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.

Yup. And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.

If I recall correctly, the police admitted they lied in order to get a warrant. Do you therefore discount all their testimony?

The dog guy (can't remember his name, only the "180" nickname), was shown to have lied on the stand, when he had to recant his claim that he'd told the police about the alert. Do you discount that testimony? Does it reflect badly on the prosecution?

The first bug guy, Faulkner, was hired by the prosecution, but dismissed when his findings conflicted with their theories. Does this count as dishonest, and if so, does it impact your view of the prosecution?

Now, I agree that Feldman's bit with the porn was dishonest, and he shouldn't have done it. You can even weight it against the defense - but to ignore their entire case because of it is unreasonable, unless you are willing to apply the same standard to the prosecution (in which case, as far as I can tell, there's no case at all, and we're just imagining the whole thing)

Drew Garrett

And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.

You seem to be confused about the difference between totality of the evidence and the reliability of witnesses.

Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider. Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.

If I recall correctly, the police admitted they lied in order to get a warrant. Do you therefore discount all their testimony?

You're telling me with a straight face that the cops admitted to a felony in court? You mind telling me why the prosecution has ANY evidence, given that an illegal warrant was involved?

Well, you're the one saying that every scrap of evidence was illegally gathered.

was there also blood on his clothes ?

He took a jacket (along with bedding, including comforters) first thing Monday, 2/4 morning to the drycleaners. He drove to the drycleaners in his motor home and went in wearing a t-shirt, light boxer-style shorts and barefoot(!).

The jacket was taken into custody by police *after* it was drycleaned and there was blood on it! Some was his, but one spot was hers(!!).

Oh, and the police showed up at his house after he dropped his MH off and returned home. He didn't mention the drycleaner trip to the police when he recounted his weekend activities, even though that was his last errand before taking his MH to its storage place and driving home in his SUV.

Thanks. I was told by others that you were a long time freeper, and a good person. I see that is not the case. You are afraid to answer questions, and like others, you won't back up what you state, except by claiming "well, that's just my GODLIKE opinion."

And, just like I stated, when you are asked to step forward and debate,when you have no answers and only hot air, you lose your temper and resort to even more name calling.

Please stay off the DW trial threads if you are going to act like a child.

Everyone else here is trying to keeps things reasonable, and eliminate personal attacks.

I was hoping to discuss this case with you as I had respect for what I thought you could contribute. Shows how wrong a person can be.

You seem to be confused about the difference between totality of the evidence and the reliability of witnesses.

You seem to be extremely confused about what you think I'm confused about.

A specific witness is not the issue--but if that witness lies, that's fini for the guy's testimony, IMNHO.

This was the counsel that lied. That gives me pause to question the entire case, not just one witness.

Just because one side puts on a witness who a juror feels is not reliable does not mean that you can throw out any old evidence that you don't wish to consider.

If the evidence is being presented by someone who's been caught lying, the evidence is essentially worthless.

Jurors must consider ALL of the evidence. Jurors may, however, make judgments as to the reliability of the witnesses and their testimony by considering things like bias, motivation to fabricate, prior inconsistent testimony, prior consistent testimony, and whether the witness was capable of observing the scene accurately.

And when counsel lies, I need to consider WHY a particular witness was put on the stand--i.e., what was the counsel's bias, motivation to fabricate, et cetera.

Do you see the magnitude of difference here? When an officer of the court attempts to lie to the jury and gets caught, there's ground for questioning every single element of that side's 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.

2nd Bug Expert Bolsters Westerfield Defense

Expert Says Fly Infestations Show When Danielle's Body Was Dumped