Posted on 07/22/2002 3:02:31 PM PDT by FresnoDA
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.
Well, it was hopeful thinking, anyway.
An attorney could be disciplined by the bar for lying, but such lie may not be used to find his client guilty.
Neither I, nor anyone else I see posting here, is a "Westerfield fan." I am a "reasonable doubt" fan. If the r.d. were one-fourth what there is in this case, an acquittal would be required.
My own view is that there is a 20% chance that DW did something seriously wrong or illegal, but that several other persons are also in that range or higher, including Damon-- and a possible abducting stranger who took Danielle from the little park near her home, or en route to or from it, on Friday afternoon.
DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!
All the best, crys.
It seems you've already run into at least one, that I had in mind.
There just seems to me, to be an added sense of apprehension and aggravation in some poster's responses that seem to be resulting in things being said, that may be a little more heated, than the demeanor these individuals have previously exhibited. Just a personal observation and strictly JMO
See GLOSSARY: WILD BUG CHASE
ASSJACKALS=close relative of the Jackass...a person who spends too much time complaining about other people.
Applying assumptions to data. The basics are the same. In auditing, we state an opinion based on gathering evidence and applying accouting rules to the data. If we arrive at the same conclusions that the client does we can issue an favorable opinion. In valuations, tax returns etc. we do similar stuff.
Yes, that's right, the jury is only allowed to consider the EVIDENCE, and what the attorneys do in putting on the case is not EVIDENCE. Clients don't control how the attorney presents his case, and it would not be proper for a client to attempt to do so.
If so, how do you explain the physical evidence in the RV and on Danielle ?
DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!
Why so certain the expert is correct ?
Including lying about the nature of that evidence. No wonder the justice system is so completely hosed.
Clients don't control how the attorney presents his case, and it would not be proper for a client to attempt to do so.
Wow. I ought to be a jury. Get paid good money and do what I bloody well want without that pesky client trying to tell what to do.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof defies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."
"Aha," says man, "But the Babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves that you exist, and therefore you don't. Q.E.D."
Drew Garrett
Specifically where the admission is by police that they 'misconstrued' Brenda's statement in order to get a search warrant, I will have to search for.
It may be in the PH links. I have posted these also.
That is correct. An attorney may not put on the stand a witness whom the attorney knows will not tell the truth.
"Sex in the City" is bad enough. Hollywood glamorizes amoral behavior, drug use, prostitution, adultery. Pepsi-Cola is promoted by a no-talent slut, every ad on radio is for some new herbal treatment to help restore your libido, the same high school counselors that once helped you select a college now see their priorities as recommending the local abortionist and handing out condoms.
No, as if all this crap isn't bad enough, we have to read posts defending the "alternative" (read amoral, indecent, and illegal behavior) lifestyle of these two pathetic excuses for parents.
I hope these "defenders" of their abberant "lifestyle" are prepared to eat crow, because there will be plenty to go around after the jury returns with a not guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt.
I know in my heart that you would never want to see anyone set free who was guilty of such a crime, but in this case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and they have not done a thorough and convincing job.
Doc
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.