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.
You are playing a game. post #386
I have come reasonably close to developing one. I imagine the prosecutor will do much better. I agree I must do a better job of looking as evidence that ties the SUV to the body but I recall there being something there.
I also agree the skiing bug guy needs to not only explain his findings that puts date back to Feb 2, but also shows a credible reason that the other bug guys would have arrived at the same answer had they had the right facts.
"A juror who believes that the prosecution has proven that Mr. Westerfield is the actual killer, but a juror that has some doubts about how the murder happened or how the girl got where she got" should have an alternative to felony murder, Boyce said.
The defense asked at a conference with prosecutors and the judge Monday that panelists be allowed to consider a second murder charge, first-degree premeditated murder. Such a charge is not linked to kidnapping and requires the prosecution to prove the crime was planned.
Which, they have not and can not likely do. SO DW would go free.
Here is another reason for worrying":
defense lawyer Steven Feldman said he was worried jurors might feel pressure to convict because of their anger at Samantha’s accused killer, a man previously acquitted of molestation charges, Mudd said he still did not think sequestration of the jury was necessary.
As a precaution though, the judge said, he has ordered court official to begin making a contingency plan for sequestration during deliberations.
I was thinking today that the best closing argument the Defense has is the Prosecution's Opening Statement, with appropriate pauses to ask where the proof was offered; and closingwith the anthropoligist's evidence that Danielle was dead two weeks before she went missing.
I also reflected that with the evidence that was collected it may have been probable that they could have nabbed the real killer.
Just as well, You are absolutely incorrect. Show us any evidence Danielle was EVER in the SUV.
I caught that but had no clue who they were referring to. Uh, who is Dirty Bob?
I went back and read all your replies where you have been postulating this theory. Talk about a FAR REACH.
Danielle's scent, dead or alive, was not detected in the SUV. No trace evidence (Not even DNA which you can't clean up, not even at the dry cleaners apparently) found in the SUV. GIVE IT UP.
Where did he commit the rape? In public view ? You said he didn't do it in the MH but his penis dripped blood in there. I am beginning to worry about you.
This 'example' has been tried before on these threads. It has also been totally debunked here.
I am one who has posted the same statement as VRWC_minion before. I have never seen anyone "debunk" that observation. And I've never shared that thought with minion, either, for the record.
Goldilocks
or
The big bad wolf
Dusek knows if the jury buys into DW did it, with the Kidnapping/Murder charge, it IS SIMPLE. He doesn't have to prove how/where/when. It is there in what you read, others can be LEAD TO WATER, you just can't MAKE THEM DRINK.
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.