Witness firm on time line of bugs: Westerfield already under surveillance. Other perp possible?

A bug expert for the defense in the David Westerfield trial testified yesterday that Danielle van Dam's body couldn't have been exposed to flies any earlier than Feb. 12, a week after Westerfield was being watched by the police.

The testimony of Dr. Neal Haskell supports the defense's argument that Westerfield couldn't have dumped the 7-year-old girl's body because he was under 24-hour-a-day police surveillance from Feb. 4 until his arrest Feb. 22. The second-grader's nude body was discovered Feb. 27 off Dehesa Road east of El Cajon. She disappeared the first weekend in February.

Haskell, a forensic entomologist and professor at Saint Joseph's College in Indiana, is the second insect expert called by the defense. Unlike the first, Haskell was much more definitive in his opinion that flies didn't colonize on the girl's body until at least a week after Westerfield was under police surveillance.

Basing his opinions on the life cycle of blow flies, Haskell said the insects likely entered the girl's body between Feb. 14 and Feb. 21, and couldn't have entered the body any earlier than Feb. 12. In general, flies can enter the body and lay eggs within hours or minutes of the body's exposure to the elements, unless all the openings on the body are covered, he said.

At most, it might take flies "a day or two" to enter an uncovered body and lay eggs, depending on temperature and other factors, he said.

"In my opinion, the body would not have been there" any earlier than Feb. 12, Haskell testified.

Westerfield, a 50-year-old design engineer who lived two doors away from the van Dams in Sabre Springs, could face the death penalty if convicted of kidnapping and killing the girl.

Lead defense lawyer Steven Feldman told jurors at the beginning of the trial that science would prove Westerfield could not have killed the girl.

The prosecution, which has centered its case on DNA evidence linking Danielle's blood, hair, fibers and fingerprints to Westerfield's clothing, residence, sport utility vehicle and motor home, could present its own bug expert in rebuttal after the defense concludes, possibly this week.

Haskell stuck to his opinion despite an aggressive cross-examination by prosecutor Jeff Dusek. At one point the two men engaged in such a heated exchange that Superior Court Judge William Mudd announced the afternoon break about a minute ahead of schedule.

In an apparent attempt to demonstrate that Haskell is a hired gun, Dusek raised the issue of how much Haskell is being paid by the defense.

Haskell said he charges $350 per hour for his testimony and $250 per hour for his other work on the case. He said he couldn't estimate how much his final bill will be.

Among other things, Dusek suggested that Haskell used incorrect weather data and failed to consider the possibility that the girl had been dead for a day or two before her body was dumped.

On July 10, San Diego entomologist David Faulkner said Danielle's body could have been exposed to the elements between Feb. 16 and Feb. 18, based on the age of the flies on her body. He left some leeway on cross-examination, saying the body could have been there longer.

Haskell was on the stand for most of the day yesterday, which was the first day of testimony after a week break. The judge took a planned vacation cruise last week.

One of the first things Mudd did on his return was remind the jurors not to be influenced by any "other matters in other locales." It was a reference to the July 15 abduction and killing of 5-year-old Samantha Runnion in Orange County. A 27-year-old Riverside County man has been charged in that case.

"It is a matter that bears no relationship to this case in terms of the facts or anything else," the judge told the 12 jurors and six alternates. He reminded the jurors that their decision must be "solely based on the evidence you see and hear in the courtroom."

Under questioning by defense lawyer Feldman, Haskell testified that his opinions about the flies on Danielle's body were based on "a reasonable degree of scientific certainty."

He said he formed the opinion "based upon the conditions of the body as it was found, fully exposed, the insect fauna . . . and the temperatures we have relating to this period of time."

Under cross-examination by Dusek, he acknowledged he never examined the body himself and based his opinion on temperatures taken in Otay Mesa, about 40 miles from the recovery site.

Dusek also suggested that Haskell's opinion was based on the behavior of flies in Indiana, where the climate is more humid. This year has been the driest in San Diego in more than a century, according to testimony at the trial, and Dusek has been trying to suggest that the extreme weather patterns affected the insects' behavior.

Dusek also suggested that the weather caused the body to mummify quickly, which would deter flies from colonizing. He asked whether Haskell had considered the possibility that the girl's body might have begun to mummify while stuck in the storage compartment of Westerfield's motor home for 24 to 36 hours before being dumped.

Westerfield told police he drove his motor home on a trip to the beach, the Imperial County desert and back to the beach again on the weekend Danielle was reported missing.

Earlier in the trial, jurors heard testimony that a dog trained to detect cadavers signaled a positive reaction to a cadaver scent in one of the motor home's storage compartments.

Haskell acknowledged the body might begin to mummify under such a scenario but said that wouldn't affect his findings.

He also rejected Dusek's suggestion that several waves of flies might have colonized the body over a week or more, with the first wave being carried off by animals who ravaged the corpse.

Meanwhile, Guylyn Cummins, a lawyer for the Union-Tribune, said the newspaper will appeal Mudd's refusal to allow access to secret hearings in the case and transcripts of the numerous secret hearings held.

The North County Times and KGTV-TV, KFMB-TV and KNSD-TV have agreed to join the newspaper in the appeal.

Second bug expert testifies as Westerfield trial continues

KIMBERLY EPLER
Staff Writer

Forensic Entymologist Neal Haskell testifies for the defense how insect life cycles help determine a time of death during proceedings in the trial of David Westerfield, Monday, July 22, 2002, in San Diego. Westerfield is accused of the kidnapping and murder of 7-year old Danielle van Dam from her Sabre Springs, Calif., home, last February. (AP Photo/Dan Trevan, Pool) SAN DIEGO ---- A forensic entomologist testified Monday that insect activity shows the body of 7-year-old murder victim Danielle van Dam was dumped along a rural road two to three weeks after she disappeared from her Sabre Springs home, a time when her accused killer was under 24-hour police surveillance.

Bug expert Neal Haskell was the second entomologist called by defense attorneys to try to show that David Westerfield, 50, could not have disposed of the second-grader, who he is accused of killing to satisfy his sexual desire for young girls.

Day 20 of Westerfield's highly publicized trial centered on the life cycle of blow flies, with Haskell spending nearly all day on the stand testifying about his conclusion that Danielle was killed shortly before flies began "colonizing" her nude body.

Forensic entomologists use the well-known life cycle of blow flies to narrow down the time of death in murder cases.

The metallic-colored flies can lay eggs within minutes of finding a dead body. When the eggs hatch, the larva feed on the flesh. After a time, the larva migrate away from the body to find a dark, secure place to enter the pupa stage. After developing a hard shell, an adult fly emerges, reaches sexual maturity in three days and the cycle begins again.

Westerfield's attorney, Steven Feldman, told jurors on the first day of the trial that science would come to his client's rescue and show it was impossible for Westerfield to have been the one who left Danielle's body where it was found.

A lead detective in the case testified earlier that within three days of Danielle's Feb. 2 disappearance, police were keeping a tight watch on Westerfield day and night. A tracing device was also placed in Westerfield's car, the detective said.

Prosecutor Jeff Dusek, meanwhile, challenged Haskell's conclusion about when Danielle's body was first exposed to the elements and sometimes took on an adversarial tone with the witness during questioning.

At times, Dusek raised his voice while repeatedly questioning whether Danielle's body could have decomposed to the state in which she was found ---- with her hands, feet and face blackened and mummified ---- in Haskell's one-to-two-week timeline. Haskell said it could.

Dusek also raised questions about what condition Danielle's body would be in if it were left in the storage compartment of a motor home out in the desert for 24 to 36 hours before it was dumped in Dehesa. Haskell said such a scenario could have kept her body from being "colonized" by insects, but it also would have accelerated her decomposition and made her more attractive to blow flies.

Haskell dismissed Dusek's query about the possibility a coyote ate the first round of fly larva laid on Danielle's body, making it appear as though her body was exposed to the elements weeks after it was dumped and throwing off the timeline for how long flies had been able to access her body.

The prosecutor also seemed to be raising the possibility that Danielle's body was at some point covered with a blanket that might have been removed by animals that ravaged her body. Haskell said the flies still would have been able to get to her body.

Haskell said he based his conclusions on the condition of Danielle's body and he said he used temperatures in the region to determine how fast the insects would have grown.

Testimony in the case is scheduled to continue on Wednesday. Attorneys in the case are meeting with the judge to discuss scheduling and other issues today.

Contact staff writer Kimberly Epler at (760) 739-6674 or kepler@nctimes.com.

7/23/02

The Inside Track: Week Five In The Van Dam Murder Trial

Our Legal Expert Gives You An Insider's View

Manny Medrano, General Assignment Reporter

Week Five

There were only two days of trial this week because of the July 4 holiday weekend. This week the prosecution rested, subject to calling one additional witness. The defense began with a flurry of witnesses intended to challenge the DA's strong circumstantial case.

Forget Everything You've Seen On Television - This Is The Real World
We've all grown up with TV dramas such as "Perry Mason," "LA Law," "Law and Order" and similar fare where prosecutors investigate, indict, try, convict and sentence a murder suspect all conveniently in the space of an hour and with time, of course, for commercial breaks. This may make for entertaining television, but it has little relevance to how criminal trials proceed in the real world. Although common for television dramas, in my 22 years as a former-prosecutor-turned-news-reporter I have never seen the following in a courtroom: a defendant breaking down on the stand in tears and confessing to a crime; or a prosecution witness, after grueling cross-examination by a defense lawyer, doing the same.

A murder trial is a marathon, with the prosecutor working to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by building a wall - brick by brick - of strong circumstantial evidence against David Westerfield. Deputy Distict Attorney's Jeff Dusek and Woody Clarke believe they have done that. Now it's up to defense attorney Steve Feldman to start chipping away at that wall, in piecemeal fashion, and raise a question of reasonable doubt with at least one juror, as the prosecution must garner a unanimous vote. With the commencement of the defense case this week Feldman made some progress.

"There Are Two Sides To Every Story"
The jury has heard that Danielle van Dam's blood, fingerprints and hair were found by investigators in Westerfield's motor home. This proves, according to prosecutors, that the defendant transported the victim in his motor home, dead or alive, after kidnapping her. Not so fast, says Steve Feldman. He called to the stand Westerfield's neighbors to show that perhaps the seven-year-old was unsupervised and inadvertently wandered into Westerfield's recreational vehicle, leaving hair and fingerprints behind. Mark Roehr told the jury that Westerfield left his motor home unlocked at least once. Roehr's wife testified that just two weeks ago she saw the van Dam-s six-year-old son unsupervised on his front lawn attempting to retrieve a ball across the street.

Investigators testified that when they searched Westerfield's home, they found it immaculate and orderly, except for a hose that was thrown carelessly in the front yard. Prosecutor Jeff Dusek claims this shows that the night of the kidnapping February 1 the defendant hastily prepared his motor home to depart with the victim. However, Feldman called to the stand Westerfield's next door neighbor, Paul Hung, who testified that it was not unusual for the hose to be casually tossed on the front yard.

The biggest points scored this week by the defense occurred when attorney Robert Boyce cross-examined James Frazee, who claims his dog alerted to a cadaver scent around Westerfield's motor home. This potentially devastating testimony lost some of its punch when Frazee admitted sending an e-mail to the dog's breeder. In the e-mail Frazee said he wasn't sure the dog had given a cadaver alert. "I thought he might have been doing these behaviors just to please me."

Will David Westerfield Take The Stand?
No. And if defense attorney Steven Feldman encourages Westerfield to testify, he should be fired. Here's why. In a lengthy interview with police after Danielle's disappearance, Westerfield claims he went on a meandering 600 mile trip in his motor home that took him to a beach campground, to the desert, then back home to Sabre Springs. Prosecutors have called witnesses to show innumerable inconsistencies and contradictions in the defendant's story. If Westerfield takes the stand in his own defense, you can expect a cross-examination bloodbath by prosecutor Dusek as he questions the 50-year-old design engineer about his whereabouts the weekend Danielle disappeared. And Westerfield will also have to explain why, if he's not a pedophile as prosecutors claim, did he have child pornography on his home computer? Tough questions. Questions that I don't think David Westerfield can adeptly handle.

Basscleff, haven't you been listening to CTV? It doesn't matter what the bug experts say, it only matters that there is a mountain of evidence, tons of it, and fibers and all that blood and porno...To hell with the witnesses...To hell with the trial. One more witness? They could have a dozen, but it won't do anygood.

The Jury is tainted..if they have been listening to CTV, even if they wanted to, they wouldn't dare acquit DW. Can you imagine what they would face? So sad..so true.

If Barb Easton does not testify, it means that she probably had a nervous breakdown.

CTV and Nancy bubble-head, keep throwing out the bait they want DW to "take the stand"...They want him to go down.

Nancy bimbo has been on DW's case all morning, saying he shows NO EMOTION, that a little girl is dead, and he sits there "stoic"...a cold blooded man.

I will REMIND the CTV Vampire, Nancy Graceless, that when Westerfield laughed in a very funny moment at the trial, SHE came down on him like a ton of bricks. "HOW DARE HE LAUGH!" she screamed.

The poor guy can't win for losing.

End of rant. sw

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.