Posted on 08/01/2002 10:25:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA
I have no idea whether or not they know what they're talking about, but I quote them because they agree with my comments yesterday...and I didn't want you to think I was off in the nether somewhere.
This article is interesting too:
"Jury appears weary of sparring by insect experts
Last defense witness may testify Tuesday
By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 2, 2002
The defense may call a forensic anthropologist as its final witness Tuesday. If lead defense attorney Steven Feldman decides not to summon the witness, Judge William Mudd will instruct jurors on legal issues and the prosecution will begin its closing arguments.
Until yesterday, the jury of 12 jurors and six alternates listened attentively to eight weeks of evidence in the capital murder case. Westerfield, 50, is being tried on charges he kidnapped and killed his 7-year-old neighbor, Danielle van Dam.
Prosecutor Jeff Dusek became increasingly testy with Hall as the afternoon progressed. Several jurors appeared disgruntled after Hall repeatedly asked if he'd understood Dusek's questions correctly, and then refused to directly answer them.
Soon after a few jurors let out audible sighs, Dusek ended his questioning. The condition of Danielle's body has become a key issue in the case, with the defense claiming the insect evidence makes it impossible for Westerfield to have committed the crimes. Hall testified that insects had access to Danielle van Dam's body between Feb. 12 and Feb. 23.
The girl was reported missing by her parents Feb. 2, after her mother went to wake her and found she wasn't in bed. Her nude body was discovered 25 days later off rural Dehesa Road in East County.
Westerfield's lawyers are trying to show their client couldn't have dumped the 7-year-old's body because he became a suspect by Feb. 5 and was under constant police surveillance.
Hall said insects are "extremely resilient" to drought, calling into question earlier testimony by prosecution witnesses that low fly populations might have affected the number of insects found on her body. The trial The trial will reconvene Tuesday, and the defense may call one more witness. If attorneys decide not to, the jury will be instructed on legal issues and the prosecution will present its closing arguments.
Key testimony
l An insect expert, the fourth to take the stand in the trial, testified for the defense that insects had access to Danielle van Dam's body between Feb. 12 and Feb. 23, after Westerfield came under constant police surveillance.
During cross-examination, prosecutor Jeff Dusek questioned the expert, Robert D. Hall, about why he chose not to use calculations more favorable to the prosecution in reaching his conclusion.
Dusek also asked Hall why he criticized the findings of an entomologist hired by the prosecution, and not one hired by the defense.
Hall, associate vice provost for research at the University of Missouri, said flies are extremely resistant to drought. His father, D.G. Hall, published "The Blowflies of North America" in 1948.
San Diego police Sgt. Bill Holmes testified the area where Danielle's body was found was a dumping ground for abandoned sofas, tires and wooden pallets.
And Hall said ants were incapable of carrying off all the fly eggs and maggots that would have infested Danielle's body, countering the prosecution's theory that ants carried off earlier generations of flies that laid eggs on the girl's body.
If ants were that effective, he said, we'd no longer have flies.
But under cross-examination by Dusek, Hall acknowledged that the insect infestation of the corpse wasn't "typical" because so few maggots were found in the girl's head.
Dusek peppered Hall with questions about why his calculations were compiled through a method less favorable to the prosecution. And Dusek also asked Hall why he criticized the findings of an entomologist hired by the prosecution, but not one hired by the defense.
When Dusek asked Hall about whether the body could have been mummified enough that it wouldn't have attracted flies, Hall said a partially dried body would still have places that flies could survive. Bugs will arrive on the body within minutes to hours of when it's left outside, he said.
His findings are most similar to those of Indiana entomologist Neal Haskell, who testified for the defense that flies laid eggs on the girl's body between Feb. 14 and Feb. 21.
Another defense witness, San Diego entomologist David Faulkner, estimated Danielle's body was invaded between Feb. 16 and Feb. 18.
M. Lee Goff, who testified for the prosecution, said her body could have been available to bugs in early February.
The entomologists' findings vary widely, and they have occasionally taken shots at each other's calculations.
Goff, an entomology professor at Chaminade University of Honolulu, criticized the methodology Haskell used. And yesterday Hall criticized Goff's calculations, which Goff admitted under cross-examination Tuesday contained five errors."
It is indirect circumstantial evidence and it has been very reasonably explained. The fibers by reasonable doubt as to the matchup, and that fibers easily could have come from other sources. The fiber is also explained -- if they demonstrated to match beyond a reasonable doubt, which they have not -- by direct or secondary contact between Brenda and Westerfield on the dance floor, or by ANY of the visits of Brenda and Danielle to the house, or by an entirely reasonably plausible sneak visit of Danielle into the motorhome in any of the many months more than a year it was available to neighborhood kids to do so. The last also explains the DNA-bearing spots, or those could be explained by deliberate -- and felonious -- evidence contamination.
The many irregularities in police procedure give some reasonable credence to the felonious police work possibility, but even that possibility is not necessary to reasonably explain the DNA spots and the hair.
Further the exceptional agreement of the bug experts in determining the most likely date the body was dropped -- when Westerfield was under a high degree of police scrutiny. Ignoring that -- as to reasonable doubt -- is an egregious violation of a juror's sworn duty
Back to CTV. Yes, I heard that also. The key word is PROSECUTION, and CTV has been biased toward the prosecution since the first day, when they said that Dusek won the day with his Opening Statements to the Jury. Oh, they'll throw a crumb or two now and then to the defense.
As far as the Article goes, when the facts concerning this case are from the Union Tribune and Kristen Greene is the writer, you may as well be quoting James Carville about how he thinks Bush is doing with the economy. :~)
Regards, sw
Soon after a few jurors let out audible sighs, Dusek ended his questioning.
Whether the jury is sighing or rolling their eyes doesn't mean anything regarding how they are weighing the evidence. A juror could believe the person general testimony while at the same time believe the person is ducking a question. I think the reports of the juries facial and other reactions are interesting but useless for determining their impressions.
AND then THOUSANDS of images of the pornograpy, Mr. Feldman...the Juror's CRIED when they saw and heard the SCREAMS of that little girl being RAPED, they cried, Mr. Feldman!
I am sooo SORRY if YOU think I am biased, just calling it as I see it..a poor little seven year old was tragically killed, deposited like common TRASH on the side of the road..and this Monster, David W. Westerfield DID it, Mr. FELDMAN!! All of his past deeds are coming back to BITE HIM ON THE NECK.. Mr. Feldman... so bite me"!
Then she will "whistle"..she actually whistles for a point!
sw
At this time, I would expect that the jury will be divided and the fact that the pros. didn't get a more definitive argument against the bug guys it will leave the ability for some Juror's to hold out against a guilty verdict. My best guess is that at this time there will be a hung jury. If, so I believe the pros will be better prepared to put the bugs on trail at a later date or a deal would be made (still possible). Keep in mind that it was Feldman who hasten process as an advantage to his client which in retrospect has worked well.
The things that would change the status is 1. The jury instructions on how to weigh the meaning of "reasonable doubt" and 2. The ability of Dusek to weave together the evidence into an air tight scenario backed by the evidence and testimony.
I also predict that in the event he is found guilty by the jurors the folks who feel Westerfield is innocent will claim that the jurors were deceived (or possibly intimidated) by a corrupt judge and a corrupt prosecutor and that Westerfield never had a chance to a fair trial.
I predict that those who think Westerfileld is guily will blame it mostly on bad science and the speed that the trial took place and make references to the OJ trial.
FWIW, before the OJ jury gave its verdict I thought that the jury wouldn't convict him based on the trial. I thought OJ had reasonable doubt even though I thought he was guilty.
LOL! Naahh..he just slow-dances. :~)
sw
A clear indication that the jury was getting fed up with Dusek repeatedly asking the same questions and getting the same answers he didn't like the previous 30 times he covered the same ground. If Dusek thought the jury was disgusted at Hall, he would have kept asking questions. Dusek knew he beating a dead horse and to continue would have really alienated the jury.
I know a clown who does that. Irritates me to no end.
Nancy must be developing Alzheimer's, she forgot the bleach and steam-cleaning the MH.
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.