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

Skip to comments.

Frustrated Prosecutor Dusek Swats At Final Bug Expert: Westerfield's Soon Will BUG The Jury....
Court TV ^ | August 2, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

Posted on 08/01/2002 10:25:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA

Frustrated prosecutor swats at final bug expert

Photo
David Westerfield, seated in court Thursday, faces the death penalty if convicted in the slaying of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam.

SAN DIEGO — David Westerfield was sitting in the defendant's chair, but forensic entomology was on trial Thursday.

Prosecutor Jeff Dusek, whose seemingly unshakeable case against Westerfield for the murder of Danielle van Dam has been jostled by this tiny, somewhat obscure scientific field, poured out his frustration on the last of three insect experts to testify for the defense.

Like his colleagues before him, forensic entomologist Robert Hall of the University of Missouri told jurors that the age of bugs decomposing Danielle's remains suggests Westerfield could not have dumped the 7-year-old's body along a roadside last February.

Dusek, with sighs, long stares at the ceiling and a tone that often mixed disgust with disbelief, railed against Hall's methods and the inexact nature of the field, in which experts given the same bug samples and weather data can differ in their conclusions by days and even weeks.

In one exchange, Dusek asked bitterly, "If you give an X-ray of a suspected broken arm to four qualified experts, would you expect them all to read it the same?"

"I don't know. I'm not a radiologist," replied Hall, whose mild-manner and stammering answers contrasted sharply with the prosecutor's intensity.

Three of the nine certified forensic entomologists in North America have testified in the case, as well as a local expert who is well-respected but not certified. They each offered slightly different ranges for the first arrival of insects at the death scene. Most placed them in mid-February.

"How can everyone come to different numbers in your field?" Dusek demanded.

Hall said "biological variation" in the insects led to some differences in results, but he claimed there was an overwhelming and unusual "concordance" among the experts that Danielle's body was first infested in mid-February, when Westerfield has an air-tight alibi.

"My conclusion would be the estimates are more consistent than inconsistent," said Hall.

"Are you saying close enough for a murder case?" Dusek shot back

"No — ," Hall uttered before Judge William Mudd ordered him not to answer the question further.

Some of the jurors, who have heard days of testimony about maggots, blowflies and puparia, seemed bored by the exchange while others continued taking detailed notes. One male juror seemed to sympathize with Dusek and shook him head in agreement as the prosecutor became impatient with Hall's long-winded answers.

Hall may be the final witness the panel hears. Westerfield's lead attorney, Steven Feldman, said the defense will decide this weekend whether to call one more witness, a forensic anthropologist to testify briefly about the time of death issue. If the defense does not call that expert, lawyers will deliver closing arguments Tuesday. If they do, he will testify Tuesday and arguments will begin Wednesday morning.

Westerfield, a 50-year-old engineer who lived two doors from the van Dam family in the upper middle class suburb of Sabre Springs, faces the death penalty if convicted. Someone snatched Danielle from her canopy bed during the night of Feb. 1. Searchers found her body Feb. 27 on the trash-strewn roadway about 25 miles from her house. Her body was too badly decomposed to determine when or how she died, but prosecutors theorize Westerfield raped and suffocated her and then dumped her body during a meandering 560-mile road trip in his recreational vehicle the weekend after her disappearance.

The trial initially focused on significant trace evidence implicating Westerfield, including Danielle's blood, fingerprints and hair inside his RV, and on child pornography on his computers. But the insect testimony has dominated the later part of the trial. Dusek called his own bug expert Tuesday, but that entomologist made basic math errors in his calculations and ultimately gave findings that did not neatly fit the prosecution's theory.

Hall estimated that the first flies colonized Danielle's body, a process that can happen within minutes or hours of death, occurred between Feb. 12 and Feb. 23. Police began round-the-clock surveillance of Westerfield Feb. 5.

Hall also dismissed the prosecutor's suggestion hot, dry weather in February quickly mummified the exterior of Danielle's body, making it initially inhospitable to bugs. A forensic anthropologist testified for the prosecution last week that the flies and maggots may only have arrived after scavenger animals opened her body, skewing the insect evidence found at the scene.

Hall, however, said such a scenario was unheard of in forensic entomology.

"I'd expect fly activity to occur almost as soon as the body presented itself," said Hall, whose father, also an entomologist, wrote the textbook "Blowflies of North America. "

"Partial mummification has little or no effect on blowfly colonization," he added.

During his cross-examination, Dusek alternated between dismissing the field outright and delving into the most minute details of forensic entomologist's work. He quizzed Hall about each of the different formulas the scientist had merged to determine the growth rate of maggots and pointed out that one approach, when taken alone, indicated Danielle's body could have been dumped in early February when Westerfield's whereabouts are unaccounted.

Hall acknowledged Dusek was right, but said taking into account the other data sets yielded the most accurate result.

Dusek also grilled Hall about the lack of insect activity in the head area. Hall and the other entomologists said bugs are usually drawn first to the ears, eyes, and mouth, but Danielle's remains showed infestation primarily in the chest cavity. The prosecution contends this supports their mummification theory, and Hall admitted he could not explain why the insects stayed clear of the head.

Westerfield seemed to follow the testimony intently, leaning close as his defense lawyers conferred on questions for Hall. Brenda and Damon van Dam, Danielle's parents, sat in what have become their usual seats in the last row of the small courtroom.



TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: bugguys; daniellevandam; davidwesterfield
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 741-745 next last
To: Krodg
I'm going to chat for awile. I'll check back later for the video.
101 posted on 08/02/2002 12:07:10 PM PDT by Krodg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Were you watching CourtTv awhile ago when Kleiman's guest, didn't catch the name, but he was speaking as advocate for prosecutor, said that Feldman got nailed yesterday when his expert Hall had to extend the time of possible insect infestation to agree with the prosecution. Both anchor and guest agreed Feldman probably wishes he hadn't called Hall to testify, and both predict Feldman will not call that expert to testify next week.

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."

102 posted on 08/02/2002 12:08:01 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: All
They were just showing the Bronco used in the CA kidnapping yesterday and the investigators climbing in and around it were all wearing what looked like hospital scrubs with gloves and booties. Did LE wear any such outfits at Danielle's recovery seen?
103 posted on 08/02/2002 12:10:56 PM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: clearvision
seen=site
104 posted on 08/02/2002 12:12:06 PM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
hard physical evidence cannot be explained

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

105 posted on 08/02/2002 12:12:38 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Naahh, I could never think you were off in the nether somewhere!

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

106 posted on 08/02/2002 12:21:30 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: JudyB1938
And my distrust of cops and prosecutors <P.Having been the recipient of serious false accusations and having a cop as a brother, I know what you mean on several levels personaly.
107 posted on 08/02/2002 12:21:57 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
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.

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.

108 posted on 08/02/2002 12:28:34 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Baptist? :-)
109 posted on 08/02/2002 12:29:55 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: bvw
The only problem with the "HARD EVIDENCE", is that it's not evidence of MURDER or KIDNAPPING. It's the kind of evidence that all of us have around our homes and vehicles and don't even know about.
110 posted on 08/02/2002 12:30:51 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Assuming that this is true, it sounds to me like Dusek thought he was losing the jury, not winning them, so he quit.
111 posted on 08/02/2002 12:40:08 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: gigi; Jrabbit
Nancy Grace will say.."Well, excuse ME, Mr. Feldman..duhhh"! There is ALL this blood. her hair and tons of fiber evidence and let's NOT forget her fingerprints..duhhh!

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

112 posted on 08/02/2002 12:43:27 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I understand the arguments against Westerfields guilt probably as well as anyone. I just have come to a conclusion different than you.

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.

113 posted on 08/02/2002 12:44:03 PM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: All
I understood that jury instructions will come before the closings args and each closing arg will be limited to 90 minutes. Seems much too short to me.
114 posted on 08/02/2002 12:44:23 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"Baptist?"..

LOL! Naahh..he just slow-dances. :~)

sw

115 posted on 08/02/2002 12:47:08 PM PDT by spectre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: spectre
She will also point out that DW is a white, middle aged, upper middle class, MALE, and there is a real shortage of them on death row. This will give the system some balance.
116 posted on 08/02/2002 12:47:21 PM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
Soon after a few jurors let out audible sighs, Dusek ended his questioning.

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.

117 posted on 08/02/2002 12:48:00 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Ever dance Nightclub Two-Step?
118 posted on 08/02/2002 12:49:09 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: spectre
Then she will "whistle"..she actually whistles for a point!

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.

119 posted on 08/02/2002 12:50:43 PM PDT by dread78645
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: spectre
I think that sound comes from her flaring nostrils.
120 posted on 08/02/2002 12:50:58 PM PDT by gigi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 741-745 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