2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense: (Dusek Melting Down Before Juries Eyes!!)

NBC/San Diego ^ | July 22, 2002 | NBC/San Diego

[FresnoDA]

2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense

Expert Says Fly Infestations Show When Danielle's Body Was Dumped

 

POSTED: 6:58 a.m. PDT July 22, 2002

UPDATED: 2:28 p.m. PDT July 22, 2002

 

SAN DIEGO -- The trial of David Westerfield resumed Monday with more testimony about insects, as defense lawyers tried to show that their client was not the person who dumped Danielle van Dam's body along a two-lane road in East County.

Before testimony began, Judge William Mudd warned jurors to ignore last week's murder of a young girl in nearby Orange County. Mudd said that the abduction, sexual assault and murder of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion "bears no relation" to the trial of David Westerfield.

Westerfield's trial had been in recess since July 11 so the judge could take a previously scheduled vacation.

Westerfield, 50, lived two doors from Danielle, who vanished after her father put her to bed the night of Feb. 1. Searchers found the girl's nude body on Feb. 27 along a rural roadside east of San Diego.

A forensic entomologist, testifying Monday for the defense, said Danielle's body could not have been dumped at the roadside before Feb. 12, according to his analysis of flies and larvae collected during an autopsy. The blow flies that were found on the body typically descend on a cadaver shortly after death, but it can take longer in cooler temperatures, entomologist Neal Haskell said. Based on his analysis of the temperatures in the area at the time, Haskell (pictured, right) put "the time of colonization" likely at Feb. 14 and no earlier than Feb. 12.

Prosecutors challenged the defense's weather data.

Haskell's testimony puts the time the body may have been dumped several days earlier than suggested by a previous defense witness, entomologist David Faulkner. The defense has seized upon the time of death, which could not be precisely determined, to suggest that the body was dumped at a time when Westerfield was under constant police surveillance.

Westerfield was put under observation soon after Danielle disappeared, according to police testimony. He was arrested on Feb. 22.

During Haskell's testimony about insects devouring Danielle's body, the girl's parents, Brenda and Damon van Dam, stared at the floor as they sat in the back row of the courtroom. It is the first time that Damon van Dam has been in court since Judge William Mudd banned him from the proceedings almost a month ago as a security risk. Mudd restored his trial privileges just before going on vacation.

Lawyers for Westerfield have said they expect to offer two to three more days of testimony.

[Freedom2specul8]

"Everyone else here is trying to keeps things reasonable, and eliminate personal attacks. "

That is a matter of opinion.

[Hildy]

Well Fresno, I hope you're happy when a child killer hits the streets.

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Experts can be bought regardless of reputations

So you are saying that the bug guy has been bought? Any proof? Would it be just as fair for me to say that Barb, Denise and the other members of the "Pizza Party" wer bought also? No it wouldn't, as I have no proof of this - isn't that what this trial is about? Proof and evidence? or is it about rumors, accusations and lying under oath?

[UCANSEE2]

Keep in mind UCANSEE, that Dusek isn't the only one that appears to be exhibiting a panic mode mentality, after these last two bug expert witnesses.

Who else do you mean? or should I even ask?

[VRWC_minion]

He took a jacket (along with bedding, including comforters) first thing Monday, 2/4 morning to the drycleaners. He drove to the drycleaners in his motor home and went in wearing a t-shirt, light boxer-style shorts and barefoot(!).

Maybe he left his jacket in the RV when he left it unlocked so Danielle could sneak in, wash her hair, leave a finger print and prick herself.

[Henrietta]

When an officer of the court attempts to lie to the jury and gets caught, there's ground for questioning every single element of that side's case.

Your assertion is legally incorrect. The jury will be instructed to take into account testimony of the witnesses. Attorneys are not witnesses, and what they say or do may not properly be considered.

[Politicalmom]

EVERYONE else? Watch that exaggerating.... : )

[UCANSEE2]

I have yet to hear Nancy Grace talk about the trial and am tired of her name being invoked whenever someone opines against poor old DW and his sorry defense case. Yep. Already addressed that. Sorry. I assumed facts not in evidence. (that you were not listening to the trial yourself.) Again, my apology for confusing that with just the fact that you had a different opinion after watching.

[El Sordo]

What evidence did the defense mislead the jury on?

I have not followed any of this closely enough....

[CAPPSMADNESS]

Well Fresno, I hope you're happy when a child killer hits the streets

Well, so much for no personal attacks........

What happened to the notion that the defendent is INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY? When was this changed and how did I miss it???

[VRWC_minion]

So you are saying that the bug guy has been bought?

No. It was insinuated that this guy's opinion was incontestable because of his reputation. That is a false conclusion which can be best shown by the recent example of an a top five accounting firm's actions.

The man's opinion comes from his being expert but its still potentialy wrong or based on mistaken data.

[Jaded]

Neal was with 7 or 8 friends that Friday night. He has an airtight alibi.

[UCANSEE2]

You guys are so stuck on nancy grace I'm starting to think you all listen to her more than anyone else. :)

I listened to her for several hours, 1 day, when I was stuck where I had no computer, and only a TV with Cable. So CTV was the only source I could get.

Never again. It showed me how people that only watch CTV or local news to get their opinion of the trial can be totally misinformed.

But, like I said to Cyncooper, to assume that because someone has a different opinion than yours that they are not informed, is a mistake.

[Freedom2specul8]

May not properly be considered, of course...IMHO, and I know I'm not alone in this opinion..the atty is the clients representative, helps establish some kind of relationship with the jury and he can destroy his own client's credibility and witnesses through various means..depending on his talent, experience and stamina.

[UCANSEE2]

You're telling me with a straight face that the cops admitted to a felony in court? You mind telling me why the prosecution has ANY evidence, given that an illegal warrant was involved?

It's all on record, apparently you have either chosen to ignore or were not informed enough about the facts that don't fit your conclusions.

[Rheo]

What is happening in the trial??

[Poohbah]

Your assertion is legally incorrect. The jury will be instructed to take into account testimony of the witnesses. Attorneys are not witnesses, and what they say or do may not properly be considered.

Well, God Bless America! Attorneys are allowed to lie to the jury without adverse repercussion on their clients (whom they ARE supposedly acting on behalf of and under their direction).

[MizSterious]

And what if a child killer is already on the streets, all because the SDPD arrested the wrong guy?

[Freedom2specul8]

I lost feed...I do know it's in recess until wednesday.

[agarrett]

  Ah, I was hunting for a link to that - I know I'd seen it in one of the transcripts on a previous thread. Do you have it available by any chance? Thanks for your help,

Drew Garrett