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.
Enough fingerprints, DNA, fibers, laundry receipts etc could fit in a thimble to prove a dozen murders.
That's all there was to it huh? I'd like to know the particulars of this case.
>>>The general concensus amongst forensic experts is "YES".<<<
In every single case huh? I doubt this. The room I'm sitting in right now if a kid was sleeping on the couch right behind me I could walk right in off the street and take him or her away in 1 minute. If I'm not spitting or bleeding, do not shed any hair of anykind and are wearing gloves what evidence am I going to leave behind??
THAT is one of the things that hasn't been proven! He is charged with that, but let's wait and see what the jury says...YOU didn't see it.
BTW, why don't you go back and read some TESTIMONY instead of quoting Bob and Tom, or whomever you are quoting...your responses don't even come close to testimony, so you are making an a** of yourself.
Again: how many of YOUR friends download 100s of kiddie porn pics, including VIOLENT CHILD RAPE CLIPS?
And you could say the same thing about the DW not guilty crowd , but I must say this. My viewpoint (and many others too) is that the prosecution so far has not proven DW guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They haven't even come close. This is, I feel, a reasonably well informed opinion. I have no idea what the jury will actually decide.
If I am wrong, I am wrong. If tomorrow evidence was presented that showed DW was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be as insistent they punish him to the maximum extent of the law as you.
If, tomorrow, the produce info showing he is NOT GUILTY, beyond a shadow of a doubt, WHAT WILL YOU DO ?
Maybe GoFf has told Dusek that he can't refute the testimony of Faulkner and Haskell and the hearing tomorrow is for a motion to dismiss the charges against DW.
That's why he downloaded them. Just click over to Holland and find them free on the internet.
That is absolutely AMAZING, TM. Funny that's not in the transcripts. The transcripts are on the UT site. Read them.
Westerfield denied dancing with Brenda who "wasn't his type". How does this jibe with the "dirty dancing" stuff? Is Westerfield going to get on the stand and say he was lying about not dancing with her?
You are right. It is a matter of interpretation. You see it one way, other people another.
Now if the expert had said "AN EXACT MATCH" there would be no squabble.
Do you know why she didn't? Because she can't. The reasons for this have been gone over and over too.
SO, the TESTIMONY says SIMILAR, right? And that is as close as they can LEGALLY SAY.
I don't see what you could base such an opinion on, minion. If she played in the MH, prior to Feb. 1st - even if we knew the rate at which she dropped hair - we have no way of knowing the duration of her stay, or her specific activities, during that time.
For example, if she ran her fingers through her hair, or jumped up and down upon the bed, that would likely account for increased probability of her leaving hair behind.
Lacking specifics, I don't think anyone can make an accurate prediction of what her lose would have been. JMO.
Was that drama or what?
uCANsee2, I submit yet another new word!!!
~DRAMAQUEENJACKAL~: A person who either over-dramatizes the subject, or falsely accuses someone else of lying and INTENT is never proven by the dramaqueenjackal.. They ironically confuse lying, with being mistaken. They assume they can read into the hearts and minds of seriously dedicated followers of the PEOPLE VS WESTERFIELD case.
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.