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.
We could open with that song and close with "Love me Tender"
We need a set
And costumes
Hows this for Damon?
Or this
Brenda's outfit will be a little harder..I got a porn warning while I was looking so I opted for the girls night out look
Big Ol' "Actions Have Consequences" Bump
And now, by discrediting their own heavily used and heretofore thoroughly respected expert witnesses, they are completely negating any further use-- or at least believability by future jurors when these same guys are called to be witnesses for the prosecution.
By trying too hard to indicate that the interpretation of forensic evidence is highly speculative, subjective to each "expert," hopelessly inexact, and even unscientific, Jeff Dusek has singlehandedly reduced the level of forensic entomology and even forensic anthropology to that of psychic. (Hello, Miss Cleo? When do you think that body was dumped?)
Puzzling, to say the least.
"Victory, at all costs!" (Pfingst's war cry)
So what do the BVD's call their new show?
PARENTING FOR DUMMIES
..of course!
sw
Review by Mark Benecke, International Forensic Research & Consulting
Source: Quaterly Review of Biology 76:65-66
"A Fly for the Prosecution. How insect evidence helps solve crimes". By M. Lee Goff. Harvard Universtiy Press, Cambridge, MA, and London, UK (2000). Drawings by Amy Bartlett Wright. ISBN 0-674-00220-2, vii + 225 pages; ill.; index; USD 22.95
The more pressure is put on scientists to publish in scientific journals, or else to perish, the less likely it gets that an excellent popular science book like A Fly for the Prosecution is written. Being one of the old masters of forensic entomology -- that is, the science of determining post mortem intervals, and many other issues related to mostly violent death --, Lee Goff leads us through his exciting and at the same time entertaining world that strongly depends on silent crime scene assistants: maggots, adult flies and beetles, and once in a while a grasshopper, too. Many of these animals are attracted to decomposing body tissue. Their growth rate, and their succession are predictable, and can therfore be used to estimate the time when they started to feed on a corpse, or the time they got attracted to the body for other reasons like predating maggots, or building breeding chambers. This allows a precise estimate of the time of death. In other situations, insect parts can be used as a criminalistic stain that liks a suspect to a crime scene. One of Goff's cases illustrates this -- the leg of a grasshopper found in a pant's cuff of a suspect had a fracture mark matching exacly a grasshopper body on a corpse. Goff, who is not only a charming writer but also a highly experienced scientist, gives many more case examples, mainly from Hawai'i where he is a professor for entomology, and a consultant to the Chief Medical Examiner. The book also covers his important work on the influence of contrasting habitats on the development of insects on corpses, and on the presence of toxins that can only be found in blowfly maggots after total decomposition of a body.
Forensic entomology is practized by only few people worldwide, and the scientific work that has to be performed before casework can be solved, and successfully used in trials, is immense. A Special Issue of Forensic Science International on this topic (http://www.benecke.com/fespecial.html) covers the current state of the art, and the latest scientific results, including Goff's recent work.
Yes, it's nice to be able to get some Monday morning work done, for a change.
sw
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.