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

To: shezza
I was looking at media reports from early on(2/6and 2/14) and search dogs are mentioned. One was sent to DW house with a pair of Danielles shoes to search for her scent. A bloodhound from the Riverside Co. Sheriff was used on the 13th in the VD's house. Article wasn't clear if it was used in DW's. Anyway, if dogs hit on anything Dusek would have used it. IMO. No DW in VD house or Danielle in MH.
68 posted on 08/02/2002 9:57:05 AM PDT by Jrabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Jrabbit

Jury appears weary of sparring by insect experts

Last defense witness may testify Tuesday

 

By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERThe defense in the harrowing Danielle van Dam kidnap and murder trial rested its case July 24, 2002 without calling defendant David Westerfield to testify. Westerfield is seen listening to testimony during his trial, July 22, 2002 at the San Diego, California courthouse.  Photo by Pool/Reuters

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.

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.

Witnesses

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.

Richard L. Cooksey, a San Diego District Attorney's Office investigator, testified that Westerfield's son told him he'd viewed pornography on his father's computer Feb. 4. Neal Westerfield testified earlier in the trial that he doesn't remember viewing pornography that day.

 

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.

72 posted on 08/02/2002 10:20:08 AM PDT by FresnoDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: Jrabbit; shezza
Article wasn't clear if it was used in DW's.

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.

73 posted on 08/02/2002 10:22:06 AM PDT by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

To: Jrabbit; cyncooper
But as cyncooper was asking does the jury know this?
76 posted on 08/02/2002 10:28:36 AM PDT by clearvision
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]

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