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.

[bvw]

You're trying. The strength of your initial presumption should be not that there is a murder, but that Westerfield is innocent, btw.

[VRWC_minion]

Don't have to. The VAN DAMS said they didn't want THE EVIL KILLER or any of his INVESTIGATORS in their HOUSE. BOOM, judge says NO

You must of missed the original question. Why aren't the neighbors asked ?

[VRWC_minion]

People keep saying "searched the SAME area".

The police in DC searched the same area the Chandra Levy was found in too.

[VRWC_minion]

You're trying. The strength of your initial presumption should be not that there is a murder, but that Westerfield is innocent, btw

I explained, that is where I started before reading the evidence. Now that I have the opinion that he did it, I still have an open mind as to explantions that counter that opinion. If I am given none, then I will be left with that opinion.

[bvw]

that is where I started before reading the evidence

That is where? Where did you you start? You are not being very clear. Be explicit, please.

[VRWC_minion]

That is where? Where did you you start? You are not being very clear. Be explicit, please.

No opinion until reading about the physical evidence in the RV, then I formed an opinion.

[bvw]

Then you find Westerfield guilty of having a motorhome that neighborhood kids have entered. That is not murder. Not even close.

[Freedom2specul8]

new thread alert

[VRWC_minion]

Then you find Westerfield guilty of having a motorhome that neighborhood kids have entered. That is not murder. Not even close.

I don't find it credible to explain the physical evidence in the RV. I also have no evidence that children ever played there.

[bvw]

Well, that is unreasonable. You see, the reasonable -- by presumption of innocence, as applied in trials in California -- view is that as there was access and neighborhood kids did roam freely, that would explain the hairs, and even the "blood". As a juror in California you are required to accept the reasonable explaination that exonerates.

Further you have on these threads heard from mothers of children and such who have stated that kids do play in RV's parked in the neighborhood. An RV is like a "attractive nuisance" in that way.

To ignore common sense in order to arrive at guilt is not presumption of innocence. And that is what you are doing.

[VRWC_minion]

Read my prior threads on my reasons for believing she did not play there.

There is no evidence presented that any child ever played in this RV.

Based on the evidence presented there is only fingerprints, blood like substance and hair root in RV. There is none, zilch, nada evidence of any child let alone Danielle ever being in the RV to play.

[VRWC_minion]

To ignore common sense in order to arrive at guilt is not presumption of innocence. And that is what you are doing

I started with a presumption of innocence as of three days ago and I am open to change my mind when additional evidence is presented. As of now, my presumption is leaning towards guilty therefore my current opinion is guilty.

I am uncomfortable with the bug guys stuff and unless I were to get some rebuttle on that I would insure that my jury were hung.

[bvw]

There was crossed testimony under oath that (1) the RV was parked in the neighborhood and near the playground at various times and (2) that the RV's door was at least sometimes left unlocked. That is known as indirect evidence. Common sense is the glue that allows one to stick a child in the RV for the purpose of assuming innocence -- which is what if a juror acting in good faith and duty you are under sworn oath to do.

[VRWC_minion]

Remember I first and foremost concluded that the evidence found is not consistant with Danielle playing there at all. This is key. I feel that even if she did play there before the evidence left is not from that visit.

Second, even though the RV may have been opened there must be at least one child who was in there besides Danielle. The fact that the defense hasn't gotten at least one child who played there or one parent who saw kids enter there is telling to me that the defense is blowing smoke.

[bvw]

Once again, you are acting from a presumption of guilt. You are requiring the defense to disprove an assumption of guilt that you have made based on evidence in the RV. That is you presume that the only way the evidence got into the RV was by some act undeniably and directly associated with murder.

In order to do that you must ignore the common sense explanation that Danielle played in the RV at some time or times unknown.

Unfair, and a violation of oath if you were a juror.

[VRWC_minion]

Once again, you are acting from a presumption of guilt.

Wrong. I'm not a juror but even a juror will go through same process even if they are told they don't. We all form intial opinions.

Maybe I can diagram it for you

1. No opinion + evidence = initial opinion (The prosecution presents its case)

2. Initial opinion - alternate explanations = final opinion.(Defense anwers)

I am at stage 1 because the defense is still presenting. So far what the defense has presented under "alternate explanations" is zilch in my mind. The trial isn't over but I don't expect to hear from a child or parent regarding playing there. Even if I did, I doubt that would be enough to explain the physical evidence in the RV but it would certainly help.

[Henrietta]

I posted this on an earlier thread. You might find it instructive or interesting:

Re: reasonable doubt

We've all speculated as to what the term 'reasonable doubt' means. Here, from pp 52-53 of "Criminal Law," Professor LaFave's hornbook (not to be confused with "horndog") is what "reasonable doubt" means:

"There must be an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." Reasonable doubt is "that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."

LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.

Just though you all might find this instructive/helpful/interesting.

As an aside, VRWC_minion, it is not the job of the defense to "prove" anything, including how the hair got into the MH. It is the job of the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that DW kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have shown that she was kidnapped and killed, but they have not shown a) who did it OR b)when it was done OR c)how it was done.

There are holes in the prosecution's case big enough to drive the MH through. Irrespective of your "feelings" about how one should view the presumptions and burdens of proof, DW is innocent, in a legal and factual sense, until the prosecution produces enough evidence for the jury to find, to a moral certainty, that he was the one that kidnapped and killed Danielle. They have completely failed in that regard, and it is my prediction that DW will be found innocent of the charges.

[VRWC_minion]

As an aside, VRWC_minion, it is not the job of the defense to "prove" anything, including how the hair got into the MH

I agree. so all I am left with is the cuurent evidence. Therefore based on the evidence presented so far I believe he is guilty. If he did however present other evidence I might change my mind.

[Henrietta]

What evidence???