Frustrated Prosecutor Dusek Swats At Final Bug Expert: Westerfield's Soon Will BUG The Jury....

Court TV ^ | August 2, 2002 | Harriet Ryan

[FresnoDA]

Dem bones, Dem bones, Dem...(Oh, never mind...)

[spectre]

Here we go...Hummm?

Feldman will have someone there regarding the listing of SUMMONS that were issued in this case in a little while?

Do you all think BARBRA didn't answer the summons? Wouldn't that be just killing!

Wishful thinking here.

sw

[Mrs.Liberty]

JJ:

I think it is highly possible DvD was not home in the late evening.

What makes me even more suspicious is that the VD's are so adamant that Danielle was taken AFTER BVD returned home (Interview with John and Ken, KFI Radio). But how could they know if no one had checked on her? If DVD is not the perp, what is the problem with admitting he were not home at the time of the abduction? It can't make them look any worse than they already do.

[John Jamieson]

Yes it can. People would start wondering if he took Danielle with him and didn't bring her back.

[Mrs.Liberty]

he were not home

Correction: he was not home.

[Mrs.Liberty]

true, but what I meant was..some people already think they are negligent/bad parents, what with the swinging, leaving the kids alone, etc. Admitting he is down the street visiting someone's wife or at the local paintball arcade or whatever is not going to make him look any worse if he is not the perp.

[Jrabbit]

I was looking at media reports from early on(2/6and 2/14) and search dogs are mentioned. One was sent to DW house with a pair of Danielles shoes to search for her scent. A bloodhound from the Riverside Co. Sheriff was used on the 13th in the VD's house. Article wasn't clear if it was used in DW's. Anyway, if dogs hit on anything Dusek would have used it. IMO. No DW in VD house or Danielle in MH.

[FresnoDA]

4th Bug Expert Testifies About Danielle's Body

Closing Arguments Could Begin Tuesday

 

POSTED: 10:16 a.m. PDT August 1, 2002

UPDATED: 6:37 a.m. PDT August 2, 2002

 

SAN DIEGO -- Insects began laying eggs on the body of Danielle van Dam no earlier than Feb. 12, long after police began tight surveillance of David Westerfield, a new defense insect expert testified Thursday.

	Danielle van Dam Murder  The Inside Track: Week 7 In Westerfield Trial Discuss The Trial Slideshow: The Trial So Far Trial Video Previous Stories

Westerfield, 50, is accused of kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam in February. Steven Feldman, Westerfield's lead defense lawyer, began questioning forensic entomologist Robert D. Hall (pictured, right) Thursday morning. Hall is the third bug expert to testify for the defense. Prosecutors called their own entomologist last week.

 

All of the insect specialists have testified about fly larvae and eggs recovered from Danielle's body during the autopsy. The experts testifying for the defense have differed slightly in their analyses, but all said that the insect development showed the body could not have been placed where it was found off Dehesa Road prior to Feb. 10. Prosecution experts have disputed that, saying that the body could have been dumped as early as Feb. 2.

  The date is important because Feldman has said that Westerfield could not have dumped the body after Feb. 5, when police began watching his movements 24 hours a day.

  Hall, interim vice provost for research at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said mummification of Danielle's body would have had "little, if any, effect on the flies." He said the body was infested by the blow flies "no later than Feb. 23, 2002, and no earlier than Feb. the 12, 2002."

  Hall was called by the defense to rebut the testimony of two forensic experts produced by the prosecution. Dr. William Rodriguez, a forensic anthropologist with the Department of Defense, testified last week that van Dam was dead for four to six weeks. Hall said Rodriguez's conclusion was "inconsistent with the evidence I examined."

  Hall said calculations by Chaminade University entomologist M. Lee Goff introduced Tuesday were simply incorrect.

  Hall said that he would expect flies to begin laying eggs on the body at the first possible opportunity. He said it would be very unlikely that the body could lay in the open for five to seven days without any fly activity.

  Prosecutors will continue their cross-examination of Hall after the lunch break.

  Feldman told Superior Court Judge William Mudd on Tuesday that he may also call a witness on Monday. If he finishes examining witnesses then, closing arguments could begin Tuesday in the trial, which has lasted nearly two months.

 Previous Stories: Click here for more stories on the case.

[JudyB1938]

http://www.veeceet.com/kids/homegrn17.html

[A Freeper] is an ani-mule
Who won't put up with ridi-cule.
His temper's short and, as a rule,
He's seldom very tame,

- Roula Daher Alarab, age 14, Illinois

[FresnoDA]

Jury appears weary of sparring by insect experts

Last defense witness may testify Tuesday

 

By Kristen Green
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 2, 2002

Jurors in the David Westerfield trial rolled their eyes, sighed loudly and slumped in apparent exasperation as the fourth bug expert in the case testified yesterday.

But they may be done with insects.

Entomologist Robert D. Hall, an associate vice provost at the University of Missouri, might have been the last witness in the case. At most, the jury will sit through one more scientist's testimony.

The defense may call a forensic anthropologist as its final witness Tuesday. If lead defense attorney Steven Feldman decides not to summon the witness, Judge William Mudd will instruct jurors on legal issues and the prosecution will begin its closing arguments.

Until yesterday, the jury of 12 jurors and six alternates listened attentively to eight weeks of evidence in the capital murder case. Westerfield, 50, is being tried on charges he kidnapped and killed his 7-year-old neighbor, Danielle van Dam.

Prosecutor Jeff Dusek became increasingly testy with Hall as the afternoon progressed. Several jurors appeared disgruntled after Hall repeatedly asked if he'd understood Dusek's questions correctly, and then refused to directly answer them.

Soon after a few jurors let out audible sighs, Dusek ended his questioning.

The condition of Danielle's body has become a key issue in the case, with the defense claiming the insect evidence makes it impossible for Westerfield to have committed the crimes.

Hall testified that insects had access to Danielle van Dam's body between Feb. 12 and Feb. 23.

The girl was reported missing by her parents Feb. 2, after her mother went to wake her and found she wasn't in bed. Her nude body was discovered 25 days later off rural Dehesa Road in East County.

Westerfield's lawyers are trying to show their client couldn't have dumped the 7-year-old's body because he became a suspect by Feb. 5 and was under constant police surveillance.

Hall said insects are "extremely resilient" to drought, calling into question earlier testimony by prosecution witnesses that low fly populations might have affected the number of insects found on her body.

The trial

The trial will reconvene Tuesday, and the defense may call one more witness. If attorneys decide not to, the jury will be instructed on legal issues and the prosecution will present its closing arguments.

Key testimony

l An insect expert, the fourth to take the stand in the trial, testified for the defense that insects had access to Danielle van Dam's body between Feb. 12 and Feb. 23, after Westerfield came under constant police surveillance.

During cross-examination, prosecutor Jeff Dusek questioned the expert, Robert D. Hall, about why he chose not to use calculations more favorable to the prosecution in reaching his conclusion.

Dusek also asked Hall why he criticized the findings of an entomologist hired by the prosecution, and not one hired by the defense.

Witnesses

Hall, associate vice provost for research at the University of Missouri, said flies are extremely resistant to drought. His father, D.G. Hall, published "The Blowflies of North America" in 1948.

San Diego police Sgt. Bill Holmes testified the area where Danielle's body was found was a dumping ground for abandoned sofas, tires and wooden pallets.

Richard L. Cooksey, a San Diego District Attorney's Office investigator, testified that Westerfield's son told him he'd viewed pornography on his father's computer Feb. 4. Neal Westerfield testified earlier in the trial that he doesn't remember viewing pornography that day.

 

And Hall said ants were incapable of carrying off all the fly eggs and maggots that would have infested Danielle's body, countering the prosecution's theory that ants carried off earlier generations of flies that laid eggs on the girl's body.

If ants were that effective, he said, we'd no longer have flies.

But under cross-examination by Dusek, Hall acknowledged that the insect infestation of the corpse wasn't "typical" because so few maggots were found in the girl's head.

Dusek peppered Hall with questions about why his calculations were compiled through a method less favorable to the prosecution. And Dusek also asked Hall why he criticized the findings of an entomologist hired by the prosecution, but not one hired by the defense.

When Dusek asked Hall about whether the body could have been mummified enough that it wouldn't have attracted flies, Hall said a partially dried body would still have places that flies could survive.

Bugs will arrive on the body within minutes to hours of when it's left outside, he said.

His findings are most similar to those of Indiana entomologist Neal Haskell, who testified for the defense that flies laid eggs on the girl's body between Feb. 14 and Feb. 21.

Another defense witness, San Diego entomologist David Faulkner, estimated Danielle's body was invaded between Feb. 16 and Feb. 18.

M. Lee Goff, who testified for the prosecution, said her body could have been available to bugs in early February.

The entomologists' findings vary widely, and they have occasionally taken shots at each other's calculations.

Goff, an entomology professor at Chaminade University of Honolulu, criticized the methodology Haskell used. And yesterday Hall criticized Goff's calculations, which Goff admitted under cross-examination Tuesday contained five errors.

[cyncooper]

Article wasn't clear if it was used in DW's.

Yes, the dog search at DW's was used in the affidavit to obtain a warrant for DW's house.

The affidavit states the dog was very interested in a part of the garage, though the handler didn't say it was an "alert". Twice the dog returned to the area and was interested (or some such term).

As to the MH, I would think a search dog was used *inside* the MH, but the only thing I've found so far is in the same affidavit the search dogs (not cadaver) sniffed around the *exterior* of the MH and did not hit.

I'm looking for an official account of the search dog going in the MH.

[clearvision]

But as cyncooper was asking does the jury know this?

[Jrabbit]

That reporter isn't biased at all! Did tiny drip write this? She always says the jurors roll their eyes! Is there a song here? Diggler wants to know....

[Krodg]

Jeepers
Creepers
Where'd you get those peepers

[shezza]

Q: AND WERE YOU ASKED TO RUN YOUR DOGS AROUND THAT MOTOR HOME?

A: I WAS ASKED TO SCENT HOPI ON DANIELLE'S SCENT AND TAKE HIM INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME.

Q: DID EITHER OF THE DOGS GET INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?

A: ONLY HOPI.

Q: AND WOULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW THE DOG GOT INTO THE MOTOR HOME, WHICH DOOR?

A: THE PASSENGER'S-SIDE DOOR.

Q: DID YOU GO INTO THE MOTOR HOME?

A: I STOOD ON THE SECOND STEP IN THE STAIRWELL.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GO ANY FURTHER THAN THAT?

A: WELL, AFTER --

Q: AT THAT TIME.

A: THE FIRST TIME HE WAS IN THE MOTOR HOME I DID NOT.

Q: WAS THE DOG ON A LEASH?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE HOLDING THE LEASH?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE DID THE DOG GO INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?

A: HE WENT APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY DOWN THE CENTER AISLE, ABOUT EVEN WITH THE END OF THE GALLEY, AND IMMEDIATELY TURNED AROUND AND CAME BACK.

Q: HOW QUICKLY DID THAT TAKE?

MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: ABOUT FIVE SECONDS.

BY MR. DUSEK:
Q: WERE THERE ANY OTHER PEOPLE INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT WAS THE DOG WALKING ON OR MOVING ACROSS?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE FLOOR COVERING.

Q: BUT STRICTLY ON THE FLOOR?

A: YES.

Q: ONCE THE DOG CAME BACK TO YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WELL, HE APPEARED THAT HE WANTED TO --

MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. 352. RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: YES. YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.NEXT QUESTION.

MR. FELDMAN: MOTION TO STRIKE, PLEASE.

THE COURT: THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST PORTION OF THE ANSWER THERE.NEXT QUESTION.

BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: DID THE DOG GO OUTSIDE?

A: THE DOG WENT OUTSIDE.

Q: DID YOU FOLLOW IT OUTSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THE NEXT THING THAT YOU DID?

A: I WENT BACK INSIDE THE MOTOR HOME.

Q: WITH?

A: WITH HOPI.

Q: HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU WAIT BETWEEN?

A: A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK INSIDE, HOW FAR DID YOU GO?

A: TO THE LANDING JUST ABOVE THE STAIRWELL.

Q: WERE YOU WEARING ANY PROTECTIVE CLOTHING OR GEAR?

A: I WAS WEARING GLOVES AND A HAT.

Q: WHAT TYPE OF HAT?

A: MY REGULAR HAT THAT I WEAR FOR SEARCHING.

Q: WAS THERE A REASON YOU WERE WEARING THAT?

A: TO PROTECT LOOSE HAIRS FROM FALLING OFF MY HEAD.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GET THE GLOVES?

A: I CARRY THEM FOR COLLECTING SCENT ARTICLES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT IN THE SECOND TIME, DID HOPI GO WITH YOU?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHERE DID HOPI GO?

A: HE JUMPED ON THE SOFA BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SIDE.

Q: AND WHAT DID HOPI DO ONCE HE WAS IN THAT POSITION?

MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

352.MS. SCHAEFER: RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW THE GUIDELINES.

BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: DID THE DOG SIT --

THE COURT: USE A LEADING QUESTION.BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: DID THE DOG SIT DOWN ON THAT COUCH BEHIND THE MOTOR HOME?

MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE.

352.THE COURT: OVERRULED.

DID THE DOG SIT ON THE COUCH?

THE WITNESS: NO.

BY MR. DUSEK:

Q: DID THE DOG SIT ON SOMETHING?

A: NO.Q: WHERE WAS THE DOG STANDING?

A: ON THE SOFA.

Q: BEHIND THE MOTOR HOME?A: BEHIND THE DRIVER'S SIDE.

Q: FOR ABOUT HOW LONG APPROXIMATELY?

A: FIVE SECONDS.

Q: THEN DID THE DOG LEAVE THE MOTOR HOME?

A: YES.

[shezza]

Sounds like Mudd will be instructing the jury that they cannot consider DAW guilty on first count (murder) without them being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the kidnapping as presented by Dusek's case. So if they can't say Westerfield did WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, or WHY, that would (to me) indicate reasonable doubt of the kidnapping charge, which would thus negate the murder charge. Did I hear that correctly?

On the other hand, even if there is no proof, if they suspect him of entering Danielle's home, staggering his way up the staircase, spiriting her out of her bed and out of her house, they can find him guilty of murder even if they just suspect him of kidnapping. In this case, the two are inextricably linked.