Prosecution witness challenges findings of defense 'bug expert'
Posted on 07/30/2002 3:58:51 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Prosecution witness challenges findings of defense 'bug expert'
|
|
|
July 30, 2002
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.
"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 evidenceWhen 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 rebuttalProsecutors 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
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 sightAt 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. |
Absolutely, yet some will tell us that we cannot judge another's demeanor when grieving.
HOGWASH !!!!! Damon van Dam was not grieving when questions were asked of him in order to help police find his daughter.
Brenda van Dam was not grieving when she wanted to know about book deals and while sitting in "make-up" before appearing on camera.
OHHHHHHHHHH.......don't get me started.
Q. WITH REGARDS TO THE FIBER THAT WAS -- YOU POINTED OUT TO THE JURY THAT MR. CLARKE HAD A WHILE BACK ON THAT WAS ON THE NECKLACE?
A. YES.
Q. THAT WAS WRAPPED AROUND THE NECKLACE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. IT WAS ACTUALLY TANGLED IN THE HAIR AND THE HAIR WAS TANGLED ON THE NECKLACE.
Q. HOW LONG COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE?
A. WELL, I THINK THE FIBER CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR AS LONG AS THE BODY WAS IN ITS RESTING LOCATION. THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THE FIBER WAS THERE FOR MUCH PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE IT WAS TANGLED IN SUCH A LARGE WAD OF HAIR ON THE NECKLACE. SO I THINK THAT THE FIBER GOT ONTO THE HAIR ON THE NECKLACE AT SOME POINT CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS WHERE THE BODY WAS PLACED WHERE IT WAS FOUND.
Q. ARE YOU GUESSING?
A. I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION.
Q. IS ANOTHER REASONABLE INTERPRETATION THAT THAT FIBER HAD BEEN WRAPPED AROUND PREVIOUS TO THAT TIME, AND THAT DANIELLE HADN'T BEEN MOVING FOR A WHILE?
A. SHE HADN'T BEEN MOVED? THAT CERTAINLY IS POSSIBLE.
Q. IF SHE HAD BEEN KEPT IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION, SAY FOR TEN DAYS, IT COULD STAY THERE, COULDN'T IT?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YOU NEED NOT ANSWER.
BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE BODY WASN'T PLACED IN ITS ULTIMATE RESTING LOCATION UNTIL APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY THE 16TH AND FEBRUARY THE 18TH.
A. OKAY.
Q. AND ASSUME THAT FOR A FEW DAYS OR SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THAT THERE HADN'T BEEN MUCH IN THE WAY OF MOVEMENT OF THE BODY. COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN THERE?
MR. CLARKE: OBJECTION, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q. HOW MANY DAYS PRIOR TO FEBRUARY THE 16TH, IF YOU HAVE AN OPINION, COULD THAT FIBER HAVE BEEN PLACED OR LOCATED WHERE ULTIMATELY YOU IDENTIFIED IT?
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU MAY ANSWER THAT, IF YOU KNOW.
THE WITNESS: IF THE VICTIM WAS NOT MOVING OR PARTAKING IN ANY NORMAL ACTIVITIES AS FAR AS PERSONAL HYGIENE, THEN CERTAINLY THE FIBER COULD HAVE BEEN ATTACHED AND REMAINED ATTACHED THROUGH THAT TIME.
BY MR. FELDMAN: Q. AND IF ON YOUR HYPOTHESIS WITH REGARD TO YOUR ANSWER, ASSUMING ALL OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST ARTICULATED IS THE CASE, HOW LONG COULD THE FIBER HAVE BEEN --
MR. CLARKE: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
Now, Feldman throws in his theory about Danielle arriving at Dehesa later in February. But note how she reaffirms and he seems to concede to her opinion that the fiber did in fact come to be in the hair at or very near the time of Danielle's death. (Note his "Danielle wasn't moving" question)
A further aside is he doesn't really challenge that the fibers match except for the standard "they could or could not have a common source" disclaimer.
Better alert Feldman because he hasn't challenged the fact that the fibers are similar in every way whatsoever.
Only thing he's disputing is source--whether they all came from the same source and trying to throw out that the source didn't belong to DW.
You are correct. There was a great deal of microscopic examination of the orange fibers. The photos available to us on the internet mean nothing.
Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't the defense have access to these types of evidence? Is part of the defense's job to check and verify evidence?
Unless I'm hearing this all wrong, I seem to get an implication that the evidence is false, or mis-interpreted. Then, the defense misses the falsification, and/or the mis-interpretation?
Then, the good folks on FR find it? Too bad the good folks at FR didn't get the information to Feldman, in time for him to bring it up on cross-examination.
Or maybe the defense did their job, checked the evidence, found no falsification or mis-interpretation, so didn't bring it up on cross-examination. (Meaning good folks at FR are wrong about this)
In any event, it is probably too late, to re-introduce the topic in sur-rebuttal.
At least the prosecution isn't trying connectthedots.
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.
