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.
Oh! Oh! Who Ya gonna be UCANSEE! Huh? Who?
Dusek has not said that explicitly.
I agree, the implication of his questions leads one to believe that is the prosecution theory of the case, though.
As I said to VRWC_minion, there was evidence like the porn, and evidence that Danielle had been in the house and at sometime in the MH. There was the trip in the MH and things that looked suspicious.
SO, there are things that make it LOOK POSSIBLE he could have been involved.
Had the LE gone after someone else, they would most likey have been able to produce about the same amount of EVIDENCE they have on DW.
And that person could also be not guilty.
that is my take
No, he did not state it explicitly.
I do think the way his questions are phrased and the points he tried to emphasize have led most of us to believe that is the prosecution theory of the case.
That is one of the problems with a typing format. You can't hear the inflection in the voice, and it can be hard to tell a joke from a whine. (or cheese from wine).
The ones so far. Let see what Goff says. My point is that the ussual profile on something like this is the child is killed almost immediately. Whether done by Westerfield or not.
WHen did he kill her then? Where did he hide her until he could put her in the MH?
I thought you read my post. My scenario is that he abducted her from her home around 3am. He puts her in his SUV and drives her to his RV and gets there about 3:20 am. He rapes and kills her, wraps her in a blanket, puts her in the luggage part of his SUV and heads out toward Dehesa road at about 4:20 am. Sun rise is about 6am and he desires to be home by then so he drives about 45 minutes to dump her at about 5:05 am. He then drives home to arrive there about 5:50 am. He goes to bed for about a 1 hour nap then rises and showers and resumes a "normal" day in his attempt to rid himself of the remaining evidence thatwould include clothing, blanket etc.
Where is the blood if he killed her in his house, SUV, or MH? .
Not a lot of blood from penetrating her vagina but some of it fell on the floor of his RV probably dripped from his penis. I doubt she was in the house. The blood on his jacket was from handling the blanket she was wrapped in and got there by touching it when he took the jacket off.
These are just a few of the questions I can come up with.
Thanks they are helpfull.
I just don't buy that.
I don't see this in the opening statements at all. Is it possible you and others are making an assumption that this was said ?
Just trying to explain why other posters may appear RUDE, or SHORT TEMPERED, or not want to spend time EDUCATING him. It is not that people are RUDE or MEAN, it is sometimes that they get tired of explaining the same thing for the HUNDREDTH TIME. Even though to VRWC_minion it is the first, to others explaining it isn't.
And after they explain it, many times they get told they are wrong, are asked to prove it or source it.
Nothing wrong with backing up your statements, but to have to do it over and over and over, makes some people edgy.
Was hoping V_m could see it as a way of understanding the reactions he might get.
Could be ole Barb preferrd Brenda and he was left to do his own thing. Maybe he was a little angry with Brenda because of it ..so Barb came up to his room to make up ( pun) for it
gee, dunno. What is open?
All I see is a promise that he will explain it. I thought that is what the closing is all about ? Right now is the process of presenting evidence on which the dots are connected later by the prosecuting attorney. Based on reading the entire opening I don't see Dusek presenting any theories other than simply outlining the case.
So, if he uses my theory to explain what happen can I graduate from Thread Jackal ?
I agree with that.
Now, that the prosecution has rested (well, kinda), what others are asking about the opening statement is
DID HE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS HE POSED?
ON a item by item list, the answer is NO.
That is why they say he failed to make his case.
OK, I think I got it. THE BAILIFF (he's the only one I would trust in this entire thing)
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.