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 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 581-593 next last
To: cyncooper
Cyn I know you want it your way, BUT that's what the instructions to the jury includes. NO common sense JUST THE FACTS MAM! NO maybe if. ... No why didn't he tell us.... Decision based on the Facts "presented in COurt".

If you didn't do that at your trial you are in "contempt of court" If the defendant was found quilty and you admitted to that, he could be set free. I do not remember the legal term right now. It's latin. Be careful what you say in public about your trial.
521 posted on 07/31/2002 6:41:54 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: BARLF
Thanks, BARLF. Sounds like Damon is confused to me. But I've never believed anything he's said from the start.
522 posted on 07/31/2002 6:42:37 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit
"But I've never believed anything he's said from the start."


Nor have I. As well as all the Sabre Swingers/Vdams & co. I pegged them ALL as liars. So far, I've not been proved wrong.

523 posted on 07/31/2002 6:45:47 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Your interpretation is incorrect. From the cross-exam by Feldman Jennifer Shen states:

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.

Now, read that carefully. The fiber "was tangled in such a large wad of hair on the necklace."

It is very clear.

524 posted on 07/31/2002 6:47:22 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
Yes! That is his job to suggest a source (doubt) Done all the time. It made Dusek have to test a lot of fibers....But don't be surprised if somewhere in the closing arguments Feldy says "NOT EVERY SOURCE WAS TESTED" CHeck the testimony of the cross! Didn't he get stipulation that some but not all were tested? I haven't read it, but bet it's there somewhere.

That's how the game of COURT works. Yes it's a game..sort of like chess. CHECK and CHECK MATE! You get the other side to say what you need....Good lawyering!
525 posted on 07/31/2002 6:48:33 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
UCANSEE2 bid us all a goodnight & won't be back with us until tomorrow. Post 509.
526 posted on 07/31/2002 6:49:53 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
What do your comments have to do with my post and facts???

It's not that I want it "my way", it's that I understand how certain testimony can be presented to a jury. The jury in this trial is free to take the fact that these fibers are similar to each other and conclude that is evidence that DW had Danielle with him that weekend.

(In addition to the other evidence, of course)

527 posted on 07/31/2002 6:50:45 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Oh, I don't begrudge Feldman doing that kind of argument and fully expect it.
528 posted on 07/31/2002 6:52:19 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
Thank you. I had already read that post.

I am confident he'll see my reply to him next time he is here.

529 posted on 07/31/2002 6:55:23 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
That is the final summation of Dusek. Dusek will try to say they are the same. However, Feldy will conteract that the testimony was "not a match" Again CHeck and Check mate!

Dusek will have to be very careful to stay within the testamony or find himself in contempt. That is why I believe DW may be quilty but the DA has not proven his case in court. Not very well played. Sacraficed his queen to no avail!
530 posted on 07/31/2002 6:56:22 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
What about the FACT, the dog(s) didn't find a FRESH TRACE of Danielle in or near the RV? And the FACT their handler cheated & lied simply because *he* wanted DW on trial? Huh, how 'bout *those* FACTS? What do you think the jury will do with those facts?
531 posted on 07/31/2002 6:57:06 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
I agree with you. Also, if anyone is trying to mislead the jury, it's Dusek. As soon as he got the report from his own expert, Faulkner, this case should have been concentrated on finding out who REALLY killed Danielle. If she was killed and didn't die as the result of an accident, that is. IMO!!!!!
532 posted on 07/31/2002 6:57:24 PM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
freepmail

Hoosiermama, freepmail
533 posted on 07/31/2002 6:58:08 PM PDT by gigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
"Not a match", BIG DIFFERENCE, right there! All of the fibers are "similar." I'll bet cyncooper has the same "similar" fibers in her house. Maybe not the same colors......but "similar fibers."
534 posted on 07/31/2002 6:59:11 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
ONE hair found in sink trap. No attempt to identify if other hairs in sink, or whose they were, or whether Danielle's was first in/last in. Only that this 1 hair was there.

This just made me think. If there were more hair in sink drain, or other debris for that matter, wouldn't the ORDER of those items tell us how long it had been there?
IE if Jennifers, ex-GF, and THEN DVD's hair had been found in that order it would show that DVD had been in MH before the other two. If DW's hair, Jennifer's hair then DVD's hair were found she was in there more recently than Jennifer had last been.
Other question before fiber lady untangled hair/orange fiber did she take a digital photo of it?

535 posted on 07/31/2002 7:03:00 PM PDT by alexandria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
SWISS CHEESE mean anything to you. Dusek has lot's of hot air in holes. but no substance. I almost feel sorry for him.
Maybe that is why Mudd has been so supportive of him. He knows he's been "dun in". by the DA and LE both. I'd be madd as #3!! if I had that going on in my Court room.

OTOH, with the vacation etc. he may be "throwing the case" not a fair trial. Jury not kept away from media etc. All just to teach em a lesson..... He's in charge??
Is he taking the chess board and going home? JMO a being a bit of a devil advocate, of course!
536 posted on 07/31/2002 7:08:37 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Hey, the Stealth Ninja site looks really good with the changes you made...BTTT....
537 posted on 07/31/2002 7:09:06 PM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Swiss Cheese for sure.

It's been so bloody obvious the judge has been so prejudice, I've never seen anything like it.

I'm so appalled at the judge from the prelim, I am really questioning the entire SD justice system, starting with LE.
538 posted on 07/31/2002 7:13:36 PM PDT by the Deejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
He may be too! Maybe Dusek is a nice guy and he doesn't like what others have done to him. Lean the scale of justice his way so they'll balance.
539 posted on 07/31/2002 7:16:19 PM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]

To: the Deejay
What about the FACT, the dog(s) didn't find a FRESH TRACE of Danielle in or near the RV? And the FACT their handler cheated & lied simply because *he* wanted DW on trial? Huh, how 'bout *those* FACTS? What do you think the jury will do with those facts?

They may agree with you. I will not be upset by whatever the jury does.

No need to be upset with me for my opinion.

540 posted on 07/31/2002 7:17:27 PM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 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