Posted on 08/01/2002 10:25:00 PM PDT by FresnoDA
Frustrated prosecutor swats at final bug expert |
|||||||
|
|||||||
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. |
For instance?
It is not uncommon, at the beginning of an investigation, to have information that has not been verified or that later turns out to be incomplete or outright not true in a affidavit for search warrant. Different than deliberate deception. Has happened, God knows, in this country. But what in this case was a deliberate lie by LE?
Q. Let's go back if we could. You mentioned the substrate control. What is that?
A. A substrate control is basically to test an item or fabric to make sure that the chemical presumptive test is not giving a false positive.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Meaning a positive result is given by a substance other than blood, the chemical presumptive test for blood.
Q. Are you using these substrate controls to allow a later analyst to determine if the jacket itself has something in it, as opposed to the blood staining, providing any later genetic information?
A. That is correct.
Q. Did you take these substrate controls from areas immediately adjacent to each of the stains?
A. Yes, I did.
What lies? What did Westerfield not tell the police?
He lied about taking his MH straight from his camping trip to Sherman's place. He never told the police about drycleaning trip #1.
He told the police that Saturday afternoon when he went home to "find his wallet" that he found his side door unlocked. He never told the police about calling his son to check his house to make sure it was locked-----something the son complied with (and was with his mother, DW's ex-wife) before DW's return home Sat. afternoon. That's off the top of my head.
Put your < P> after you close italics.
I see you were a long time lurker until recently. Me, too. Years and years. Even through impeachment and the election mess and 9/11, I saw so many eloquent Freepers express my thoughts so well I was satisfied to nod my head reassured I wasn't alone in my opinions.
But, like you, recently felt the urge to let my voice be heard.
It is a lie. First of all, the first rendition of his trip is less than two hours after that trip. How would the police know to ask him if he went to the drycleaners first thing??? Dw is going to say, "and I didn't go to the drycleaners first before taking my MH back to High Valley"?
The police specifically asked him if he went anywhere between the end of the trip and Sherman's. Particularily in the Redden interview, later that day. Westerfield had numerous opportunities to tell it and didn't. He did tell Redden about trip #2 (black clothes drop-off).
The police went to the drycleaners to get the stuff with only ticket for trip #2 stuff and the drycleaners called them the next day or so to tell them about the additional bedding and jacket.
Nope, no drug usage last night. (DVD to LE for 17+ hours, while his daughter was missing). I would call that a DELIBERATE LIE. One which may have cost his daughter her life.
Nope, no one else accessed upstairs (same as above).
Nope, no unusual sexual behavior with others IN OUR HOME in the past (same as above).
These are examples of DELIBERATE DECEIT, as opposed to forgetting to mention stopping at the cleaners.
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.