CONTROL.
You insist he is guilty because YOU KNOW what HE IS THINKING !
I assure you, you do not know what is in his mind. You don't know if HE EVER watched that particular file. He may have watched it and vomited for ALL YOU KNOW.
So, I am disagreeing with you on the basis that you want him charged with a crime because of his thoughts, when you don't have any proof of what they are, nor can you.
DW's black boots missing ... presumably blood soaked. But if DW is innocent then Feldman had better have his client wearing them next time they are in session for full effect. If he has them ... he will have to produce them.
produce them or somethin!
Hey, you're a swinger we'll be over with a rope.
Well, maybe we can solve this by my asking you one little question: Do you think child porn should be illegal?
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.