Expect to hear more evidence about insects as the David Westerfield trial enters what could be the final week of testimony before jury deliberations. Posted on 07/28/2002 8:56:21 PM PDT by FresnoDA
By Alex Roth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
July 28, 2002
Expect to hear more evidence about insects as the David Westerfield trial enters what could be the final week of testimony before jury deliberations.
On Tuesday, prosecutors are scheduled to call Dr. M. Lee Goff of the University of Hawaii as their final rebuttal witness in a trial that has lasted 23 court days. Goff is a forensic entomologist and the author of "A Fly for the Prosecution: How Insect Evidence Helps Solve Crimes."
Whether Goff will be the final insect expert in the case – jurors have already heard from three witnesses with expert opinions about the behavior of insects on human remains – is unclear. Westerfield's lawyers have said they will take at least a day to present evidence to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal.
The trial will not be in session tomorrow because the lawyers and judge are scheduled to hash out the legal instructions that will be read to the jury after the close of testimony. The instructions guide jurors on the law to be applied in the case.
Given the time estimates of the lawyers, it seems likely that closing statements won't come until Thursday, or the following Monday at the earliest. So far there haven't been any Friday sessions in which the jury was present to hear testimony. The judge said the jury will deliberate Mondays through Fridays.
As the case winds down, the battle of the insect experts has emerged as perhaps the final arena in the murder trial. Westerfield's lawyers say the insects found on 7-year-old Danielle van Dam's body prove that it couldn't have been dumped until after Westerfield was under 24-hour police surveillance.
Danielle was reported missing from her home Feb. 2, and her body was found by volunteer searchers Feb. 27 in a remote area off Dehesa Road near the Singing Hills Golf Course in El Cajon.
The defense called two entomologists who testified about blowflies on the girl's body. Westerfield's lawyers say the experts' testimony proves that the remains couldn't have been dumped until mid-February. Westerfield was under constant police surveillance beginning Feb. 5.
The prosecution countered with a forensic anthropologist who said the body's extreme mummification might help explain why blowflies weren't able to access the remains immediately.
Westerfield, a self-employed design engineer who lived two doors from the van Dams in Sabre Springs, is accused of kidnapping and killing Danielle. He is also accused of possession of child pornography, which the prosecution claims shows that he had a sexual interest in girls.
Prosecutors said the pornography – some of it depicting violent sexual attacks against young girls – was found on Westerfield's computers and on computer disks stored on his office bookshelf.
In a trial of numerous shifts in momentum, legal experts say prosecutors scored a significant blow last week by calling Westerfield's son as a witness. Neal Westerfield, now 19, testified that the computer child pornography in the house was his father's, not his.
Earlier in the trial, the defense presented a computer expert who testified that Neal Westerfield might have been the person who downloaded some of the pornography.
"This is a young man who clearly cares about his dad and has a good relationship with him, so he has no reason to say anything bad," said Peter Liss, a Vista criminal defense lawyer. "He was just truthful."
In this respect, the defense's strategy of trying to blame the son for the child pornography in the house appears to have backfired. Criminal defense lawyer Robert Grimes said the jury is likely to view Neal Westerfield as "basically a nice young college kid" who testified honestly.
Westerfield's lawyers chose not to cross-examine his son. They will indicate this week whether they will call any witnesses to try to refute his testimony.
I don't know why, but there is this need for some to denigrate the person they are disagreeing with.
Interesting debating style, and not very effective.
I believe ME Blackbourne testified the mouth was full of bugs....
Would like for you to check it out tho and correct your info in Post # 65, just to have the record clear. OK?
Thank You
I wanted to see how much time it would take working backwords from sunrise for Westerfield to accomplish dumping of the body, as follows.
5 minutes = assumes he enters house, abducts Danielle returns home and puts her in auto.
21 minutes=assume he drives SUV to Sherman's from his home
44 minutes=assume he drives SUV to Dehesa road
2 minutes = assume he dumps body 20 to 26 feet from road.
43 minutes = assume he drives back home
115 minutes total or 2 hours.
If abduction time of 3 am and gets back home before sunrise ='s 6 am, less drive time of 2 hours, then Westerfield would have 1 hour available to rape/kill in RV and be back home before sunrise.
Tight, but doable.
Holes anyone ?
Was he aware of sunrise time and only drove far enough so that he could be back before sunrise ? Interesting that his drop off point would be on a straight line from his home so that it would put him back home by sunrise. Coincidence
Ok, but I thought there were some fibers that mathced something in the back ?
Pretty daring/stupid to go to RV (visible from kitchen window). Headlights? Lights on in RV? Noise? Why bother going the RV at all?
According to the testimony by the grandfather/owner, Westerfield at arrived at RV Sat am and no one knew he was there until grandaughter started talking to her. My explanation as to why he went there is because, first I don't think he ever returned home before the abduction because the light in back yard was on. The scenario would be he stops on side street and/or the empty home, enters house, takes girl to auto, then heads to RV. The RV bedroom would be a great place to control and may actually be safer than the homes these folks live in. My guess is the homes in this development were closer than the RV is to the house.
So, he arrives near the RV. He turns out lights as he gets close. He covers girls mouth and/or stuffs somthing in it. He takes her in RV, rapes her, suffocates her, the he removes her to his SUV and dumps her in a place that is as far away as he dares drive so he can be back home by sunrise.
Comments on timeline in general:
Another problem is if he went to get the RV at 7:00am or so is what did he do with her? Leave her in his house? Take her in daylight to RV storage spot? She would have still had to been alive to put the fingerprints in the RV.
You missed the scenario. He only takes her to RV long enough for sex and killing. After that he drives her to DehesaDW could definitely get on Keith's property undetected, but moving the MH is a different matter. Then, why would he return it in the wee hours then come back for it a couple hours later------Wait--cover-up and alibi? But that still doesn't give him much time.
I must not have been clear. I don't think he moved the RV at all. Sequence = Abductuct to SUV to RV to SUV to Dehesa to Home.
If Westerfield did this he did it within a short period of time (as most sexual assaults are) and he didn't have possession of her or her body for any length of time. He is too anal to have a body around and the passion that motivated him to abduct her and kill her would have played out in a short few hours.
I also think the RV would have been a safer and less obvious spot then for him to take her to his home where if it was found she was missing he might get caught from a house to house immediately after.
The natural reaction would be to run and hide with the girl. So, he runs and hides with her at the RV storage place.
I find this interesting in two ways. First, if he was that drunk he wouldn't have likely gotten up so early.
Second, it might have been the truth. He may not have been home until the AM. Because the back light was on from at least 10-11 pm and still on at 2-3 am its not likely he came home.
If not, then assuming he abducted her he may not even hve parked his auto at home. It could have been on side street that divides them or in empty house's lot.
How is it fair that the prosecution can stall (Rodriguez appearance was intentionally dragged out, btw) and it is okay for the judge to take a vacation mid-trial, but the man whose life may be taken doesn't deserve whatever reasonable defense witness he can have?
It really puzzles me since we are technically considering a man that is still innocent. I wonder how you would feel if you or your loved one was the defendant.
Thank you for saying it.
After reading the thread about the 8 month old baby, I bout needed to puke. Did you see it yet? (link to fres in post above)
No, haven't read anything about an 8mo. old baby.
South, first I never said DW doesn't deserve whatever reasonable defense witness he can have. Of course he should. However,Dusek is not doing anything wrong---nor was Feldman---when objecting to certain witnesses and scheduling. The judge makes the final decision.
Second, did the judge not disclose his vacation plans before the attorneys agreed to his presiding over the trial? They did, and DW and his lawyer could have stated at the outset that the judge's plans were a problem for them and they could have been assigned a different judge. At least that is my understanding of how the matter of Judge Mudd and his vacation was handled.
I will say that I do believe the jury probably should have been sequestered and the trial held five days a week to expedite matters.
I think they should have been sequestered.
Yup, me, too. I also think Cyn's idea of trial 5 days a week instead of 4 should have been implemented.
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.