Posted on 02/06/2003 3:57:00 PM PST by Jaded
SAN DIEGO – The District Attorney's Office spent nearly $270,000 prosecuting David Westerfield, including thousands for DNA analysis and expert witnesses, it was announced today.
Westerfield was sentenced to die for the February 2002 killing of 7-year- old Danielle van Dam.
The former Sabre Springs resident and neighbor of the victim is now on death row at San Quentin.
According to figures the District Attorney's Office released, more than $35,000 was spent on experts for Westerfield's trial, and more than $146,000 on DNA analysis.
More than $62,000 was spent on a telephone survey and a jury questionnaire review.
North County drug agent honored
JO MORELAND
Staff Writer
A North County drug enforcement agent has been named the regional Narcotic Officer of the Year by the California Narcotic Officers Association. Wearing his best undercover grubby clothes, sheriff's Detective Larry Van Wey accepted the award Thursday at the Elks Lodge in El Cajon.
"I was totally shocked," Van Wey said. "I had no idea."
The 55-year-old heroin expert is now one of six regional officers statewide being considered for honors as the top state narcotics officer.
Van Wey is assigned to the San Diego County Integrated Narcotic Task Force. He works out of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration office in North County.
"He is the senior heroin investigator," said sheriff's Sgt. Rick Arias, a task force supervisor. "He knows the heroin dealers in North County. He's like the heroin guru ---- investigators and agencies come to him for advice."
Arias nominated Van Wey for the honor because of his work on Operation Grand Canyon, a case Van Wey began several years ago. He infiltrated a major heroin ring that extended from Honolulu to Steubenville, Ohio.
"When this group (of drug dealers) hit Portland, Ore., the overdose rate went up 500 percent," Van Wey said. "I'm talking dead bodies."
Since agents took the ring down nationwide on June 15, more than 280 arrests have been made and more than 45 pounds of heroin have been seized, Arias said.
Van Wey said his wife of 36 years ---- Micki ---- was patient as he worked seven days a week on the case during the final month. The couple, who participate in community activities, have four children and two grandchildren.
A former San Diego police officer and Imperial County sheriff's deputy, Van Wey became a San Diego sheriff's deputy in 1975. While working out of Vista, Van Wey arrested former President Ford's son ---- Jack Ford ---- on suspicion of drunken driving.
Van Wey started the pilot street narcotics unit and the North San Diego County Jurisdictions Unified for Drug, Gang Enforcement Unit.
A two-tour Vietnam veteran who was wounded by a mortar shell, Van Wey said he got into law enforcement out of respect for a military friend killed by a drunken driver as soon as he returned from Vietnam.
"He always wanted to be a cop like his dad and brothers," said the agent. "Every drug is bad but I singled out heroin. Once you use heroin, you're basically done."
10/27/00
Proceedings in mandate after superior court denied motion to compel prosecutor to provide copies of material to the defense. William D. Mudd, Judge.
Westerfield requested that the prosecutor provide him copies of all images seized by the police. (Pen. Code,1 § 1054.1, subd. (c).) Refusing the request on the basis that the duplication and distribution would violate the child pornography statute, section 311.1,2 the deputy district attorney nevertheless permitted defense counsel to view the images at the FBI's computer crimes office in the presence of law enforcement representatives who remained in the room and monitored their activities.
Westerfield moved to compel production and copying of the computer and video images so that his attorneys could view them privately, have them examined by experts and talk confidentially.
After reviewing binders of the images provided by the People, the court denied the motion pointing out that (a) the People had agreed to provide Westerfield's attorneys unfettered access to the images and to remove law enforcement personnel from the room during the defense examination of the material, and (b) any defense expert would be able to sift through the material quickly and determine which images the People might seek to introduce at trial.
The court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction to order the prosecutor to duplicate and/or turn over the images to the defense and the copying and dissemination would violate section 311.l.
Trial is set for May 17.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature and thus effectuate the purpose of the law. We start by looking to the plain meaning of the statutory language and, if further analysis is necessary, apply a reasonable and common sense interpretation and avoid absurdity.
The obvious intent of the Legislature in enacting section 311.1, subdivision (a) was to criminalize the publication and/or distribution of material depicting minors engaged in sexual activities. If the statute extended to the criminal action itself, however, there would be no conceivable way for the state to try these cases or for the alleged child- pornographers to defend against the charges.
Nothing in the plain language of section 311.1 prohibits the copying of the images for use by the defense in preparing for trial. The People's interpretation of the statute -- that the deputy district attorney would violate the law if he copied the images for the defense -- not only defeats the purpose of the law and EXALTS ABSURDITY OVER COMMON SENSE, BUT IT IS ALSO LOGICALLY FLAWED.
Finally, requiring the defense to view -- and apparently commit to memory -- the "thousands" of images at the computer crimes office obviously impacts Westerfield's right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to a speedy trial.
Let a writ issue directing the superior court to vacate its April 25, 2002 ruling and enter an order requiring the prosecution to provide copies of the computer and video images to the defense.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
McCONNELL, J.
Filed 5/8/02 Ordered published by the Supreme Court 6/26/02
END OF DOCUMENT
"EXALTS ABSURDITY OVER COMMON SENSE, BUT IT IS ALSO LOGICALLY FLAWED"
You could use that phrase to sum up the entire trial and jury verdict.
Notice the date Ordered published - 6/26/02 - That was the day Judge Mudd told the jury that Feldman had misled them regarding the number of images and therefore he was allowing them to have access to all of the porn during deliberations, if they requested them. Which they did.
Yes that does sum it up. Mudd, and Dusek misled the jury. Reading Dusek's statments makes that exceedingly clear. He tells the jurors that he will show them how this crime happened and when. In the end he has to tell them "We don't know how, when or where, we just know he did." Despite what many here think, if that is the shape of the judicial system today, we are in more trouble than we thought.
"Explaining it to the boys is hard, especially the oldest (son)," Damon van Dam said. "We hope she comes back ... but regardless of that, we have still have two wonderful boys to bring up."
Interview on 2/13/02..eleven days after Danielle went missing.
That Damon, what a father...
Okay, it's Dusek Time once again, so get ready to count the lies and misrepresentations. Today the topic is ALIBI, focusing on Dr. Hall and Dr. Goff, so you know Dusek will be lying his ass off.
I've included Goff for comparison value, since Dusek doesn't seem to want to acknowledge the man in any positive way. He is much more interested in making Dr. Hall out to be a liar who is "hiding something", despite the fact that Goff and Hall basically agree on the one data set Goff used.
News articles reported the jurors "rolling their eyes" and "loudly exhaling" after Hall's responses at the end of Dusek's cross-exam. Furthermore, in interviews after the trial, Hall was labeled as "just not believable" by the jurors.
FROM DR. GOFF'S TESTIMONY ON JULY 30, 2002
8968, 8970
22 MR. DUSEK: SO THAT'S THE RANGE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE US
23 BASED UPON THE DATA AT SINGING HILLS?
24 DR. GOFF: BASED ON SINGING HILLS.
1 Q. SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DATES MEAN, WHAT DO THE
2 DATES REFER TO THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US HERE? FEBRUARY 12TH?
3 A. FEBRUARY 12TH REFERS TO THE PERIOD OF TIME WHERE AT
4 BOTH 16.1 AND 23 DEGREES CELSIUS THE MAGGOTS WOULD HAVE REACHED
5 THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRD INSTAR.
FROM DR. HALL'S TESTIMONY ON AUGUST 1, 2002
MR. DUSEK: NOW COULD YOU GIVE US THE DATE FOR 16.1?
DR. HALL: ...66.3 WOULD HAVE EQUATED TO ABOUT THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY USING ANDERSON'S DATA AT 16.1 DEGREES.
Q. WHAT DATE WOULD YOU GET FOR 23 DEGREES NOW?
A. ...FROM ANDERSON'S DATA AT 23 DEGREES WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 68.6 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT A BASE 10 TO REACH THE THIRD INSTAR.
AND ACCORDING TO THE TEMPERATURES AT SINGING HILLS,...THERE WERE 66.4 DEGREES ACCUMULATED OVER THE 13TH AND 71.4 OVER THE 12TH....SO I WOULD PUT THAT ON THE 13TH ALSO.
Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WOULD? ISN'T THERE SOME COMPUTATION THAT GIVES YOU A FINAL DATE?
A. I JUST GAVE IT. I JUST DID.
Q. YOU SAID YOU WOULD GIVE US THE 13TH OF FEBRUARY. YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THESE FLIES DEVELOP AT THE SAME RATE REGARDLESS OF THE TEMPERATURE?
A. NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
Q. ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THE STUDIES UPON WHICH YOU RELY SHOW THAT THE FLIES DEVELOP AT 16 DEGREES AT THE SAME RATE AS THEY DO AT 23 DEGREES?
A. NO, SIR. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.
Q. DO THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES?
A. THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES.
Q. AND IF THEY DEVELOP AT DIFFERENT RATES, SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE DIFFERENT TIMES WHEN THEY ENTER THE THIRD INSTAR?
FROM DUSEK'S CLOSING ARGUMENT AUG. 6, 2002
9389 - 9390
18 WE GET TO DR. GOFF AND DR. HALL, AND BASICALLY THEY
19 DID WHAT YOU'D WANT AN EXPERT TO DO IN THIS CASE, ALTHOUGH
20 ROBERT HALL TRIED TO HIDE IT. AND BY THAT I'M SUGGESTING THIS.
25 ...YOU BRING IN AN EXPERT AND WHAT DO YOU WANT HIM
26 TO DO? LET'S GIVE ME ALL OF THE INFORMATION SO YOU FOLKS WILL
27 HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION TO DECIDE. COMPUTE IT FOR BOTH
28 FLIES...
1 COMPUTE IT FOR SINGING HILLS TEMPERATURES. COMPUTE IT FOR BROWN
2 FIELD TEMPERATURES AND COMPUTE IT FOR THE VARYING OTHER
3 TEMPERATURES WITH KAMAL, GREENBURG AND ANDERSON....
4 ...EXPLAIN THOSE ANSWERS. LET THE JURY KNOW WHY ONE YOU
5 THINK IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER...
6 THAT'S WHAT DR. GOFF DID. HE GAVE US SINGING HILLS. HE GAVE US
7 BROWN FIELD. HE GAVE US THE TIME PERIODS.
8 I THINK THE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT...
9 ...WERE ALL OF THE TIMES BASED UPON HIS CALCULATIONS WHICH WERE
10 NOT AFFECTED BY HIS MATH ERRORS IS WHEN THEY ENTERED THAT THIRD
11 IN-STAR PERIOD. THE NUMBER ON THE LEFT BASED UPON HIS
12 CALCULATION IS WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE COMMITTED THE THIRD IN-STAR
13 PERIOD...
15 ...THEY WERE AT 17.2
16 WHEN 18 WAS THE END OF THE LINE. THEY'RE ALMOST THERE. AND YOU
17 START THAT PHASE AT 11 MILLIMETERS, I THINK IT WAS. SO THEY HAD
18 ALREADY REACHED IT. ALMOST A MILLIMETER A DAY COULD GET THROUGH
19 THAT NINE-DAY PERIOD...
25 DR. GOFF DID WHAT YOU'D WANT AN EXPERT TO DO...
Even though Dusek mentions "KAMAL, GREENBURG AND ANDERSON"
Goff only uses temperature data from Anderson.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. FELDMAN: YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU USED ANDERSON, RIGHT?
DR. GOFF: THAT'S CORRECT.
Q BECAUSE ANDERSON IS A 2000 STUDY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q AND IN YOUR VIEW ANDERSON IS MORE RELIABLE OR MORE
ACCURATE THAN KAMAL.
A FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE THE TEMPERATURES
AT WHICH SHE REARED THE FLIES ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE
TEMPERATURES WITH WHICH WE'RE WORKING, I REGARD HER DATA AS
BEING MORE RELIABLE.
Q BUT WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR BOOK, YOU RELIED UPON KAMAL,
DIDN'T YOU?
A YES. MY BOOK WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO ANDERSON'S DATA.
Q WELL, YOUR BOOK WAS WRITTEN UTILIZING THE KAMAL DATA
I THINK HAS BEEN AROUND YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT SINCE THE
FIFTIES. RIGHT?
A 1958 WAS THE PUBLICATION DATE.
Q SO...YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
WHATEVER IT TOOK YOU TO WRITE THE BOOK RELIED UPON THAT DATA
THAT'S HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERGO PEER REVIEW FOR
APPROXIMATELY A HALF A CENTURY, ISN'T THAT RIGHT?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q THE ANDERSON DATA HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AS HAS KAMAL, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A NO.
Q THERE'S ALSO GREENBERG DATA THAT -- DID YOU CONSIDER
IN YOUR REPORT, SIR?
A I LOOKED AT THE DATA IN GREENBERG, 1991, AND THE DATA
THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE HE PRESENTS IN A VERY
UNUSUAL FORM AS BEING AVERAGE MINIMUMS. AND THIS DOESN'T
REALLY DELIMIT WHAT IT IS WE'RE LOOKING AT AND TEMPERATURES FOR
VARYING WERE DIFFERENT.
In regards to Dr. Gail Anderson's data, in 1998 she authored a paper in which she examined an actual case and her findings then were quite a bit different.
In that report she stated it took 10 days at 15 degrees Celsius for a Regina fly to reach the end of the third instar. This new report states it would now take 18 days at 15 degrees Celsius.
This method of determining elapsed time since death using insect evidence can be demonstrated using an actual case. Human remains were found in mid October (October 12th)...All sizes of larvae were collected and three pupae. These were pale in colour so had only just pupated. No puparia were found. The mean temperature at the death site was 15oC.
Using the same techniques for Phormia regina, the oldest specimens of which were in the pupal stage when collected, it was calculated that Phormia regina was oviposited no later than 3 October.
9390 - 9392
27 ...CONTRARY TO DR. HALL...
1 ...WE HEARD...FEBRUARY 12 THROUGH 23,
2 THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD....
4 ...HE DID THE COMPUTATIONS FOR BOTH FLIES,
5 FOR SINGING HILLS AND HE TOLD US ALSO FOR BROWN FIELD.
6 HE SAID HE DID THE COMPUTATION FOR ENTERING THE
7 THIRD IN-STAR AND FOR EXITING THE THIRD IN-STAR BUT DECIDED --
8 THE DEFENSE DECIDES YOU GUYS DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW THAT...
14 ALL YOU FOLKS NEED TO KNOW, ACCORDING TO DR. HALL,
15 IS THAT FEBRUARY 12TH TO 23RD DATE. YOU GUYS PROBABLY CAN'T
16 FIGURE OUT THE REST OF THE STUFF. BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT IT WE CAN
17 FIGURE IT OUT REAL EASY. WE CAN SEE THAT IT TAKES NINE DAYS TO
18 GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THAT THIRD IN-STAR PERIOD.
19 WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. WE CAN SEE HOW DOWN THROUGH UNDER
20 ANDERSON AT 16 DEGREES, THE APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE...
21 THE 61 DEGREES WHICH WAS EVEN A LITTLE HIGH FOR THE AVERAGE AT
22 SINGING HILLS, ENTERS THE THIRD IN-STAR ON FEBRUARY 13TH.
You might want to pause and take a breath because Dusek is loading up
a whopper that you don't want to miss.
You ready? Dusek continues...
24 DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO IT. HE GAVE YOU A MOUTHFUL OF ALL THE
25 NUMBERS, ALL OF THE THERMAL UNITS, ALL OF THE COMPUTATIONS BUT
26 ...HE DIDN'T PUT A DATE AND HE'D
27 ASK YOU TO BELIEVE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME. YEAH, SURE.
28 IF HE'D HAVE PUT A DATE THERE HE KNOWS HIS CLIENT WOULD BE
1 GUILTY. HE KNOWS THE PROMISE WOULD HAVE BEEN BROKEN. THAT'S
2 WHY HE DIDN'T PUT HIS DATE THERE. AND INSTEAD, WE HEAR FEBRUARY
3 12TH THROUGH 23RD. JEEZ, HOW DO WE EVEN GET THAT? WHERE IS THE
4 12TH UP THERE? ARE YOU JUST MAKING THAT UP? HE COULDN'T FIGURE
5 IT OUT. THANK GOODNESS HE WAS THE LAST ONE TO TESTIFY AFTER WE
6 HAD A CHANCE TO LISTEN TO EVERYBODY ELSE.
The date Dusek is talking about does not exist, due to Anderson's data being so far out of whack with all the other temperature studies in her field.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. DUSEK: WHY DIDN'T YOU TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHEN THE EXITING THE THIRD INSTAR UNDER ANDERSON'S DATA WHICH USES TEMPERATURES IN THE 60-DEGREE OR 61-DEGREE RANGE?
DR. HALL: WELL, I'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WITH THE PHORMIA REGINA I CALCULATED THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE AT 16.1 DEGREES ABOUT 93.4 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT A BASE 10...
AT 23 DEGREES HER DATA WOULD REFLECT 103.8 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS AT BASE 10.
AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THERMAL ENERGY AVAILABLE AT SINGING HILLS WAS 86.9
SO WITH ANDERSON'S DATA SET THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT ENERGY FOR THE FLIES TO GET OUT OF THE THIRD INSTAR.
9394
10 THE SECOND CATEGORY OF WITNESSES THAT HELPED DETERMINE A TIME OF
11 DEATH AS WE WERE TOLD TO CHECK WITH, DR. BLACKBOURNE, A FORENSIC
12 PATHOLOGIST, A FELLOW WHO DID THE AUTOPSY. HE'S THE MEDICAL
13 DOCTOR. HE SAW HER BODY. HE SAW THE CONDITION IT WAS IN, HOW
14 BADLY SHE WAS MUMMIFIED. YOU DON'T NEED TO SEE IT AGAIN.
15 THAT'S NOT A FRESH KILL. THAT TOOK A WHILE TO GET THERE. THAT
16 IS NOT A BODY THAT'S OUT THERE FOR LESS THAN A WEEK.
17 ON THE 23RD WE HEARD FROM DR. HALL, AND AFTER IT
18 HAD BEEN OUT THERE FOUR DAYS TO GET TO THAT CONDITION. DR.
19 BLACKBOURNE TOLD YOU THAT. HIS ESTIMATE NECESSARILY BROUGHT TEN 20 DAYS TO SIX WEEKS.
21 ...THAT DOESN'T SATISFY THE PROMISE, THE
22 IMPOSSIBILITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. DR. BLACKBOURNE COULDN'T
23 USE THE STANDARD TEST TO DETERMINE TIME OF DEATH BECAUSE SHE WAS
24 SO OLD, SO MUMMIFIED, SO FAR GONE.
Here is another Dusek fabrication. He states that Dr. Hall said the body had been out at the dumpsite for 4 days. Since the fly larvae was in the third instar, Dr. Hall was giving the range of dates, from beginning to end. Feb. 23rd was the beginning according to Kamal's data set. Everyone had already agreed that the larvae were near the end.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR.DUSEK: LET'S GO BACK TO KAMAL'S DATA THERE ON THE REGINA FLY. ENTERS THE THIRD INSTAR AT FEBRUARY 23RD, CORRECT?
DR. HALL: ...WHEN YOU SAY IT ENTERS THE THIRD INSTAR ON FEBRUARY 23RD, THAT CAN BE CONFUSING. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT...IN THE AMOUNT OF TEMPERATURE REFLECTED BY THE WEATHER STATION AT SINGING HILLS, THAT THERE WAS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TEMPERATURE, IN OTHER WORDS, 32.7 ACCUMULATED DEGREE DAYS, WHICH, ACCORDING TO KAMAL, WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR PHORMIA REGINA TO HAVE ENTERED THE THIRD INSTAR IF THE EGGS HAD BEEN LAID AS LATE AS 23 FEBRUARY.
Q SO THE FLY HAD ALREADY PASSED THROUGH ALL OF THOSE OTHER STAGES IN FOUR DAYS?
A YES.
9617 - 9618
20 LET'S START WITH THE BUGS RIGHT NOW. THAT CHART IS
21 NOT RIGHT. THAT IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF WHAT THOSE PEOPLE
22 TALKED ABOUT, OF WHAT THEY SAID. IT'S SLICK. IT'S NICE. BUT
23 IT IS WRONG.
24 LEE GOFF, 9TH THROUGH THE 14TH OF FEBRUARY. I
25 DON'T THINK SO. LEE GOFF EXTENDED IT OUT HERE AT SINGING HILLS
26 TEMPERATURES FROM FEBRUARY 2ND THROUGH FEBRUARY 12TH, SINGING
27 HILLS. THAT'S GOT TO BE EXPANDED IF WE'RE GOING ON ALL THE
28 EVIDENCE, BOTH COMPUTATIONS AT BOTH TEMPERATURES AT SINGING
1 HILLS THE BEST TEMPERATURE.
2 DR. HALL, IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT CERTAINLY MATCHES
3 THE LITTLE TIMEFRAME HE PUT IN HIS REPORT AND HE TRIED TO STICK
4 TO, THE FEBRUARY 12TH THROUGH 23RD. BUT WHEN WE SAW HIS
5 CALCULATIONS, IF YOU RECALL, HE'S THE ONE THAT HE SAID HE DID
6 NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE THE CALCULATIONS...
7 ... BALONEY, HE HAD ENOUGH TIME...
8 ...TO DO IT IF HE WANTED TO. HE'S ONE THAT TELLS US NINE DAYS
9 FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD IN-STAR. HE SAYS THAT
10 TAKES US BACK TO THE FIRST PART OF FEBRUARY.
11 WE'RE STARTING TO GET SOME CONCORDANCE NOW? YES,
12 WE ARE.
Did Goff say Feb. 2nd? Not Exactly. He came up with a new term, "PRIOR TO" Feb. 2nd.
That's what you say when your data just won't add up the way you want it to.
No matter, that jury could care less.
Here is the relevant testimony:
MR. FELDMAN: ...YOU NOTE
THAT IT REQUIRES AT ...23 DEGREES CELSIUS
2492.1 HOURS. IS THAT RIGHT?
DR. GOFF: 23 DEGREES CELSIUS TO REACH THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE.
Q. ON FEBRUARY THE 2ND ON YOUR DATA YOU NOTE 2117.4
HOURS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A. ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, YES.
Q. ...YOU'RE TELLING US
THAT IN ORDER FOR...THE BUGS TO DEVELOP TO THE
PREPUPARIAL STAGE, THEY HAVE TO AGGREGATE A.D.H. B-10 HOURS IN
THE NUMBER OF 2492.1 BASED ON ANDERSON'S STUDIES. CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. HOWEVER, IN YOUR OWN WORK AND IN YOUR OWN EVALUATION,
YOU ONLY ACCUMULATED 2117.4 HOURS, ISN'T THAT TRUE?
A YES.
Q. SO WOULDN'T THAT ADVANCE YOUR DAY FROM THE 2ND TO THE
1ST?
A. IN ALL PROBABILITY IF WE WERE USING THE 23 DEGREES
WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE IS AN APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE, YES.
Q IN FACT, AT 16 DEGREES YOU NEED 2242.4 HOURS, RIGHT?
A YES.
Q BUT YOU STILL DON'T REACH IT BECAUSE YOUR NUMBER
CONTINUES TO BE 2117.4, CORRECT?
A CORRECT.
9620 - 9621
11 WE GET TO LEE GOFF. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT HIS
12 NUMBERS THEY GO BACK TO EARLY FEBRUARY....
13 ABSOLUTE ESTIMATE. MINIMUM EXPOSURE TO WHEN THE EGGS ARE LAID
14 ON THE BODY. AND HE'S THE ONE THAT STARTS EXPLAINING HEY, YOU
15 KNOW, EGGS ARE HERE IN THE STOMACH. SOMEBODY HAD TO GET TO THAT
16 BODY FIRST AND OPEN IT UP AND GIVE US A PLACE FOR THESE FLIES TO
17 GO. THEY CERTAINLY DIDN'T GO TO THE HEAD...
22 SOMETHING WAS WRONG HERE. SOMETHING IS OUT OF THE
23 ORDINARY, AND WE KNOW IT'S THE WEATHER CONDITIONS AND THE DRYING
24 OF THIS YOUNG SMALL CHILD WHICH MADE HER UNATTRACTIVE UNTIL SHE
25 WAS OPENED UP...
2 HALL EVEN TELLS US THE SAME THING. HE MADE HIS
3 CALCULATIONS BEGINNING AND END OF THAT THIRD IN-STAR. WHERE HE
4 COMES UP WITH HIS 12 TO 23 DAY IT DOESN'T MATCH HIS COMPUTATIONS
5 ON ANY OF THEM. HOW COME THE BUGS WEREN'T IN THE HEAD? I DON'T
6 HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR THAT. SURE, HE DID. HE DIDN'T WANT TO
7 GIVE IT TO YOU. EXPLANATION IS THE BODY WAS MUMMIFIED...
Of course there are very reasonable explanations for why the flies weren't in the head and below I have included one of them. After reading it you might see why Feldman would shy away from bringing this up in court and as for Dusek, well he is a liar after all.
The usual sites of oviposition on dead humans are natural openings. Even here there is preference. Blowflies will most often lay their eggs in the facial region, and more seldom in the genitoanal region. If there is a sexual assault prior to death, leading to bleeding in the genitoanal region, blowflies will be more likely to oviposit in these regions.
9636 - 9637
25 ...DR. HALL, CALLED TO THE
26 STAND ANOTHER LAWYER,...
27 HE DOESN'T MAKE THAT FINAL COMPUTATION. THAT LOWER RIGHT-HAND
28 CORNER. HE SAYS HE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME. BALONEY. THAT'S
1 NOT THE EXCUSE...
2 ...HE HAD TIME TO DO...EVERY OTHER
3 COMPUTATION. BUT THE ONE THAT BURIES HIS CLIENT, HE DIDN'T DO.
4 THE ONE THAT TOTALLY REFUTES WHAT, TWO WEEKS OF TESTIMONY...
5 ...JEEZ, MAYBE THEY WON'T
6 FIGURE THIS ONE OUT. MAYBE THEY'LL JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS ON
7 MY REPORT. MAYBE I CAN BLOW THIS ONE BY HIM. BUT HE COULDN'T.
8 THAT'S THE QUALITY OF THE CASE YOU GOT FROM THE DEFENSE.
You may have noticed that Dusek kept repeating "NINE DAYS" over and over. Of course, being a Dusekian argument it is full of contradictions.
The problem with the argument is that Dusek states that it takes "NINE DAYS" to go from the beginning to the end of the third instar, using both Kamal (80 deg.) and Anderson's (61 deg.) data. Even though, according to Dusek, flies develop twice as fast using Kamal's. data set.
Here is the relevant testimony:
Q. KAMAL'S DATA IT TAKES NINE DAYS OR SO TO GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD INSTAR, CORRECT?
A. THAT'S CORRECT.
Q. AND ANDERSON IT TAKES APPROXIMATELY NINE DAYS TO GET FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THIRD INSTAR, WOULDN'T IT?
A. THAT'S WHAT THE DATA REFLECT, YES, SIR.
Q. AND IF WE TAKE NINE DAYS, GO BACK NINE MORE DAYS FROM FEBRUARY 13TH, WHAT DO WE GET TO?
A. YOU GET TO ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY.
NEXT: ALIBI - PART THREE, DR. HASKELL
I thought that guy was pretty credible.
I believe that was Haskell. He is the guy the folks who "know" DW is guilty really hate. He didn't show the psychotic DA enough respect.
Part 3 is about Haskell and how he made a fool of Dusek. Judge Mudd was really exposed as biased during Haskell's cross-exam as well.
I thought that guy was pretty credible.
Actually, everyone except for Rodriguez, was credible. The problem with the dates was a brand new temp. study that Dr. Gail Anderson published in 2000. It doubled the amount of thermal energy required for fly development. It needs some serious "Peer Review".
I thought he was pretty credible, as was faulkner...as you said rodriguez was a joke.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/danielle/witnesses.html
I find it incredible that he was deemed a "credible" witness.
Here's a link I found while reading your posts.
The following testimony in my opinion casts "REASONABLE DOUBT" on all the dog and human hair evidence for two reasons:
ONE, the testimony from Det. Keene shows DW to only have been home for 30 minutes, before Det. Tallman and Wray approached him. They stayed with him until Keene arrived 20 minutes later.
There was no time for DW to wash and finish drying a load of laundry, therefore he must of cleaned the lint filter BEFORE he started the dryer.
TWO, the testimony from Dulaney depicts the hairs as being "EMBEDDED INSIDE THE LINT", proving that it had come from a load done earlier than Monday Feb. 4th, 2002.
FROM DET. KEENE'S TESTIMONY ON JUNE 11, 2002
THE WITNESS: JOHNNY F. KEENE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: AND WHAT TIME DID YOU RESPOND...?
A: 9:00 O'CLOCK.
Q: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN YOU GOT THERE?
A: WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED...AT THE NORTHEASTERN SUBSTATION, I WAS PROBABLY THERE FOR
ABOUT...TEN, FIFTEEN MINUTES.
AND THEN I WAS ASKED TO RESPOND BACK TO THE SABRE SPRINGS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WAS TOLD THAT MEMBERS OF OUR SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT WAS TALKING WITH
MR. WESTERFIELD IN HIS DRIVEWAY.
ABOUT WHAT TIME DO YOU THINK IT WAS WHEN YOU MADE CONTACT WITH THE DEFENDANT?
A: APPROXIMATELY 9:20, 9:25 MONDAY MORNING.
Q: AND DID HE INDICATE ABOUT WHAT TIME HE GOT HOME?
A: HE SAID HE GOT HOME, HE THOUGHT HE GOT HOME APPROXIMATELY 8:30 MONDAY MORNING.
Q: WHAT DID HE SAY REGARDING THE REST OF HIS MORNING ONCE HE GOT HOME?
A: AGAIN HE STATED THAT HE TOOK A SHOWER, SAID HE DID ONE LOAD OF LAUNDRY.
HE STATED THAT HE HAD THROWN THAT LOAD IN THE DRYER BUT THE DRYER HADN'T
WORKED WELL BECAUSE THE LINT FILTER WAS FULL AND THAT HE HAD CLEANED
THE LINT FILTER AND STARTED THAT LOAD OF LAUNDRY OVER IN THE DRYER.
Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN CLEAN THE LINT FILTER?
A: HE SAID THE LINT FILTER WAS FULL OF LINT, SO HE PULLED THE LINT FILTER
OUT, CLEANED THE LINT OFF, THREW IT AWAY, AND PUT THE LINT FILTER BACK IN THE DRYER.
Q: THAT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER HE STARTED DOING HIS LAUNDRY?
A: WELL, THAT WAS AFTER THE FIRST LOAD OF LAUNDRY. HE HAD THROWN THAT
LOAD IN THE DRYER AND ATTEMPTED TO DRY IT.
FROM MS. DULANEY'S TESTIMONY ON JUNE 24, 2002
5965
16 BY MR. CLARKE:
17 MS. DULANEY, I THINK WE HAD LEFT OFF WITH YOU HAD
18 DESCRIBED EXAMINING LINT FROM A TRASH CAN IN MR. WESTERFIELD'S
19 GARAGE, NO. 13, CORRECT?
20 A. YES.
21 Q. DID YOU FIND ANY HAIRS IN THAT LINT?
22 A. YES, I DID.
23 Q. DESCRIBE THEM PLEASE.
24 A. I FOUND THREE HUMAN HAIRS THAT ARE BLOND AND I ALSO
25 FOUND 18 DOG HAIRS.
27 ... THREE HUMAN HAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT?
28 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
5967
10 Q. NOW, THE THREE HUMAN HAIRS; IN ITEM 13, THE LINT,
11 WHERE WERE THEY FOUND BY YOU IN THE LINT?
12 A. TO EXAMINE THE LINT I HAD TO USE A STEREO
13 MICROSCOPE FOR LOW POWER MAGNIFICATION. THAT'S MAGNIFICATION UP
14 TO 60 TIMES. AND IN ORDER TO LOOK THROUGH THE LINT, I HAD TO
15 TAKE PIECES OF IT AND PUT IT UNDER THE MICROSCOPE AND TEASE IT
16 APART WITH FORCEPS, SO EVERYTHING THAT I FOUND INSIDE THE LINT I
17 FOUND BY TEASING IT APART, SO IT WAS ALL EMBEDDED INSIDE THE LINT.
5968
13 Q. I THINK YOU ALSO SAID THAT IN THE LINT YOU FOUND
14 ANIMAL HAIRS; IS THAT CORRECT?
15 A. THAT'S CORRECT.
16 Q. HOW MANY?
17 A. I FOUND 18 ANIMAL HAIRS.
Yes. What I should have stated was that he was out in the desert, he was within hearing and visible range of other campers, who filmed his MH with the windows and doors open. He was not parked in the next parking space to them, as there is no such thing in the desert, just open sand.
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.