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

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.

Neal Haskell, forensic entomologist 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.

So basically if my twelve year old looked at bugs for seven years he could be a certified expert witness when he becomes 19 ? or............Plus

It takes more than just looking at bugs. You forgot to put what the Plus is.

Passing the general qualifying examination in entomology, and at least one specialty exam, and payment of the required fees. At three-year intervals, Board Certified Entomologists must show evidence of participating in continuing education through a Professional Maintenance and Certification program.

If your 19 year old met all the qualifications, why not.

Got news for you. The local SD news , whether it be newspapers, radio, or TV is biased. CTV it biased.
In case you missed this discussion, I watched it 1 day for a couple of hours, and will never make that mistake again.
That is why we have been trying to tell you that you are seriously lacking in getting both sides of the story. The your conclusion is based on what SELLS ADVERTISING and not on the US SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

God hopes you wake up, you and most of the US PUBLIC. (so don't feel alone).

LUKA - Suazanne Vega

Danny - FDA

VERSE 1
My name is Danny
I live on the second floor
I live with my two brothers
You've seen me in the neighborhood

If you hear something late at night
Some kind of trouble! Some kind of fight!
Just don't ask me what it was
Just don't ask me what it was
Just don't ask me what it was

VERSE 2
I think it's because I'm seven
I try not to talk too loud
I do a lot of reading....
I try not to act too proud

They only hit until you cry
And after that you don't ask why
You just don't argue anymore
You just don't argue anymore
You just don't argue anymore

VERSE 3
I hope that I'll be okay
I walked into the door again
Well, if you ask that's what I'll say
And it's not your business anyway
I guess I'd like to be alone
With nothing broken, nothing thrown

Just don't ask me how I am
Just don't ask me how I am
Just don't ask me how I am

Having seen too many of your other posts, I am saddened that you are losing your credibility by this knee-jerk reaction that DW is guilty BEFORE all the evidence is in. I have felt from the beginning that he MIGHT be the one and should fry if so, but from what I can see, there is considerable room for doubt right now, so I can only wait and see. I will NOT say so blindly that he HAS to be guilty until I can see all the evidence which has yet to finish being presented. True, I have not been following this daily as some have, but I do not have to be so thoroughly dogmatic as to his guilt. Those who insist on it despite any mitigating testimony lose credibility real fast. You may be right, but I can't say that I would vote to convict based on what I have heard so far. That is exactly why we have the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE in our Constitution... and a damned good thing, too! Else we'd all be in danger of being railroaded at the whim of a lazy/vengeful prosecution/investigator. And being FReepers would ensure that SOME would try to railroad us... then the US could officially become just like the Eurotrash we despise for their Napoleonic-style, YOU_PROVE_YOUR_INNOCENCE school of justice. No, thanks.

geez. What difference does it make. So Danielle had a fiber stuck in the choker, obviously been STUCK there as it was WOUND AROUND SOME HAIR, or something. Usually means there is a REASON it got STUCK. Like getting wet, and then getting hot (blow dryer) or hair being brushed. Probably stuck there ever since Danielle was at DW's running all over the house.

Brenda said the 'well behaved' children stayed by her side except for checking out the pool.

DW, before he was arrested, stated to police that the KIDS were ALL OVER THE HOUSE, UPSTAIRS,DOWNSTAIRS, THE BEDROOM,GARAGE,POOL.

DW's story stayed the same, Brenda's stories have changed more times than I can count on my fingers.

The police/Prosecution is using it to try and prove something, mainly because it shows just HOW LITTLE THEY HAVE. They know they can't prove WHEN it got stuck in her choker. They know that means it doesn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT IT IS ONE OF THE EW THINGS THEY HAVE. Drowning victims will grab at anything in a panic.

Could it be that the jurors are actually "basically laughing at Dusek"?

I am. And let us not forget that this compelling (IMO) bug evidence follows a very minuscule bit of so-called trace evidence by the prosecution.

Now seriously......consider those two things and tell me you could convict a man to die.

I just don't see it. Two entomology experts, alone, have injected plenty of reason for doubt and the People have proven nothing. Could a fair person convict?

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.