Peter Frick-Wright
The standard of proof in criminal cases is so high, if the defense can make their case to the jury that the defendant has a substantial enough reputation for peacefulness, that alone can be enough for reasonable doubt.
The morning after Vandeman’s testimony, three character witnesses testified that he is not an angry, vindictive or violent person.
The first was his wife, to whom Vandeman has been married 30 years. She testified that while they have gotten into arguments, their arguing style is to keep talking until they have some common understanding. She’s raised her voice in the past, he never has.
She said he’s very soft spoken, nature loving, always helping people, contributing time and money to whatever cause he believes in. His mind is often somewhere else than the present moment, but “he really cares,” she said. “He really cares what’s going on in society.”
Cook asked if she wanted to come and testify today.
“No, I’ve never done anything like this before and I’m very nervous,” she said. Also, she was scared to face the mountain bikers in the court room.
Cabanero’s cross examination was one question. “Mrs. Vandeman, you’ve been married to your husband for 30 years,” he said. “I assume it’s safe to say that you love him very much?”
She does.
****
One of Vandeman’s coworkers was next, with whom he chats regularly about work things. “Supplies, payroll, vacations,” she said. “Whatever comes into his mind.”
Asked about his character, she said, “Mike is an endearing soul. He’s caring, a good corporate citizen, a great employee.” He’s very quiet at the office, she said, but there haven’t been any conflicts. At lunch he sits with his more intelligent colleagues and they share ideas and what they’re working on. He has a picture of St. Francis of Assisi—friendly to animals, lover of nature—representing him in their Instant Messaging program and she thinks that’s a pretty accurate characterization.
After the arrest, she received a voicemail from Vandeman saying that he’d been incarcerated, but a series of objections kept her from saying what she’d heard in that message.
****
The final character witness was Vandeman’s friend and neighbor, who met him seven years ago when Vandeman asked if he could graft a branch from her persimmon tree onto one of the trees in his yard.
“We started talking about trees and gardens and it went on and on and on,” she said. While she was recovering from an injury he stopped by every morning to see if she needed any help, since little things like switching the laundry had become difficult.
To characterize Vandeman, she said he was helpful and concerned, “but truly and thoughtfully concerned” and also a very private person. She said he was very sympathetic, and empathetic, which it’s much harder to be, and amusing, curious and fun to talk to.
Maybe he’s a little innocent and naive about life, she said, but he’s a loyal friend and he always shows up and works hard, whether it’s in his own back yard or when he travels to Japan to stay with his wife’s family. While there, he works the fields and does whatever they need to have done.
He has a calm personality, is not excitable and always thinks the good in everything.
Nothing she’s heard about the charges or any of the conversations the two of them have had about mountain biking changed her opinion.
****
The final witness of the morning was not technically a character witness, but rather a professor at Berkeley who happened upon a dazed and bleeding Vandeman one day in 2007 after a run-in with a mountain biker.
The two men knew each other from the trail, they’d stop and chat when their paths crossed.
“He’s always reading a book,” he said. “I’m amazed he can go up and down those trails and his concentration is so secure.”
Cook asked if he remembered finding Vandeman on the trail. “Yes,” he said. “It’s very vivid because it was quite terrible.”
He said Vandeman’s leg was bleeding, that he could see the blood because Vandeman was wearing shorts.
“He seemed a bit upset, for Mike. Mike is a very cool person.”
Cook asked if Vandeman had told him what happened.
Cabanero objected.
Cook rephrased the question and Cabanero objected again that the answer was non responsive.
Cook asked another question trying to get the witness to describe the event and he started to say that the biker went up the trail, turned around and came back and hit Vandeman, but he stopped mid sentence and pointed at Cabanero.
“You’re going to object,” he said, raising his eyebrows and tilting his head as if to challenge. “Go ahead…”
By this point everyone was chuckling with the feisty witness.
“You’re catching on, you must be a professor,” the judge said.
He finished the story uninterrupted.
“the biker went up the trail, turned around and came back and hit Vandeman”. This of course is MV’s version. With MV admitting to placing himself in the “bicycles” path (or in front of the bicycle), it is only amazing he has not been bloodied more often by cyclist just trying to get around him.
And come on Peter, pick up where you left off in “So you wanted to get in their path?”
What is the jury like? On the juries I’ve served on when it comes down to guilt or innocence it all comes down to whether the crime occurred or not. Whether the defendant hates mountain bikes or not is irrelevant. Whether the cyclists were riding on a road or trail signed against bicycles is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether or not the defendant committed the crime he or she is being charged with.
If the judge feels that there were extenuating circumstances then that can be taken into account during the sentencing.
This is going to go on for a long time. This is just the criminal trial. Regardless of the outcome there will almost certainly be a civil suit against the defendant as well.
@ Debbie – I seriously doubt any of of the victims of the defendant would really want to shell out $$$ and many hours of their lives to pursue a civil case. Particularly given the harm done, no stitches, no med bills, just “pain and suffering” damages?
Clearly, we need to have more helmet cams on trail to document just how crazy this guy is when encountering a mountain biker. Yea, we’re riding a trail illegally, but this guy is also brandishing a screwdriver and hacksaw when encountered.
Quit leaving us on cliff hangers! hahaha
No crime has been committed when there is no criminal intent. The incident took 2 seconds. The people were on a trail where they did not expect mountain bike riders to be. They were trading the 3 tools between themselves. A juror would be hard pressed to find criminal intent in this case…exactly – and no harm was done, no doctor report, no emergency room visit, no nothing.
Guilty!!!!
All hikers are psychotic criminals. It happens every day
BWAHAHAHAHAHHA.
Haha Terry, it looks like a crime HAS been committed!
Producing a weapon and contacting the victims is a crime. Clearly there was intent.
It’s amazing that the defendant did not choose to plea bargain this. But juries are unpredictable. He was able to get a mistrial, and he may be able to at least get a hung jury (or two). If this happens the D.A. could decide to call it quits, or more likely decide to drop the felony charge and go just for the misdemeanor charges which would be easier to convict on. Of course the jury could acquit on the felony and convict on the misdemeanors which are less open to jury interpretation.
Can UC at least ban him from their land, even without a conviction?
Crimes were committed. Penalties will need to be paid.
Ah, there is justice!
“…but the guards paid no attention.” – Sublime
Oh Terri, if you only had half the education Mike V does. If only you had that scholarly touch to add to your crazy rants instead of sounding like the ignoramus backwoods lumberjack that you are!
Wife and neighbors spoke well of him, as did fellow employees. I have spoken to neighbors who definitely don’t feel this way about him but do not want him ghosting them if they testify against him. We have seen postings about him from fellow employees who think he is well off the mark and grandiose. That never got into the trial.
But the strangest things is that the subject still doesn’t see how he has brought enmity and legal consequence upon himself. That is going to make remorse elusive. Probably the only thing he will change is his technique for removing scotch broom. Instead of sharp tools he will pull them out by the roots as you are supposed to. He will see the problem as one of trailwork technique as opposed to a social or behavioral.
I wonder if he will stand in front of oncoming bikes again?
@Berkeley Mike: interesting how you can no longer find in Google Groups archive the posting of a letter from MV’s neighbor, Lance Montauk, about his views on MV.
This is a comment from MTBR. Very interesting:
“MV likely suffers from a personality disorder, probably a form of narcissism. These disorders manifest themselves in predictable symptoms. Symptoms include a sense of special privilege, superiority, or entitlement. Narcissists believe they, personally, are essential to the progress of society, that they are a “gift” to the world. They spend quiet endless hours mentally perfecting their own personal peculiar arguments to “explain” their chosen obsession. Because of the inordinate amount of time they spend restlessly planning their arguments they have difficulty balancing anything like a normal life. They tend to have few real friends, instead dedicating all efforts at interpersonal relationships in grooming and maintaining unhealthy relationships with people who feed “narcissistic supply” (undo praise and adoration) to the sick person. Although narcissists seem to be of above average intelligence (good at a narrow range of arguments), they actually lack normal capacity including essential interpersonal skills. They can not tell (and really don’t care) what others are thinking or feeling. To them, the thoughts and feelings of others are irritating nonsense.
“There is no curing a narcissistic personality, as the defect in their thinking is at the very origin of their mental processes. If properly motivated they can be “trained” to approximate normal interactions. In other words they can learn to pretend that they value you and your thoughts and feelings. They can learn to stifle their inclinations; but these efforts are never more than an act. Because narcissists differ from sociopaths in one area (for some reason narcissists are inclined to want to obey the law), some narcissists will make occasional efforts to modify their behaviors. These efforts almost always are short term because, after a while the narcissist will remember that he was actually right all along.
“The best course of action with a narcissist is to obtain a restraining order. The second best course of action is to beat them within an inch of their lives the first time they touch you. Of course, this solution only applies to hypothetical future narcissists and not MV. In my opinion.”
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=634668&page=8
(Choir: Spam! Spam! Spam! Spam! Lovely Spam! Lovely Spam!)