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.
No, we have Westerfield's word for it, too. Part of his interview with Det. Redden was played for the jury and is in evidence.
As the defense attorney if wouldn't care if it was what was needed to get my client off. I certainly wouldn'tc roll the dice on just this bug stuff. Way too risky to bet my clients life on.
As a parent, I wouldn't have much say if my kid was subpeoned.
What on earth IS all this discussion in a case where the Prosec. has already rested, and that might have been thought rather cut&dried, routine, from here on?
I continue to think the Avila connection has a 40% chance of being real.
I don't get the point. Remember I am new.
You heard it in Mr. Dusek's opening statement. These are his friends. Mr. Westerfield observed the behaviors Of those women as they flirted from table to table, as they Moved from table to table, as they danced from table to table, As they drank from table to table. And Mr. Westerfield Purchased a drink for Mrs. Van Dam on that very day, the 25th. But she didn't know him. They didn't know each other. They Just lived two houses down. They didn't know each other. At Least, that's the testimony of Brenda Van Dam.
Gossip does not buttress your opinion.
Here, the Court said
"It has been stated many times that lawyers are `officers of the court.' One of the most frequently repeated statements to this effect appears in Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378. The Court pointed out there, however, that an attorney was not an `officer' within the ordinary meaning of that term. Certainly nothing that was said in Ex parte Garland or in any other case decided by this Court places attorneys in the same category as marshals, bailiffs, court clerks or judges. Unlike these officials a lawyer is engaged in a private profession, important though [413 U.S. 717, 729] it be to our system of justice. In general he makes his own decisions, follows his own best judgment, collects his own fees and runs his own business. The word `officer' as it has always been applied to lawyers conveys quite a different meaning from the word `officer' as applied to people serving as officers within the conventional meaning of that term." Id., at 405 (footnote omitted).
One needs to read the case in its entirety to understand why the term "officers" is important to this particular case. You can't just go thru and pick out sentences out of context and then say that they mean what you want them to mean.
Really, dear, your way of speaking is not conducive to any meaningful dialogue. You smirk your way through the thread all you want. It is clear you aren't a bit interested in thoughts in my head so I decline to share.
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.