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.
Thats exactly what I remember hearing. Yet Rodriquez was trying to make it sound like she was really mummified all over so therefore bugs couldn't get in until (2/14-18?)when some animal came and opened her up pulling out her entrails.
I believe the point of Rodriquez's conclusions were to leave a bigger window.
I.E. by specifying that forensic entomology could not be 'precise' and leaving a window from before Feb 1 until after she was found, he was trying to be inclusive of what Prosecution wanted and what Faulkner had already said.
To me, he looked like me made fool of himself and his craft.
A totally uneducated,inexperienced 6 year old could have said Danielle died sometime after she was abducted and before she was found. AND BE 100% CORRECT!
Yeah, but this guy wanted to be 120% correct, so he added the two weeks before her disappearance...oops
I have been Freeper for over 4 years and have seen lots of folks come and go. Rarely have I ever flammed anyone and then only because obviously deserved comment.
Yes, exactly they are the pros at using Inductive Profiling. Which is? The process of profiling criminal behavior, crime scenes, and victims from the known behaviors and emotions suggested by other criminals, crime scenes, and/or victims. Inductive Criminal Profiling is generally the result of some kind of statistical analysis, or finds it's reasoning in cases outside of the case at hand.
As opposed to Deductive Profiling which is the careful forensic examination and behavioral reconstruction of a single offender's crime scene.
After the offender's behaviors have been reconstructed, the crime scene characteristics are analyzed, and the victim characteristics are analyzed. From those combined characteristics, a profile emerges with the characteristics of the individual who could have committed that specific offense, with that specific victim under the conditions present at that specific crime scene.
Let me get the ground rules down on this these van dam threads. Its ok for someone to kid a "Westerfield did it poster" by likening him to a jackal but its not ok for same poster to use self depricating humor to exagerate his teenager's and younger children's lack of tideness. Thanks, I get it.
Yes, you did. Thank you. I don't see what you raised as fatal to it though.
Remember, the cops had a warrant which specified they were looking for ROPES, HANDCUFFS. You have to be specific on a warrant. You can't just make up whatever hits your fancy.
In hindsight, after the arrest of the 2 members/operators of the LOCAL #510 CHILD PORN RING of SD/Poway, and the news article saying that ROPES,HANDCUFFS were found, it makes it look like they were onto these guys, and assumed DW was one of them.
THE QUESTION IS, where they right or wrong?
For those that say DW had CHILD PORN. First, not proven, Second, if your neighbor gets killed, and you have a bullet but no gun, Can we just hang you for it ?
Is this in his opening statements? I'll try to find them and read them. I assume this was day 1.
He would know more than me obviously, but I believe the simpler answer to the various questions that that scenario raises is that she was dumped by Westerfield during the same morning.
I do however thing its absolutley possible his driving around was directly connected to his eliminating evidence.
Do I get paid a big fee like those other guys?
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.