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.
Have you ever heard the phrase "if you can't blind them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull s**t? every time I see one of minion's posts - I am reminded of it. Quit trying to reason with him/her. They care nothing of the facts in the case (or they WOULD READ THE TRANSCRIPTS)and thrive on the attention their disruptions cause.....
and that is the scince of fiber analysis - They are never determined to be an exact "match". They are looked at for similarities. The only way to proclaim and "exact match" as far as I have ever read is to analyze the compounds and dyes in the fibers, but to do so destroys the evidence.
Boyt Dog Handlers Vest
Designed and tested by some of the country's most experienced dog trainers, the dog handlers vest is the most innovative hunting specialty vest on the market. Made of soft blaze orange acrylic with mesh back and trimmed with heavy-duty nylon. Inside zippered pockets, front and rear load blood-proof game bag, large bellows pockets with shell loops and an adjustable transmitter holsters that accomodates most transmitters. Gun pads on both shoulders.
180 Frank alert! 
Agree with you on that :-)
What the judge actually said was that since the parents had not given permission to someone to have the child, mere 'possession' of the child is considered kidnapping. This means if she wandered into someone's car or MH or house, and they kept 'possession' of her, it is considered kidnapping.
He did not say that such a scenario was impossible, or even implausible. Merely that it made no difference under the law. This kind of legalese is usually lost on most people. Methinks the jury might accept it as a legal fact, but in their hearts and minds some will need to see a connection between kidnapping and murder.
IMO, Dusek must present to the jury a plausible scenario for how DW might have come to have DvD. That he has not done evidentially is indicative of his weak case. His only route to conviction is to discount the counter-evidence (especially bugs) from the defense, and to retreat to his last hope: tiny DNA spots and a hair = he must have murdered her! Ergo, he also must have kidnapped her.
Premature accusation, sloppy (and incomplete) evidence gathering, and inept prosecution have doomed his case. All he can really hope for is at least one 'Palm Beach' type juror to hang the verdict.
So we aren't supposed to pay attention to the parents? Judge Mudd must know that the Van Dams Lie.
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Do you think the Van Damned have learned this lesson?
sw
The other side refuses to listen.
"Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your mouth is moving"...So that would explain why they remain ignorant.
sw
I don't get the alternate theories on how one source was transfered to both Westerfield and Danielle. Danielle didn't have contact with any of the Dad's patrons and Westerfield (according to him) showered and changed his clothes before going to the RV.
Go no further, dipstick...That statement is a total fabrication. PROVE IT, or shut up.
sw
Would you be kind enough to point to where my speculation contradicts evidence, thanks in advance.
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.