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.
Orange fibers in SUV.
As an aside, testimony from police is the SUV looked freshly washed. Normal pattern was for DW to drive to MH storage and have son drive SUV home. Neal, the son testified this is because it is very dusty at Keith Sherman's. SUV wasn't dusty from sitting at Sherman's Saturday and Sunday----fwiw.
I think we all know where he is going, what he tried to do, and just about where things are at.
In RVIn
? You said he didn't do it in the MH but his penis dripped blood in there. I am beginning to worry about you.
I said he didn't drive anywhere in RV. Why must you assume someone needs to drive an RV and they cannot just use the bedroom ?
You are missing the point of going with the lesser charge. It requires more proof. Something the Prosecution's case lacks. So far it is all EMOTION because of a dead little girl and that is all DUSEK HAS to capitalize on. If he has to prove HOW/WHEN/WHERE, his case is sunk. PROOF I am right? Watch how hard DUSEK fights to NOT LOWER THE CHARGE.
Can you point me to the testimony about the dogs missing? Thanks.
I think you are correct in your analysis of why Feldman would want the other count and why the prosecution wants the one count.
Ridiculous!, right? So, if she was never in the SUV, then NO CASE, HE DIDN'T DO IT. This is your theory and what you say is Dusek's.
However, you a right I don't recall what forensic evidence was in the SUV.
THERE WAS NONE. CASE OVER. You CAN REST, NOW.
(1) Cases not at all the same.
(2) the Prosec in the Skakel case did no such thing. It was discussed and debunked already once. Did you miss that discussion.
Sure The prosec is supposed to summary the case. Just because he does a summary doesn't mean HE WINS AUTOMATICALLY. He has to have a case first. Don't think he does. We will see what the Jury thinks as what I think doesn't mean a hill of beans to anyone but me.
(1) Again, you are right, I don't know what DUSEK has on his mind to say at the end.
(2)I say, if after DUSEK presents all this side of the case, (which for all intents and purposes he has) that no one knows what his theory on the case is, means he lost.
VRWC_minion's theory is that the rape and murder did take place in the MH. I don't agree with his theory of the when and how, though.
I have tried to logically reason out how people are willing to buy into Westerfield getting into and out of the Van Dam house, etc., without so much as a fingerprint or a witness.
versus
How people are unwilling to accept it is more logical to assume that Danielle could have been able to sneak into an unlocked motorhome, without any witnesses, and leave a couple of prints.
I mean, if we are supposed to buy into Stealth Ninja Dave (which obviously had to happen for the crime to take place). Then WHY on this earth, is it so hard for anyone to accept that Danielle actually was able to sneak into a Motor Home sight unseen?
Which situation, in reality, is most likely to have happened? Duhhhh.
sw
I recently got a passport photo and it took about 10 minutes...why take her out early?
It is my understanding that of the few abductions that we have read about there is ussually no evidence left behind that implicates the abductor.
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.