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

Skip to comments.

Prosecution's Bug Expert Struggles On Stand:08/01/2002 Westefield Trial Nears Finish Lap!
Court TV ^ | August 1, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

Posted on 07/31/2002 9:20:15 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Prosecution's bug expert struggles on stand

Photo
Forensic entomologist Madison Lee Goff, left, testifies for the prosecution at the trial of David Westerfield.

SAN DIEGO — The insect expert prosecutors hoped would destroy David Westerfield's chances for acquittal stumbled badly during his turn on the witness stand Tuesday, capping confusing, overly technical testimony with the admission he made basic math errors in his findings.

Madison Lee Goff, one of the most experienced scientists in the small field of forensic entomology, blushed a deep red as a defense lawyer for the man accused of killing Danielle van Dam repeatedly confronted him with five separate errors in data he used to analyze bugs collected at the 7-year-old's autopsy.

"I made a mistake adding," said Goff, the chair of the forensic science department at Honolulu's Chaminade University and one of only nine certified forensic entomologists in North America.

Entomology has become a battleground as Westerfield's two-month long capital murder trial draws to a close. The strongest evidence for the defense comes from this field in which insect specialists use the age of maggots and flies decomposing a body to help determine a time of death. Danielle, abducted from her bedroom Feb. 1, was missing 26 days and when her body was finally found, the medical examiner was unable to pinpoint when she was killed. Two forensic entomologists hired by the defense said their analyses suggested her body was dumped along a roadside in mid-February, long after Westerfield was under constant police surveillance.

Prosecutors, who have a pile of other evidence against Westerfield, including hair, blood and fingerprint evidence, hired Goff soon after the first defense entomologist testified.

Goff said Tuesday he disagreed with the conclusions of both defense experts, but the time frame he offered, Feb. 9 to Feb. 14, was only slightly earlier than theirs and did not neatly fit the prosecution's theory that Danielle was killed between Feb. 2 and Feb. 4 while Westerfield claims he was on a solo camping trip. Prosecutor Jeff Dusek had to question his own expert in much the same way as he cross-examined the defense experts, hinting that variables in the weather and the disposal of Danielle's body cast doubt on the certainty of any entomological findings.

Goff agreed that very hot, very dry weather conditions in San Diego in February might have mummified Danielle's 58-pound body almost immediately and that flies may not have been attracted to the desiccated body. A forensic anthropologist, called by the prosecution last week to cast doubt on the bug evidence, said the insects may have arrived later and only after coyotes and other animals began scavenging her body and Goff said this scenario seemed possible.

He also said a covering, such as a blanket, might have kept flies at bay initially. No covering was found and Goff later said the longest delay by such a shroud was two and a half days.

Much of his testimony was a detailed view into the mathematical nuts and bolts of his conclusions. Goff did not look at the bugs himself. Instead, he reviewed photos and the reports of the defense experts. He told jurors he came up with four separate time lines based on two different temperatures at two separate locations, a golf course a mile and a half from the crime scene and National Weather Service station farther away.

Goff's testimony bounced between these four sets of findings and even after he said the lower temperature and the weather service station provided the most reliable, appropriate date, it was often unclear which findings he was referring to. He peppered his speech with entomological jargon like "accumulated degree hours" and referred to blowflies by their the Latin names. He talked about temperatures in Celsius degrees, frequently prompting Dusek to ask for a Fahrenheit translation. Much of his work seemed lost on jurors, who stopped taking notes early on in his testimony.

On cross-examination, defense lawyer Steven Feldman grilled him about the way he calculated the day-to-day temperatures which dictate how fast an insect grows. Goff explained the process, but then Feldman handed him a pocket calculator and asked him to review his findings. With the courtroom completely silent, Goff added rows of figures and discovered his errors. Feldman asked him if the mistakes effected the accuracy of his estimates and Goff said they did. Several jurors picked up their notebooks and began writing rapidly.

A few minutes later, under questioning by Dusek, Goff said the slip ups made little difference in the ultimate conclusions. And as he had earlier in his testimony, he emphasized to jurors that his was an extremely narrow study of bugs, not a "stopwatch" for determining time of death.

"We're establishing a minimum period of time the insects have been feeding on the body," said Goff.

"Are you establishing a time of death?" asked prosecutor Jeff Dusek.

"No, that's outside our area of expertise," said Goff.

Danielle's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, watched most of the testimony from the back row of the courtroom, occasionally flinching as Goff described the condition of their daughter's remains.

The prosecution rested its rebuttal case after Goff's testimony. There will be no witnesses Wednesday and the defense will put on its sur-rebuttal case Thursday. Closing arguments could happen as early as next Monday.

Also Tuesday, a lab technician testified that orange clothes some law enforcement officers wore when searching Westerfield's house were not the source of fibers found in both the defendant's home and in Danielle's necklace.

The trial is being broadcast live on Court TV.



TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: bugguys; daniellevandam; davidwesterfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,041-1,044 next last
To: demsux
If body is enclosed, the bugs wouldn't have an effect for 4 days? (dont' quote me, garbled, lost feed)
141 posted on 08/01/2002 9:39:00 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
What would you do about the child porn charges? (I understand that we have not been privy to the questionable images, but going on assumption that they really are child porn)

  Well, knowing what we know here (which is different from what the jury has heard), I would probably return not guilty, but nowhere near as easily as I would on the kidnap/murder charge.

  First off, I think the guy's been railroaded, and would be loathe to give the prosecution even the minor victory - which I grant is not supposed to figure into a juror's reasoning, but there you go... Secondly, some of the pictures shown were recovered deleted files, which argues, to me at least, that he'd downloaded them as part of a bundle, seen what they were, and got rid of them (that calculation would change immensely if they were deleted after 2 Feb.) Given that, I'd probably be inclined to suspect the others were downloaded similarly.

  The guy has a porn habit, which I find distasteful, but doesn't appear to be a kiddie porn collector. That, combined with my disgust at the prosecution, would likely lead me to return not guilty.

Drew Garrett

142 posted on 08/01/2002 9:39:03 AM PDT by agarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
Wow KIM...

This BUG-GUY from the State of Missouri is really kicking Dusek's EGGSPURTS in the acorns.....

LOL

Is this better....sorry, I had my hearing aid turned down...../so


143 posted on 08/01/2002 9:39:40 AM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
He sure is ringing Dusie's bells. It also helps that he speaks to/for the layman.
144 posted on 08/01/2002 9:41:08 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: FresnoDA
ROFLOL
145 posted on 08/01/2002 9:41:21 AM PDT by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: demsux
Feldman...hypothetically, if a child was killed feb 1-4, stored in a storage compartment, dumped nude on dehesa... ????

witness: if body was dumped at night, blowflies would attack as soon as opportunity presented itself..

Would blowflies delay infestation for 5 or 7 days.... NO he wouldn't expect it.

146 posted on 08/01/2002 9:41:26 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
S/b salad bar.
147 posted on 08/01/2002 9:41:36 AM PDT by Jaded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: demsux
Flies are resiliant to drought...
148 posted on 08/01/2002 9:42:18 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
You must be right about the WAD OF HAIR around the CHOKER.<{P>That is what the testimony says.

I don't think much interpretation is needed by either one of us. You are right about it being a large wad or clump of hair.

149 posted on 08/01/2002 9:42:23 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

Comment #150 Removed by Moderator

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
With the kind of mummification that was described on Danielle's body would not have chanded this forensic entomologist time line at all.

The blow flies would have entered the mouth, nose, eyes, anus, vagina right away.

151 posted on 08/01/2002 9:43:19 AM PDT by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
Exactly what I thought. Sidebar/salad bar/side salad, what do you want judge ?
152 posted on 08/01/2002 9:43:36 AM PDT by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: demsux
if mummified: it wouldn't change his earlier conclusion..teh blowflies would access... to natural orfices when they have an opportunity.. (mouth, nostril, ears, eyes, genital and anus)
153 posted on 08/01/2002 9:44:14 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: basscleff
swirling reasonable doubt?

Yep. Now we have three and a half bugsters saying that the body couldn't have been there as early as the 5th.

Considering that LE frequently uses entomology experts to prove cases, they can't deny the science.

So where do they go from here? Looking for the real perp???????

154 posted on 08/01/2002 9:45:41 AM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: demsux
ants: do ants gather blowfly larva?

Witness, have been indicated as predators

Any ant evidence in this case? There was an ant in the collection...there were some ants at the scene but not in extrodinary numbers.

Is it possible that ants could destroy blowfly population LOST Feed..NO, ants are predators...and if the ants are that effective, we would not have blowflies.

Opinion alert: duh

155 posted on 08/01/2002 9:47:08 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: spectre; FresnoDA
Defense will go last I think. I'm curious where FR posters get info I can't seem to find. I've read the preliminary hearing posts and witness testimony but miss many things such as Barbara not being present while the pizza was being eaten, a neighbor saying PDVD has a local girlfriend, things evidently not testified to. Is there another site to look up this info? I'm watching Court TV via little satellite dish and it keeps skipping out. It's perfectly clear and sunny here in Kansas today so can't figure out what's the problem. Anyone else having this trouble?

I've been lurking at FR for a long time, too bashful to post but finally decided to go for it. Hi to all.
156 posted on 08/01/2002 9:47:37 AM PDT by I. Ben Hurt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
He says Goffs calculations were all off. (My words)

But we all knew that. Didn't we.;-)

157 posted on 08/01/2002 9:48:47 AM PDT by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: demsux
disagreement within bugologist community wrt:maggot mass (LOST FEED)
158 posted on 08/01/2002 9:49:12 AM PDT by Freedom2specul8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ~Kim4VRWC's~
The Michigan entomologist on Court TV agreed that the body was probably not there until after Westerfield was under police surveillance. He said that the prosecution should be looking at other possibilities to prove their case, such as an accomplice (which he said was unlikely), or more likely, a window in the police surveillance during which time DW could have moved the body.
159 posted on 08/01/2002 9:50:02 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Spunky
He says Goffs calculations were all off.

I bet Bob Hall double checked his arithmetic last nite . . .

160 posted on 08/01/2002 9:51:28 AM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 1,041-1,044 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