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. |
Feldman will have someone there regarding the listing of SUMMONS that were issued in this case in a little while?
Do you all think BARBRA didn't answer the summons? Wouldn't that be just killing!
Wishful thinking here.
sw
I think it is highly possible DvD was not home in the late evening.
What makes me even more suspicious is that the VD's are so adamant that Danielle was taken AFTER BVD returned home (Interview with John and Ken, KFI Radio). But how could they know if no one had checked on her? If DVD is not the perp, what is the problem with admitting he were not home at the time of the abduction? It can't make them look any worse than they already do.
Correction: he was not home.
The date is important because Feldman has said that Westerfield could not have dumped the body after Feb. 5, when police began watching his movements 24 hours a day.
Hall, interim vice provost for research at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said mummification of Danielle's body would have had "little, if any, effect on the flies." He said the body was infested by the blow flies "no later than Feb. 23, 2002, and no earlier than Feb. the 12, 2002."
Hall was called by the defense to rebut the testimony of two forensic experts produced by the prosecution. Dr. William Rodriguez, a forensic anthropologist with the Department of Defense, testified last week that van Dam was dead for four to six weeks. Hall said Rodriguez's conclusion was "inconsistent with the evidence I examined."
Hall said calculations by Chaminade University entomologist M. Lee Goff introduced Tuesday were simply incorrect.
Hall said that he would expect flies to begin laying eggs on the body at the first possible opportunity. He said it would be very unlikely that the body could lay in the open for five to seven days without any fly activity.
Prosecutors will continue their cross-examination of Hall after the lunch break.
Feldman told Superior Court Judge William Mudd on Tuesday that he may also call a witness on Monday. If he finishes examining witnesses then, closing arguments could begin Tuesday in the trial, which has lasted nearly two months.
Previous Stories: Click here for more stories on the case.
By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 2, 2002
Jurors in the David Westerfield trial rolled their eyes, sighed loudly and slumped in apparent exasperation as the fourth bug expert in the case testified yesterday.
But they may be done with insects.
Entomologist Robert D. Hall, an associate vice provost at the University of Missouri, might have been the last witness in the case. At most, the jury will sit through one more scientist's testimony.
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.
|
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.
Yes, the dog search at DW's was used in the affidavit to obtain a warrant for DW's house.
The affidavit states the dog was very interested in a part of the garage, though the handler didn't say it was an "alert". Twice the dog returned to the area and was interested (or some such term).
As to the MH, I would think a search dog was used *inside* the MH, but the only thing I've found so far is in the same affidavit the search dogs (not cadaver) sniffed around the *exterior* of the MH and did not hit.
I'm looking for an official account of the search dog going in the MH.
A: I WAS ASKED TO SCENT HOPI ON DANIELLE'S SCENT AND TAKE HIM INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME.
Q: DID EITHER OF THE DOGS GET INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: ONLY HOPI.
Q: AND WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW THE DOG GOT INTO THE MOTOR HOME, WHICH DOOR?
A: THE PASSENGER'S-SIDE DOOR.
Q: DID YOU GO INTO THE MOTOR HOME?
A: I STOOD ON THE SECOND STEP IN THE STAIRWELL.
Q: YOU DIDN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT?
A: WELL, AFTER --
Q: AT THAT TIME.
A: THE FIRST TIME HE WAS IN THE MOTOR HOME I DID NOT.
Q: WAS THE DOG ON A LEASH?
A: YES.
Q: YOU WERE HOLDING THE LEASH?
A: YES.
Q: WHERE DID THE DOG GO INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: HE WENT APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY DOWN THE CENTER AISLE, ABOUT EVEN WITH THE END OF THE GALLEY, AND IMMEDIATELY TURNED AROUND AND CAME BACK.
Q: HOW QUICKLY DID THAT TAKE?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: ABOUT FIVE SECONDS.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: WERE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: NO.
Q: WHAT WAS THE DOG WALKING ON OR MOVING ACROSS?
A: I DON'T RECALL THE FLOOR COVERING.
Q: BUT STRICTLY ON THE FLOOR?
A: YES.
Q: ONCE THE DOG CAME BACK TO YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO?
A: WELL, HE APPEARED THAT HE WANTED TO --
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. 352. RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: YES. YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.NEXT QUESTION.
MR. FELDMAN: MOTION TO STRIKE, PLEASE.
THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST PORTION OF THE ANSWER THERE.NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: DID THE DOG GO OUTSIDE?
A: THE DOG WENT OUTSIDE.
Q: DID YOU FOLLOW IT OUTSIDE?
A: YES.
Q: WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU DID?
A: I WENT BACK INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME.
Q: WITH?
A: WITH HOPI.
Q: HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU WAIT BETWEEN?
A: A COUPLE OF MINUTES.
Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK INSIDE, HOW FAR DID YOU GO?
A: TO THE LANDING JUST ABOVE THE STAIRWELL.
Q: WERE YOU WEARING ANY PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR GEAR?
A: I WAS WEARING GLOVES AND A HAT.
Q: WHAT TYPE OF HAT?
A: MY REGULAR HAT THAT I WEAR FOR SEARCHING.
Q: WAS THERE A REASON YOU WERE WEARING THAT?
A: TO PROTECT LOOSE HAIRS FROM FALLING OFF MY HEAD.
Q: WHERE DID YOU GET THE GLOVES?
A: I CARRY THEM FOR COLLECTING SCENT ARTICLES.
Q: WHEN YOU WENT IN THE SECOND TIME, DID HOPI GO WITH YOU?
A: YES, HE DID.
Q: WHERE DID HOPI GO?
A: HE JUMPED ON THE SOFA BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SIDE.
Q: AND WHAT DID HOPI DO ONCE HE WAS IN THAT POSITION?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
352.MS. SCHAEFER: RELEVANCE.
THE COURT: YOU KNOW THE GUIDELINES.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: DID THE DOG SIT --
THE COURT: USE A LEADING QUESTION.BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: DID THE DOG SIT DOWN ON THAT COUCH BEHIND THE MOTOR HOME?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.
352.THE COURT: OVERRULED.
DID THE DOG SIT ON THE COUCH?
THE WITNESS: NO.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: DID THE DOG SIT ON SOMETHING?
A: NO.Q: WHERE WAS THE DOG STANDING?
A: ON THE SOFA.
Q: BEHIND THE MOTOR HOME?A: BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SIDE.
Q: FOR ABOUT HOW LONG APPROXIMATELY?
A: FIVE SECONDS.
Q: THEN DID THE DOG LEAVE THE MOTOR HOME?
A: YES.
On the other hand, even if there is no proof, if they suspect him of entering Danielle's home, staggering his way up the staircase, spiriting her out of her bed and out of her house, they can find him guilty of murder even if they just suspect him of kidnapping. In this case, the two are inextricably linked.
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.