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."
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.
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.