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.
If the Goff guy is good then prosecutor may pass but if Goff guy isn't then there may be one in the works.
Yeah, but then Dusek has to take your place as class clown. (/sarcasm :)
http://members.cox.net/jeneal/PrelimTranscripts/020311p1.txt
Johnny Keene
9 Q. Did he say what his relationship with
10 Brenda Van Dam was?
11 A. He told me he'd only met her, including that
12 meeting, he'd only met her three times.
13 Q. What were the three occasions that he told you
14 he'd run into Brenda Van Dam?
15 A. The first occasion was the Friday night previous
16 to Friday, February 1st. He said he met her -- or he saw
17 her at Dad's Bar.
snip
26 Q. When did he say was the second contact he had
27 with Brenda Van Dam?
28 A. He said the second contact was either the
1 Wednesday or Thursday, which would have been January 30th
2 or 31st, I believe, would have been the dates. He said
3 Brenda and her daughter Danielle and her youngest son came
4 to his door selling girl scout cookies.
snip
27 Q. Third meeting was when?
28 A. The third meeting was Friday, February 1st, again
1 at dad's bar.
No, YOU ARE ABSOLUETY CORRECT. Myself and others are confusing DUSEK's opening statement with HIS WHOLE PRESENTATION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE. Sorry.
Regardless of the theories used he she has to be in the SUV at least once. Unless the pros is going to claim that she was tied up in house while he got RV and managed to get her into it unseen while at the house.
However, you a right I don't recall what forensic evidence was in the SUV. I thought I remembered some fiber evidence on her that was also found on SUV. I guess that part needs further looking at. Any chance you or someone remember what day of testimony the fiber stuff was done ?
This 'example' has been tried before on these threads. It has also been totally debunked here. Are you all getting this crap from the same source?
SORRY,someone is filling you full of crapola.
I do not doubt that there have been cases where a DA pulled together loose ends and made his case, just don't try to pass over BS on me.
No, I live in CT and it was 24/7.
The larger point is that you really have no idea what the prosecutor's theory is yet. You are attempting to read between the lines and you may not be reading correctly.
Click me
closing argument : the final address to the jury by the attorney for each side of a case in which the attorney usu. summarizes the evidence and his or her client's position (called also closing statement, final argument, summation, summing-up) Note: Rule 29.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the prosecution to open the closing argument after the closing of the evidence. The defense replies, and the prosecution may offer a rebuttal
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.