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