Evidence On Insects Likely To Continue: (Westerfield Trial "Creeps" Along At An Ant's Pace!)

Union Trib ^ | June 29, 2002 | Alex Roth

[FresnoDA]

FYI All......Post 250...this thread...DUSEK opening statement is listed, in total...with hyperlink to the rest of his opening statement......(!)

[UCANSEE2]

Trying to use a negative to prove a positive ?

[VRWC_minion]

What Scenario. Could you explain in detail? I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.

Link to post here

[FresnoDA]

Testimony In Westerfield Trial May Last Through Week

Defense May Call Witnesses After Prosecution Finishes Rebuttal

 

POSTED: 10:08 a.m. PDT July 29, 2002

UPDATED: 2:50 p.m. PDT July 29, 2002

SAN DIEGO -- Rebuttal testimony in the trial of the man accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam could last into next week.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys for 50-year-old David Westerfield met Monday in court before Judge William Mudd. Prosecutors said they expect to wrap up their rebuttal testimony tomorrow. But Westerfield's lead attorney, Steven Feldman, said he might call a professional witness to dispute last week's testimony of a forensic specialist called by prosecutors.

Feldman also expressed concerns that jurors might have seen Larry King's interview with the mother of a slain five-year-old Orange County girl. The mother, Erin Runnion blamed a jury last year that acquitted the man now accused killing her daughter, Samantha.

Jurors will likely hear more evidence about insects when the trial resumes Tuesday. Prosecutors are expected to call Dr. M. Lee Goff, a professor of forensic sciences at the University of Hawaii, as their final rebuttal witness.

Goff is likely to dispute testimony by two defense bug experts who said that Danielle's body was dumped by a two-lane road in rural East County long after police had put Westerfield under 24-hour surveillance. Those experts analyzed insect larvae recovered from the body to come up with their timelines.

When Danielle was killed is hotly disputed. Prosecution witnesses, including Medical Examiner Brian Blackbourne, have said that it is impossible to say when she died because her body was so badly decomposed when it was found on Feb. 27. But lead defense attorney Steven Feldman has argued that the insect evidence, originally collected at the request of police investigators, indicates that the body was dumped more than a week after Danielle disappeared, long after police and news crews had begun tracking all of Westerfield's movements.

During their rebuttal case, prosecutors have tried to discredit the timeline proposed by defense bug experts. In testimony Thursday, Dr. William Rodriguez, a forensic anthropologist, told the jury that Danielle had been dead between four and six weeks when her body was discovered. The prosecution expert's estimate caused some consternation in the courtroom because the time period would go back before Feb. 2, the day the second-grader was discovered missing.

However, Rodriguez earlier said it was impossible to set a precise "post- mortem interval," or the time between when a person dies and when the body is found, because there are too many variables.

So far, the trial has lasted 23 court days. Once testimony has ended, the judge will give the jury instructions and attorneys for both sides will begin closing arguments.

Previous Stories: Click here for more stories on the case.

[Jrabbit]

This was the point of just about ALL the pros. testimony, so far. The closed curtains, fingerprints, DNA, sniffing dogs, fibers, hair etc. The transcripts are the best source.

[UCANSEE2]

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.

This would be in disagreement with the BUG EXPERTS conclusions as to when the body was placed there.

WHen did he kill her then? Where did he hide her until he could put her in the MH?

Where is the blood if he killed her in his house, SUV, or MH?

These are just a few of the questions I can come up with.

[UCANSEE2]

I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.
I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.

[FresnoDA]

Trial's end looms for Westerfield, jury


SIGNONSANDIEGO

July 29, 2002

SAN DIEGO – Testimony in the kidnap-murder trial of David Westerfield trial could continue into next week, an attorney for the man accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam told a judge on Monday.

Defense attorney Steven Feldman is contemplating calling a professional witness to counteract the testimony of forensic anthropologist Dr. William Rodriguez. Rodriguez refuted testimony from defense experts who said the victim could have been dead from four to six weeks.

Superior Court Judge William Mudd told attorneys in the case he would like to bring the trial to a close "as soon as we can."

Westerfield, 50, is charged with murder, kidnapping and special circumstance allegations that could lead to the death penalty if he's convicted of killing the Sabre Springs girl. He is also charged with misdemeanor possession of child pornography.

The judge told Feldman he would consider a defense request to have the jury sequestered during deliberations, but many no ruling on Monday.

Entomologists called by the defense testified that the body could have been at the recovery site in Dehesa anywhere from four to 10 weeks before it was discovered Feb. 27.

A major part of the defense's case relies on those witnesses. Defense attorneys argue Westerfield could not have dropped the body there because he was under intense police surveillance beginning Feb. 5, three days after the girl was discovered missing by her mother.

Deputy District Attorney Jeff Dusek told Mudd that the prosecution's rebuttal case would end tomorrow.

Feldman said he may not have any sur-rebuttal witnesses available until Thursday.

There had been speculation that closing arguments could begin as early as this week, but that estimate now seems in jeopardy.

Before the scheduling discussion, Mudd conducted a hearing on what possible jury instructions he may give the panel before closing arguments, and which instructions he may give before the case is submitted to the jury.

The judge said he will make a final decision on which instructions to give following closing arguments.

Feldman told the judge of his concern that jurors may have seen Larry King's interview on CNN with the mother of slain 5-year-old Samantha Runnion of Stanton, in which she blamed a former jury for acquitting the man now accused of abducting, sexually assaulting and asphyxiating her daughter.

Alejandro Avila was found not guilty in a child molestation case in Riverside County last year.

Mudd agreed to tell the jury in an informal way to be careful about shows that could touch on any subjects related to the Westerfield trial.

There appears to be no shortage of such programming.

Feldman said a documentary on the A&E cable channel featured the so-called "Body Farm,'"mentioned by Rodriguez and a defense expert as a laboratory in Tennessee where scientists conduct research on how bodies decompose after death.

 

 

[demsux]

I've been looking for the transcripts from Keith Stone's testimony, but can't find it on the SOSD site...do you have easy access to it??

[UCANSEE2]

Holes anyone ?

YES.

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

Here is the BIG HOLE, .

The flaw is that Dusek says he drove around with her in the MH dead or alive most of the weekend.

HERE ARE YOUR WORDS:

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.

[UCANSEE2]

Was hoping you would see the irony of my statement.

[UCANSEE2]

Hey, I gave two guesses. What is the answer? Do I get a prize ?

[VRWC_minion]

FWIW. I have scanned the four pages of opening testimony and see no where that Dusek says how the body got the Dehesa and nothing that says the body or girl were in the RV. The closest I come to anything is this from page 4

you will be able to understand how he got in. you will be able to understand how david westerfield got out of the van dam home. you will understand based upon the evidence what he did to danielle van dam and what he did with her and where he took her and where he dumped her. and you will understand, based upon the evidence in this case, what he did and what he has done to try to get away with this. The above indicates to me that he didn't put forward a theory in his opening statments. Is there another place in the testitmony ? Did you think he said this because its generally assumed that this was the case by virtually every one here ?

Any help is appreciated.

[alexandria]

Again, they were relying on facts from another case. When they did not come up with ropes, handcuffs, etc. but did come up with "possible" child porn they would have been right to investigate further but probably knew he wasn't an active member of said ring because of the dates of download.
I belive 1)finding the questionable porn on his computer or in home was a lucky break. 2) They should have accumulated as much evidence as they could in her home and at Dehusa Rd. and then analzyed all KNOWN FACTS from that evidence with what they knew of the victim and against all testimony from all people involved including parents, DW, local child sex offenders, and pizza gang.
If this had been done a more complete case could have been brought against whoever may be responsible. Also I daresay it would have put more suspects on the map.
This may have also answered questions as to whose fingerprints were on the bannister and DVD's doorway and whose DNA was present on her bed.

[UCANSEE2]

Here is my biggest question of this entire nightmare.

The VD's hired a PR team, almost INSTANTLY.

After a while, they fired that team and got the BEST ONE IN THE UNITED STATES.

How in the hell can they afford it ? And a new BMW ? and trips to the State Fair, and ,and,and,and.

Name one other FAMILY that hired a PR TEAM the minute their daughter disappeared!

I don't even think the LINDBURGH's hired a PR TEAM !

[VRWC_minion]

Trying to use a negative to prove a positive ?

No. Trying to inject some humor. It failed so I'll move on.

[UCANSEE2]

see no where that Dusek says how the body got the Dehesa and nothing that says the body or girl were in the RV.

you will be able to understand how he got in. you will be able to understand how david westerfield got out of the van dam home. you will understand based upon the evidence what he did to danielle van dam and what he did with her and where he took her and where he dumped her.

Gee, I don't know, you see any similarity between What you said, and what Dusek said ?

[cyncooper]

I don't have time to read it, explain it to me.

His link to his post is his explanation.

He has been reading transcripts and the DW/Det. Redden interview. He just isn't interested in reading every thread on the subject---what's the big D?