Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Van Dam Case Witness Challenges Findings Of Defense 'Bug Expert': But...His Testimony Don't Add Up..
Union Tribune ^ | July 31, 2002 | Jeff Dillion

Posted on 07/30/2002 3:58:51 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Prosecution witness challenges findings of defense 'bug expert'



SIGNONSANDIEGO

July 30, 2002


Union-Tribune
Dr. M. Lee Goff
An insect expert testifying for the prosecution in the David Westerfield case said Tuesday that flies appeared to have colonized Danielle van Dam's body sometime between Feb. 1 and Feb. 14, far earlier than defense witnesses have estimated.

M. Lee Goff, an entomologist and chairman of the Forensic Sciences Department of Chaminade University in Honolulu, said his review of the crime scene photos, morgue photos, weather reports and other evidence suggest that Danielle's body was exposed to insects as early as Feb. 1 and no later than Feb. 14.

 


  • Judge says sequestering of jury possible
  • SDPD criminalist Tanya Dulaney says none of the orange clothing from police officers she examined contained acrylic fibers.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
  • SDPD detective Maura Parkga says she was actually wearing a red shirt while inside the Westerfield home.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
  • SDPD sergeant and RV owner Bill Holmes says he thinks I-8 is the best route to Glamis.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
  • Dr. Lee Goff says, using Singing Hills weather data, testifies that Danielle's body was dumped at the Dehesa site between Feb. 2 and Feb. 12.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
  • Goff says data assumptions used by Haskell would create a shorter timeline for Danielle's post-mortem interval.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
  • Goff says flies don't lay eggs on dry tissue.
    RealMedia Video
    Cable-DSL
    / 56k
    The FREE RealPlayer plug-in is necessary to play RealMedia.
     

"We're working on an estimate. We're not running a stopwatch here," Goff said.

The defense has contended that there was no way Westerfield could have placed the victim's body where it was found in the East County community of Dehesa, because he was under close surveillance by police beginning Feb. 5.

Goff was called to the stand to rebut testimony from two forensic entomologists called by the defense who testified that Danielle's body could not have been exposed to insects any earlier than mid-February, nearly two weeks after Westerfield came under police surveillance.

Westerfield could face the death penalty if convicted of the kidnap and murder of Danielle. He also has been charged with possession of child pornography.

Danielle was reported missing from her family's Sabre Springs home on Feb. 2. Her body was found in a wooded area near El Cajon on Feb. 27 after a massive search drew national attention.

Westerfield, who lived two doors down from the van Dams, became an early suspect in her disappearance.

 

Insect evidence

When Danielle's naked body was found, investigators took extensive photos of it and its surroundings, then put bags over her head, feet and hands and wrapped the body in a sheet to preserve any evidence.

Law enforcement officials called in forensic entomologist David Faulker to study the signs of insect infestation on the body to try to gauge when Danielle had died.

But lead defense attorney Steven Feldman argued in his opening statement that scientific evidence would prove his client could not have killed Danielle. As it turned out, the prosecution never called Faulker to the stand and he was called by Feldman as a defense witness.

Early in the trial, San Diego County Medical Examiner Brian Blackbourne testified that the girl could have been dead from 10 days to six weeks when her body was found.

Faulkner testified July 10 that his analysis of the life cycles of the insects found on Danielle's body showed it wasn't available to insects until sometime between Feb. 16 and 18.

On July 22, a second defense expert, Dr. Neal Haskell, testified that Danielle's body couldn't have been exposed to flies any earlier than Feb. 12.

 

Insect rebuttal

Prosecutors began rebutting the defense insect evidence on Thursday by calling Dr. William C. Rodriguez III, a forensic anthropologist for the Department of Defense, who testified that Danielle's body was in "an advanced state of mummification" that would have delayed insect infestation.

On Tuesday, Goff reiterated testimony about insect lifecycles presented by the previous experts: You can calculate how long a body has been exposed to the elements by gauging the age of the maggots – fly larvae – growing on the body.

Flies are quickly drawn to dead bodies and will lay batches of eggs on them. The development of the eggs into different stages of larvae and adult flies is then affected by temperature, humidity and other environmental factors.

Using charts of known development rates, a forensic entomologist can look at the age of maggots found on a body and, factoring in the weather, can calculate when the eggs they hatched from had been laid. Generally, the warmer the weather, the faster the insects develop.

Goff, author of "A Fly for the Prosecution: How Insects Help Solve Crimes," said he calculated the "post-mortem interval" date from the maggots on Danielle's body using temperature records and charts from a 2000 fly study.

He said Faulkner appeared to have made his calculations using a chart of insect development from a study that used 80-degree temperatures, far higher than the rates in the San Diego mountains in February.

Haskell appeared to have calculated his dates assuming that the activity of the "maggot mass" on the body would have raised the temperature of the mass, speeding up their development.

In both cases, Goff said, the other entomologists estimated that the maggots would have developed much faster than he did, giving a much later date for the exposure of Danielle's body to the elements.

Goff was scheduled to resume testifying – and to face cross-examination by the defense – after a lunch break.

 

Fiber evidence


DAN TREVAN / Union-Tribune
San Diego Police Department Detective Maura Parga testifies during the trial of David Westerfield Tuesday.
None of the orange shirts worn by the investigators who searched David Westerfield's house after the disappearance of Danielle van Dam could have been the source of the orange acrylic fibers found in Westerfield's laundry and on Danielle's body, a fiber expert said today.

A series of shirts and other orange-colored items brought to the San Diego Police Department crime lab were made from either nylon, cotton or a polyester-cotton blend, criminalist Tanya DuLaney testified.

"Did the fabric of any of these items consist of acrylic in any manner?" assistant prosecutor Woody Clarke asked.

"No," DuLaney replied.

Prosecutors called DuLaney back to the stand in response to defense suggestions that investigators could have inadvertently cross-contaminated the two crime scenes with the orange acrylic fibers, which became a key piece of prosecutor evidence linking Westerfield with Danielle's body.

On June 25, police criminalist Jennifer Shen testified that an orange acrylic fiber tangled in Danielle's plastic necklace at the time her body was found was similar to orange acrylic fibers found in laundry inside Westerfield's home and on bedding in his bedroom.

On July 24, lead defense attorney Steven Feldman introduced into evidence several still images from television that showed police investigators wearing orange or orangish shirts as they entered and left Westerfield's house on Feb. 4 or 5.

In response, the district attorney's office identified all of the police and search-and-rescue personnel shown in the photos, collected anything orange-colored they were wearing at the time and gave the clothing to the crime lab.

That evidence consister of two orange long-sleeved shirts, an orange short-sleeved shirt, four reddish polo shirts, an orange rope, an orange strap, a black-and-red backpack, an orange hat and an orange dog vest, DuLaney said.

Under microscopic and infrared examination, none of the fibers taken from those items contained any acrylic material, DuLaney said.

 

Trial's end in sight

At the start of today's session, Superior Court Judge William Mudd told jurors that there will be no testimony on Wednesday, but that testimony will resume Thursday and could conclude on Monday.

"It appears to me that next week you'll hear closing arguments and be in deliberations," Mudd said.

The judge said that he had not yet decided whether to sequester the jurors during deliberations.

Mudd also warned jurors not to read or view any material about the Westerfield case or the Orange County kidnap-murder of Samantha Runnion, in which the girl's mother blamed a previous jury for failing to convict her daughter's accused murdered in a previous sexual abuse case.

"The fact is the case is not similar in any way, shape or form," Mudd said.



TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: 180frank; crime; danielle; dejackaled; kidnapping; molestation; threadjackals; vandam; westerfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 581-593 next last
To: Eva
There seems to be some question about what color orange is.

The color 'orange' is some combination of the primary colors 'red' and 'yellow' and can range in appearance from red to yellow depending on the amounts of each dye. If Brenda or some other woman was wearing such a sweater, was in the VD home and then was in contact with DW or contacted someone who then contacted DW, this could explain the orange acrylic fibers. Acrylic is very well known for 'static' which would make the transfer of numerous fibers more likely than not, especially in a dry climate like San Diego.

181 posted on 07/31/2002 11:14:14 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: mommya
Expanding on my thoughts from above.....Maybe there are jurors who think that he did do it - but that the stuff in the MH is old - like the defense suggests - since the dogs did not hit there - maybe they don't buy an innocent explanation - but maybe they even think he had her in there on some prior occasion to try to get close to her - just let her look around or maybe something more sinister - like molest her - anyway - since the dogs did not hit - they could believe that she was in there sometime in the past - AND - they could still think he killed her - the two are not mutually exclusive - are they. That's why I am thinking they should offer the lesser charge.
182 posted on 07/31/2002 11:16:58 AM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
It's a good question, but clearly something left those fibers (both orange and blue) on and near Danielle, and in DW's environment.

I agree with you Cyn. IF the police had found what it was, either we would all be on the same side of this case, or DW wouldn't even be on trial.

Many of us suspect they did find what it was, but since they already had committed to DW, didn't want to have it in evidence as it would clear him.

Ask yourself some other questions

Where is the BACKPACK found by Danielle's school?

Why did police never let anyone know if it was or was not Danielle's?

183 posted on 07/31/2002 11:18:24 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
The trial transcripts of 7-9-02 explain some things, IMO. Blue/grey fibers are 3/10 of an inch long. Orange acrylic are 1 and 1/2 in. Feldman referred to BVD wearing orange sweater in courtroom the day before....sort of. He changed to hypothetical orange sweater and asked witness if she compared orange fibers to any BVD clothing. Answer was no. He also referred to the many colors of fibers found on the sheet and got witness to agree to source as possible multi-colored blanket. Witness agreed that fiber on necklace was dull orange-others were bright orange. She excluded 2 fibers from SUV because one was wool and the other was a "different color of orange".
184 posted on 07/31/2002 11:19:48 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit
Here ye, Here ye...all Refugees are requested to report to the new STEALTH chat room, for a Trial Thread Discussion Practice Session, NOW, 5,4,3,2,1....LOL
185 posted on 07/31/2002 11:21:24 AM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: mommya
The prosecution does not want just a murder charge, because they then have to prove he murdered her and maybe intent. With the kidnapping/murder charge all they have to prove is that she was with him that weekend (kidnapping) and then since she is dead it is assumed murder. They do not have to prove he murdered in the 2nd case.
186 posted on 07/31/2002 11:23:07 AM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
I can't find any testimony that dog hairs were found in the SUV.

Testimony June 24th

187 posted on 07/31/2002 11:25:57 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
Do you think they should have the other type charge allowed?
188 posted on 07/31/2002 11:28:12 AM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: mommya
I heard the resoning somewhere that if the count was 1st degree standing alone, that premeditation would have to be shown. That would be a higher standard.

IIRC, the kidnapping charge being filed first allowed the death to immediately bump the case up to the death penalty.

I seem to recall some speculation at the time that they got word on the body, rushed to arrest dw on kidnapping charges, and only then 'allowed' the body to be found. That was back in the days that I believed he was a creep, before I saw how flimsy the 'evidence' was.
189 posted on 07/31/2002 11:28:19 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
Couldn't get in.
190 posted on 07/31/2002 11:29:22 AM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
I am there.....BUGGZ and HUGGZ!
191 posted on 07/31/2002 11:29:42 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
Yeah, what you said. Guess I should have read a bit further.
192 posted on 07/31/2002 11:30:19 AM PDT by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
. It appears the prosecution will argue that DW destroyed evidence

AND DON'T FORGET, the briefcase with A MILLION DOLLARS in it. It is mine, and I want the money back.!!!!!

193 posted on 07/31/2002 11:31:01 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
"The only reason the prosecution can't prove DW did it, is they claim the perp went and destroyed all the evidence on them! The dog (or bugs) ate my homework approach..... therefore he must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

A little late in the game for Dusuck to be claiming that, isn't it? According to his opening statement, I thought he was going to SHOW us how DW got into the house, took Danielle, killed her, and dumped her body? So far, he has yet to prove any of those, and the best he can do is, "Sorry, we can't link the fibers to a common source because DW got rid of all the evidence!"

Ok...he got rid of his orange blankie, his cowboy boots, the blue/grey fiber source...but DOESN'T get rid of the jacket with the supposed "blood" on it? Either he's innocent, or he's the dumbest criminal on the face of the earth.
194 posted on 07/31/2002 11:33:18 AM PDT by ItsOurTimeNow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
I searched there before I posted and did not find any suv testimony (I searched on toyota and SUV and did not read it again). Are you saying there is SUV testimony there, or that was the dog hair testimony in general?
195 posted on 07/31/2002 11:35:07 AM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: mommya
Couldn't get in.

I can't, either. I'm probably doing something incorrectly.

196 posted on 07/31/2002 11:36:41 AM PDT by Steve0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
Don't hold me to it - but I think the stuff you're looking for may be Dulaney and Shen from aft.1 and aft.2 - day 18 in the transcripts.
197 posted on 07/31/2002 11:38:11 AM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow
A little late in the game for Dusuck to be claiming that, isn't it?

It's VERY late in the game for that stunt.

198 posted on 07/31/2002 11:38:11 AM PDT by Steve0113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: mommya
That's why I am thinking they should offer the lesser charge.

Dusek has to get convictions on both counts to ask for the death penalty.

199 posted on 07/31/2002 11:41:33 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
What do you mean?
200 posted on 07/31/2002 11:42:41 AM PDT by mommya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 581-593 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson