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 guess they are not too bugged by the defense bugologists.
I don't remember who provided this information but it is applicable to the above statement.
MOST MEMBERS of SWING CLUBS are NURSES and POLICE !
IT was ALSO a JOKE. Do you get it?
However in this case common wisdom about what Dusek said is in error.
I have read teachers and police.
A manager of Bob Dole was a swinger..our FR resident swinger mentioned that factoid
So the politicians have a lack of self contol and committment ......now ain't that a surprise?
Oh, OK!!
Yes, that unfortunutely is true which is why taking only the witnesses testimony part of the whole case and coming up with possible suspects is the wrong way to approach it. It leads to assumptions (like the child porn) clouding, or downright ignoring, the other facts in direct evidence (like the unknown fingerprints, DNA).
Let's face it certain things have been shown in this case one being the LE did not take evidence found and anaylze it on it's own merits. Two the body and bug evidence shows DW could not have deposited that body at the site.
IMO the reason DW was picked as suspect is because of the PR firm backing the parents as innocent. Whoops! Better not look that way. Big No No to put parents up to microscope when they have all that media backing them.
This was the same feeling about the recent Martha Moxley case in CT until the attorney skill fully tied all the testimony together at the closing to construct the points so they all led to Skakel's conviction.
Keep in mind that the case has parts to it. The current part is to bring forward the evidence that will be required to use to tell the story. Its not the story.
Are you talking about Roger Stone? I thought he denied it and said the pics on the supposed ads were computer altered images. (Wouldn't put THAT past as 'Rat)
(1) The threads and the posters on FR are not the JURY. Were they, I would say DW has nothing to worry about. (IMSO)(In My Silly Opinion)
(2)The jury is limited as to what they can consider, they are being deluged with the MEDIA BS we all have seen and remarked on.
(3)The Judge has severly limited DW's ability to provide defense. The Van Dam's/The judge wouldn't allow defense to review/test the supposed CRIME SCENE.
(4) The only good part is that JURIES are Human, and do what they want regardless of what judges tell them (sometimes)
SO YES. I think DEFENSE has a lot to worry about, regardless to whether DW committed ANY CRIME AT ALL.
If Dusek didn't make this part of the opening statements then at what point could he make this part of the court documents ? He wasn't a witness ? WAs it something he told press ? I'm confused.
I said: " It's not unusual to look for ropes and chains when searching for a kidnapping victim is it??? "
You said: "Your statement above would be correct. It is not the statement I made."
My point was that it should have been standard operating procedure...to look for those items which would therefore show that that your theory wouldn't be necessarily proven by that search.
On the other hand, the possibility that they wanted to rule that "out" that he was connected to the ring seems very logical, especially considering that they found 'child' porn.
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.