TRIAL DAY 20 – PART 3-afternoon 1

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, MONDAY, JULY 22, 2002, 1:40 P.M. (afternoon 1)

WITNESS:
Neal Haskell (forensic entomology consultant, Continued)

–O0O–
THE COURT: OKAY. WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DUSEK.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DR. HASKELL, I THINK WHEN WE FINISHED OR BROKE FOR LUNCH YOU HAD TOLD US THAT ON THE AUTOPSIES YOU HAD ATTENDED WHEN THE BODY WAS FRESHLY DEAD, YOU WOULD NOTICE COLORING ON THE INSIDES OF THE BODY. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES. ON THE ORGANS THAT WE TALK ABOUT.
Q.: THEY LOOK PINK AND RED, THAT TYPE OF COLORING, AND MAY HAVE SOME SLIMY TEXTURE TO IT ON THE OUTER COVERINGS OF THOSE ORGANS?
A.: YES.
Q.: THEY ALSO LOOK WET.
A.: WELL, YEAH, THERE MIGHT BE SOME MOISTURE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, TOO.
Q.: SHINY?
A.: COULD BE SHINY.
Q.: YOU WERE PROVIDED AUTOPSY PHOTOS IN THIS CASE, WEREN’T YOU?
A.: YES, I WAS.
Q.: THE INTERNAL ORGANS OF DANIELLE VAN DAM WERE NOT OF THAT CONDITION, WERE THEY, THOSE THAT YOU SAW?
A.: THEY APPEARED TO BE DECOMPOSED TO ME.
Q.: THEY APPEARED TO BE MUMMIFIED, DIDN’T THEY?
A.: WELL, I SAID THEY APPEARED TO BE DECOMPOSED TO A STATE OF DARKENING AND SO FORTH.
Q.: DARKENING GETS US TO THAT MUMMIFICATION RATHER THAN PUTREFACTION, CORRECT?
A.: WELL, IT COULD BE BOTH.
Q.: WELL, YOU DIDN’T GET A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY FEEL THE SKIN AS OPPOSED TO THE INTERIOR ORGANS, DID YOU?
A.: NO, I DID NOT.
Q.: DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO SEE THE DIFFERENT COLOR BETWEEN THE EXTERIOR OF THE BODY AND THE INTERIOR OF THE BODY?
A.: ONLY FROM MY RECOLLECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
Q.: AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT 7 BEHIND YOU, AREN’T THEY, IN PHOTOGRAPHS D AND E?
A.: WELL, D AND E. THAT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE THE INTERNAL ORGANS. I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNAL PART OF THE REMAINS AND —
Q.: WHAT DOES D AND E LOOK LIKE TO YOU?
A.: THE EXTERNAL COVERING OF THE BODY.
Q.: IT’S YOUR BELIEF THAT THAT IS THE SKIN OF THE BODY?
A.: WELL, I —
MR. FELDMAN: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: I SEE WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE EXTERIOR OF RIBS IN D. AND E I REALLY CAN’T TELL FOR SURE. I WAS ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS THE SKIN PORTION OF THE BODY.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: AND PART OF THAT ASSUMPTION LED YOU TO COME UP WITH YOUR CONCLUSION REGARDING THE P.M.I.?
A.: NO. THE P.M.I. IS CALCULATED UPON THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSECTS.
Q.: LET ME DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH A AT THE TOP WHERE IT SHOWS THE ENTIRE BODY LAID OUT THERE ON THE SHEET. DO YOU SEE HOW THAT APPEARS TO SHOW INTERNAL PORTIONS OF THE TRUNK REGION OF THE BODY?
A.: I CAN’T DISTINGUISH ANY INTERNAL ORGANS WITH THAT.
Q.: LET ME DROP YOU DOWN, THEN, TO PHOTOGRAPHS D AND E AND ASSUME THAT IS NOT THE SKIN THAT IS BLACK, THAT THAT’S THE INTERNAL PORTION OF THIS CHILD THAT IS BLACK. THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, DOES IT?
A.: IT CAN BE A FEW DAYS.
Q.: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE THE INTERNAL ORGANS TO MUMMIFY?
A.: A FEW DAYS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
Q.: HOW MANY DAYS, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS?
A.: IF IT’S HOT AND DRY LIKE WE’RE SAYING HERE, SEVERAL DAYS.
Q.: HOW MANY DAYS IS SEVERAL?
A.: A WEEK OR TWO.
Q.: HOW LONG DOES IT REMAIN THAT WAY?
A.: AS LONG AS IT’S NOT REWETTED, THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BREAK DOWN TO EVENTUALLY SKELETAL REMAINS OVER A LONG, LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
Q.: SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT CONDITION TO LAST FOR HOW LONG?
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY. VAGUE AS TO THAT CONDITION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: I THINK THE DOCTOR KNOWS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. DON’T YOU, DOCTOR?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR. I SURE DO.
THE COURT: YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: WITH THAT — WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WE HAVE, I’VE SEEN, I’VE SEEN THAT LAST FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: AND THERE’S NO WAY OF TELLING WHETHER OR NOT THAT’S THE FIRST DAY THAT IT’S ALL BLACK OR THE WEEKS OR MONTHS THAT IT’S BEEN ALL BLACK.
A.: WELL, WHAT I’M BASING MY POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ON THE INSECTS AND NOT THE BLACKNESS OR LACK OF BLACKNESS THEREOF OF THE TISSUES.
Q.: SO YOU’RE IGNORING THAT FOR YOUR PURPOSE HERE?
A.: FOR MY POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, I’M USING THE INSECTS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION, NOT THE APPEARANCE OF THE TISSUES.
Q.: SO YOU ARE EXCLUDING HOW LONG IT TAKES THE EXTERIOR OF THE BODY TO MUMMIFY?
A.: I AM USING THE ENTOMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE DETERMINATION.
Q.: YOU ARE EXCLUDING THE EXTERIOR OF THE BODY, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO MUMMIFY, TO GIVE US YOUR TIME PERIOD?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU’RE EXCLUDING HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE THE INTERIOR OF THE BODY TO REACH THE CONDITION THAT WE SEE ON EXHIBIT 7, CORRECT?
A.: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
Q.: HOW DID THE BODY GET OPENED UP?
A.: WELL, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HAD BEEN CONSIDERABLE CARNIVORE FEEDING ON THE REMAINS.
Q.: HOW CAN YOU TELL BY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS?
A.: WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE, I’VE SEEN A NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE’VE HAD VERY SIMILAR FEEDING BY LARGE CARNIVORES ON THE FEMURS WHERE THE TISSUE’S GONE ON THE LEG, ON THE UPPER LEG PART. AND THEN ALSO THE — THERE WAS THE BICEPS AND TRICEPS I BELIEVE ON ONE OF THE ARMS, I THINK MAYBE THE LEFT ARM, THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MY EXPERIENCE WAS WITH COYOTES OR FERAL DOGS OR LARGE ANIMALS DEFLESHING THOSE AREAS.
Q.: SO USING THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON EXHIBIT 7, IT APPEARS THAT THE — AT LEAST THE ARM AND LEGS REGION ARE VISIBLE IN PHOTOGRAPH A, CORRECT?
A.: IN A. I DON’T KNOW WHAT 7 IS. I’M SORRY.
Q.: 7 IS THE EXHIBIT.
A.: OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. YOUR QUESTION IS, SIR?
Q.: IT APPEARS THAT THERE’S BEEN ANIMAL ACTIVITY ON THE LEGS.
A.: ON THE FEMURS, ON THE UPPER PART OF THE LEG. AND THEN POSSIBLY ON THE BICEP, TRICEP AREA OF THE RIGHT ARM. AND I RECALL SEEING SOMETHING ON THE LEFT ARM I THOUGHT.
Q.: AND IT APPEARS THAT THOSE AREAS ARE BLACK IN THE PHOTOGRAPH A, CORRECT?
A.: IT APPEARS THAT IT’S BONE. THE BONE TO ME IS — IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, THAT DOESN’T LOOK BLACK, IT LOOKS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT BONE MATERIAL WOULD BE ON A, EXHIBIT A.
Q.: YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE THIGH REGION?
A.: I’M REFERRING TO THE FEMUR WHICH IS THE THIGH BONE.
Q.: AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE’S STILL SOME MEAT ON THAT THIGH THAT HAS TURNED BLACK, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: MUMMIFIED, RIGHT?
A.: I WOULD EXPECT THAT, YES.
Q.: AND THE ARM REGION, THE RIGHT ARM, THAT ALSO APPEARS TO BE BLACK, DOESN’T IT?
A.: IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE, YES.
Q.: SO ONCE THE BODY WAS OPENED UP, THERE WAS STILL ENOUGH TIME FOR THE PORTIONS THAT REMAINED TO MUMMIFY, CORRECT?
A.: MY INTERPRETATION ON THE INSECT COLONIZATION IS THAT THE INSECTS WILL — THE BLOW FLIES WILL COLONIZE SHORTLY AFTER DEATH. AND SO THE EXPOSURE IN THE PELVIC AREA TO ME IS INTERPRETED AS FEEDING BY THE MAGGOTS THEMSELVES AND THEM STILL BEING THERE WHEN THE BODY WAS RECOVERED AND DAVID FAULKNER DID HIS COLLECTIONS.
Q.: DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE BLACKENED REGION ON THE ARMS AND LEGS LOOKED LIKE THEY’VE MUMMIFIED?
A.: YES. I THINK I SAID THAT EARLIER, YES.
Q.: AFTER THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN OPENED UP AND ALLOWED THAT AREA TO BE EXPOSED TO THE AIR?
A.: SURE.
Q.: SO HOWEVER LONG THE BODY WAS THERE BEFORE IT GOT OPENED UP WOULD HAVE MUMMIFIED THE EXTERIOR OF THE BODY.
A.: AGAIN, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH ANIMALS FEEDING, USUALLY THEY WILL COME IN AND FEED RATHER EARLY ON THE FRESHER TISSUES, NOT — I DON’T THINK THAT THE ANIMALS, THE CARNIVORES, WOULD WAIT UNTIL THAT TISSUE IS TOO BADLY MUMMIFIED BECAUSE IT’S HARD TO CHEW, HARD TO TEAR OFF. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THEY COULD HAVE — I DON’T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF YOU HAVE EVER HAD THE EXPERIENCE TO PULL OFF MUMMIFIED TISSUES OFF A BODY, BUT IT CAN BE QUITE DIFFICULT AND QUITE TOUGH TO DO THAT. AND SO IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE ANIMALS TO FEED WHEN THOSE TISSUES ARE MUCH WETTER AND FRESHER.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. DUSEK
AND MR. CLARKE.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: THE FACE REGION, THE LOWER LEG, HANDS AND FEET LOOK LIKE THEY’VE BEEN MUMMIFIED, CORRECT?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: AND THEN THE INTERNAL PORTIONS ALSO LOOK LIKE THEY’VE BEEN MUMMIFIED, RIGHT?
A.: WELL, AGAIN I’M NOT — I’M NOT A HUNDRED PER CENT SURE THAT THAT ISN’T — THAT ISN’T COVERING OVER THE BODY WITH RESPECT TO THE MUSCLES THAT COVER THE ABDOMINAL AREA.
Q.: WHERE WAS THE MAGGOT MASS?
A.: IN THE ABDOMINAL AND PELVIC AREA.
Q.: IT HAD BEEN CHEWED OUT BY CARNIVORES, CORRECT?
A.: CHEWED OUT BY MAGGOTS IN MY INTERPRETATION.
Q.: WELL, YOU WEREN’T EVEN AT THE AUTOPSY, WERE YOU?
A.: NO.
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
/ / /
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO READ DR. BLACKBOURNE’S AUTOPSY, HAVEN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO READ HIS TESTIMONY?
A.: NO.
Q.: THAT WASN’T PROVIDED?
A.: I DID NOT SEE THAT.
Q.: WERE YOU PROVIDED ANY INFORMATION AT ALL THAT THE MAGGOT MASS WAS IN THE ANIMAL-EATEN AREA OF THIS CHILD?
A.: I BELIEVE I SAW THAT FAULKNER HAD REFERRED TO THAT, THAT SUPPOSITION. AGAIN, IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH MAGGOTS AND MAGGOT MASSES AND THE QUICKNESS WITH WHICH THEY CAN CLEAR THE SOFT TISSUES, I WOULD SAY THAT THOSE MAGGOTS WERE PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT EXCAVATION AND DETERIORATION OR BREAKDOWN OF THOSE TISSUES.
Q.: SO YOU’RE TELLING US THAT THE MAGGOTS WOULD HAVE EATEN THROUGH THE SKIN TO CREATE THE MAGGOT MASS?
A.: NO, I’M NOT TELLING YOU THAT. I’M TELLING YOU THEY CAME IN THROUGH THE NATURAL PELVIC OPENINGS.
Q.: YOU’RE AWARE THAT DAVID FAULKNER AND DR. BLACKBOURNE TOLD US THE MAGGOT MASS WAS IN AN AREA THAT HAD BEEN EATEN ON BY CARNIVORES, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: ARE YOU REJECTING THAT?
A.: I’M SAYING THAT THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, AND THAT IS THAT THE MAGGOTS ENTERED THROUGH THE NATURAL BODY OPENINGS, AND THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
Q.: WHO WAS IN A BETTER POSITION TO SEE THE RAVAGES OF THIS BODY IN PERSON?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, —
THE COURT: IT’S ARGUMENTATIVE. SUSTAINED.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: YOU DID NOT EVEN SEE THIS BODY FIRSTHAND, DID YOU?
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: YOU ARE REJECTING DAVID FAULKNER’S TESTIMONY THAT THE MAGGOT MASS WAS IN THE AREA EATEN OUT BY CARNIVORES?
MR. BOYCE: YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY OF DR. FAULKNER.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. FELDMAN: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: ON THAT BASIS, SUSTAINED.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: IF THE ANIMALS HAD EATEN OUT THE STOMACH AND LEG REGION, THAT WOULD THEN EXPOSE MOIST TISSUE TO THE FLIES, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: NOT ACCORDING TO YOUR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT WAS MUMMIFIED. NOW, SEE, IT’S EITHER — IF IT’S MUMMIFIED, THEN IT CAN’T BE SOFT AND SUPPLE. IF IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BLOW FLIES, THEN THEY HAVE TO BE THERE BEFORE THE MUMMIFICATION.
Q.: IF A COYOTE EATS THE THIGHS AND THE STOMACH REGION, THAT’S GOING TO EXPOSE THE INSIDES, ISN’T IT?
A.: IT COULD, YES.
Q.: IT COULD OR IT WOULD?
A.: IT COULD, YES.
Q.: HOW COULD IT NOT?
A.: IF THEY DIDN’T EAT DEEP ENOUGH, IT WOULD NOT EXPOSE THE VISCERA.
Q.: IF IT BREAKS THE SKIN, THAT WOULD BE A SIGN OF TRAUMA ON THIS BODY, CORRECT?
A.: THAT WOULD GIVE THE MAGGOTS OR THE FLIES AN OPENING TO THE UNDERLYING TISSUES. THAT IS CONSISTENT, YES.
Q.: WHY WOULD THEY GO TO THAT IF THE ANIMAL WAS CHEWING ON THE STOMACH AND THIGH REGION?
A.: I THINK THEY WOULD COME IN THE PELVIC AREA WHERE THEY HAD ORIGINALLY COLONIZED BEFORE ANY MUMMIFICATION TOOK PLACE.
Q.: WHY WOULD THE FLIES GO TO THAT REGION IF THE ANIMALS HAD EATEN THROUGH THAT SKIN ON THE STOMACH AND THIGH REGION?
A.: IF IT WAS MUMMIFIED, I DON’T THINK THEY WOULD.
Q.: WHAT IF JUST THE EXTERIOR WAS MUMMIFIED AND AS SOON AS YOU EAT THROUGH IT’S NOT GOING TO BE AUTOMATICALLY MUMMIFIED RIGHT AWAY, IS IT?
A.: I DIDN’T THINK SO. BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS YOUR ARGUMENT THAT WAS ALL MUMMIFIED.
Q.: YOU’VE BEEN TO LAW SCHOOL, HAVEN’T YOU?
A.: NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU BEEN A LAWYER?
A.: NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU TESTIFIED BEFORE?
A.: YES, I HAVE.
Q.: HOW MANY TIMES?
A.: SEVERAL.
Q.: HOW MANY?
A.: I’VE BEEN UNDER OATH MAYBE SEVENTY-FIVE, EIGHTY TIMES.
Q.: AND YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN THIS FIELD, CORRECT?
A.: YES, I AM, SIR.
Q.: HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THIS FIELD?
A.: EIGHTEEN YEARS.
Q.: WHEN AN ANIMAL EATS THROUGH THE SKIN OF A PERSON, THE INSIDES ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY MUMMIFIED, ARE THEY?
A.: IN MY OPINION THEY WOULD NOT BE.
Q.: THAT WOULD MAKE THEM RECEPTIVE, THAT AREA RECEPTIVE TO YOUR FLIES, CORRECT?
A.: IT WOULD. BUT ALSO THE PELVIC AREA WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE INITIAL COLONIZATION WOULD TAKE PLACE.
Q.: ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THE FLIES WOULDN’T GO TO THAT AREA WHERE THE ANIMALS HAD EATEN THROUGH?
A.: IF IT WAS FULLY MUMMIFIED, THEY WOULD NOT. THE BLOW FLIES WOULD NOT GO THERE IF IT WAS MUMMIFIED.
Q.: WHAT IF IT’S BEFORE THEY’RE MUMMIFIED?
A.: THEN THEY PROBABLY WOULD.
Q.: AND THEN WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT TO FIND IN THAT REGION?
A.: WE COULD FIND SOME COLONIZATION.
Q.: YOU WOULD FIND A MAGGOT MASS, WOULDN’T YOU?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY. THE MAGGOT MASS COULD HAVE ORIGINATED FROM THE PELVIC AREA.
Q.: COULD IT HAVE ORIGINATED ALSO FROM EATING OUT BY THE ANIMALS?
A.: NOT IF TOO MUCH TIME HAD PASSED BECAUSE THE TISSUES HAD CHANGE UNDERLYING IN DECOMPOSITION. REMEMBER, THIS DECOMPOSITION IS AN ONGOING FORWARD PROCESS. IT DOESN’T BACK UP. AND IF ENOUGH TIME HAS PASSED, THEN THOSE TISSUES THAT WOULD BE EXPOSED WOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE BLOW FLIES, BUT OTHER FLIES WOULD COME IN, LIKE THE CHEESE SKIPPERS. IF THAT WERE THE CASE, I WOULD EXPECT TO FIND CHEESE SKIPPERS, COMMON FLIES, AND SOME OF THE LATER COMERS TO THAT. AND WE HAVE HAD CASE EXAMPLES OF THAT IN THE LITERATURE.
Q.: SO BASED UPON YOUR EXPERT OPINION, ASSUMING AN ANIMAL HAD EATEN THROUGH THE STOMACH AND THIGH REGION OF THIS CHILD, IT WOULD HAVE MUMMIFIED SO FAST THAT THE MAGGOT MASS WOULD NOT BE
— WOULD NOT BE BECAUSE OF THAT OPENING BY THE ANIMALS. IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US?
A.: NO. I’M NOT TELLING YOU THAT AT ALL. I’M JUST SAYING — I’M SAYING THAT IF IT IS FRESHLY OPENED, AND WE CAN’T HAVE WEEKS PASSING, AND THEN IT OPENS UP AND THE BLOW FLIES BE ATTRACTED TO IT. IF IT’S OPENED UP AND WEEKS HAVE PASSED, THEN OTHER FLIES WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO IT. THE CHEMISTRY OF THAT WHOLE REGION WOULD HAVE CHANGED OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. SO IF WE FIND BLOW FLIES, THAT’S EARLY IN THE DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS OF THOSE TISSUES.
Q.: AND IN THIS CASE YOU TALKED ABOUT NO FLIES — WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW THE FLIES WERE IN THE GENITAL AREA?
A.: BECAUSE OF THE MAGGOT MASS IN THE PELVIC AND ABDOMINAL REGIONS.
Q.: BUT YOU DIDN’T HAVE A GENITAL REGION HERE, DID YOU?
A.: IT WAS GONE. THE TISSUES WERE GONE.
A.: SO YOU DO NOT KNOW IF THE FLIES CAME IN THROUGH THAT WAY OR LANDED ON IT AFTER THE COYOTES GOT TO THE BODY.
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: AGAIN IN MY OPINION IF WE HAVE THE PELVIC AREA OPEN AND EXPOSED, THAT IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST PLACE THE FLIES ARE GOING TO HIT. AND IF YOU HAVE DECOMPOSITION AND MUMMIFICATION TAKING PLACE, THEN THE FLY, THE BLOW FLIES ARE NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN, OTHERS WILL, WHEN THAT TISSUE IS EXPOSED.
WE’VE HAD — I’VE ALREADY SEEN THE TESTIMONY OF MAGGOTS BEING IN THE HEAD AREA, SO THAT TO ME THAT CONFIRMS THE FACT THAT THE FLIES TRIED TO GO TO THE HEAD AREA AND ESTABLISH A COLONY THERE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DID YOU SEE THE TESTIMONY FROM DAVID FAULKNER THAT HE THOUGHT THE BODY WAS POSSIBLY COVERED BECAUSE THERE WERE SO FEW, SO LITTLE ACTIVITY IN THE HEAD REGION?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
MR. FELDMAN: WELL, IT’S —
MR. BOYCE: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: YES. I SAW THAT. AND THAT COULD BE ONE EXPLANATION OF REDUCED ACTIVITY IN THE — IN ANY PART OF THE BODY IF YOU HAVE COVER. I’VE HAD CASES WHERE YOU HAVE A PLASTIC BAG OVER THE HEAD. AND IN THAT CASE THE FLIES WILL TRY TO GET THERE, BUT THEY CAN’T. THE ODORS AREN’T EMITTING FROM THAT NOR ARE THE ACCESSIBILITY PRESENT. SO THEY’LL GO TO THE OTHER END, THE PELVIC END.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: AND ASSUMING THE BODY WAS COVERED BY A BLANKET OR SOMETHING THAT ALLOWED THE AIR TO GET THROUGH IT, THAT WOULD STILL PREVENT THE FLIES TO GET INTO THE HEAD REGION, CORRECT?
A.: TO A LIMITED DEGREE. THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY GET THERE.
Q.: THEY WOULD GET THERE PERHAPS WHEN A COYOTE REMOVED A BLANKET?
A.: NO. THEY WOULD — THE FLIES HAVE A VERY, VERY, VERY QUICK WAY OF ACCESSING OR VERY TENACIOUS WAY OR TRYING TO ACCESS SOMETHING, THEIR FOOD SOURCE, SOMETHING THEY CAN LAY THEIR EGGS ON. AND IT MADE — A BLANKET MAY DELAY FOR A FEW DAYS. IT CERTAINLY WOULDN’T NECESSARILY INHIBIT. I’VE ACTUALLY SEEN EGGS LAID ON THE OUTSIDE. WE HAD A CASE FROM INDIANA WHERE A MOTHER AND TWO LITTLE CHILDREN —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. NO QUESTION PENDING.
THE COURT: NO QUESTION PENDING.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: IF THE BODY IS COVERED AND THE DELAY OF THE FLIES IS WHATEVER PERIOD OF TIME YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE, DURING THAT DELAY THE BODY WOULD CONTINUE TO MUMMIFY, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: IT WOULD CONTINUE TO DECOMPOSE. IF IT’S COVERED, THAT’S GOING TO HOLD MOISTURE IN AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE LESS MUMMIFICATION, MORE DECOMPOSITION.
Q.: ASSUMING YOU WERE COVERED WITH PLASTIC.
A.: NO. ASSUMING YOU WERE COVERED WITH PLASTIC, BLANKETS, OR ANYTHING. BLANKETS HOLD MOISTURE. AND WE HAVE SEEN THAT TIME AND AGAIN IN OUR CASE WORK AND OUR RESEARCH.
Q.: ASSUMING THE FLIES IN THE STOMACH REGION WERE BECAUSE ANIMAL ACTIVITY, CAN YOU MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION FOR US?
A.: ALL RIGHT. I’LL ASSUME THAT.
Q.: YOU REJECT THAT POSSIBILITY, THOUGH, CORRECT?
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: NOT NECESSARILY. BUT I — DEPENDING ON — AS I STATED BEFORE — OKAY. LET’S ASSUME. LET’S GO WITH YOUR QUESTION. GO ON WITH THAT.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: YOU REJECT THAT POSSIBILITY, DON’T YOU?
A.: IN MY OPINION I DO REJECT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE FLIES CAME IN AFTER THE COYOTES OPENED THAT AREA. I THINK THE FLIES WERE THERE, THE MAGGOTS WERE THERE, BEFORE THE COYOTES CAME IN.
Q.: DO YOU REJECT THE POSSIBILITY THAT A COYOTE DID FEED ON THE STOMACH AREA?
A.: I DON’T REJECT THAT AT ALL.
Q.: THAT’S A POSSIBILITY, ISN’T IT?
A.: I THINK IT’S LIKELY.
Q.: AND WHEN THE COYOTES COME TO THAT REGION, THEY’RE EATING WHAT’S IN THAT AREA, CORRECT?
A.: YEAH. AND AGAIN I DON’T SEE — I DON’T SEE INTESTINES SHOWING; I DON’T SEE LIVER SHOWING; I DON’T SEE PANCREAS; I DON’T SEE THE SPLEEN; I DON’T SEE THE LARGE INTESTINES SHOWING. IT LOOKS LIKE WE’VE GOT A COVERING OF MUSCLE TISSUE AND OTHER THINGS INSTEAD OF WHAT I EXPECT IF IT WERE EXPOSED.
Q.: BUT YOU CAN’T TELL ANYTHING AT ALL FROM WHAT WE SEE EXPOSED OR DEPICTED IN PHOTOGRAPHS D AND E ON EXHIBIT 7, CORRECT?
A.: THESE ARE THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU SHOWED ME.
Q.: ASSUMING THE COYOTE COMES TO CHEW ON THAT STOMACH REGION, THE COYOTE IS GOING TO CHEW AND EAT SOME OF THE MAGGOT MASS, ISN’T HE?
A.: I THINK THEY COULD. WE HAVE FOUND OR — THE COYOTE FECES WITH MAGGOTS IN IT I BELIEVE AT TIMES.
Q.: WHY WOULD THAT BE?
A.: WHY WOULD WHAT BE?
Q.: WHY WOULD THE COYOTE BE EATING IN THE REGION WHERE THE MAGGOT MASS IS?
A.: BECAUSE THE TISSUES MIGHT BE ATTRACTABLE TO EAT BY THE COYOTES.
Q.: AND THEN IF THE COYOTE WERE EATING IN THE AREA WHERE THE MAGGOT MASS WAS, THAT WOULD BE REMOVING ONE OR TWO GENERATIONS OF MAGGOTS, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE ARE NOT — WE ONLY HAVE ONE GENERATION OF MAGGOTS ON THIS BODY IN THE FIRST PLACE. I CANNOT RECALL EVER SEEING A MAGGOT CASE, A BLOW FLY MAGGOT CASE, THAT I’VE WORKED WHERE WE’VE HAD MORE THAN ONE GENERATION OF MAGGOTS ON THAT BODY. ON ANY BODY. AND I’VE DONE ALMOST FIVE HUNDRED, MAYBE OVER FIVE HUNDRED CASES, PLUS THE RESEARCH AT THE BODY FARM, PLUS ABOUT A THOUSAND, FIFTEEN HUNDRED DEAD ANIMALS THAT I’VE WORKED WITH OVER THE EIGHTEEN YEARS.
Q.: THE COYOTE COULD REMOVE THE MAGGOTS WHEN HE FED ON THE BODY, COULDN’T IT?
A.: SOME OF THEM, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.
Q.: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MANY COYOTES AND HOW HUNGRY THEY WERE, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: IT DOESN’T LOOK LIKE MUCH TISSUE HAS BEEN REMOVED ON THE BODY HERE FROM THE ABDOMINAL AREA.
Q.: DID YOU SEE OR READ OR HEAR A DESCRIPTION FROM DR. BLACKBOURNE AS TO THE INTERNAL CONDITION OF THIS CHILD, WHAT WAS LEFT AND WHAT WASN’T LEFT?
A.: THERE WERE SOME INTERNAL ORGANS LEFT, YES.
Q.: THERE WERE INTERNAL ORGANS LEFT?
A.: TO MY RECOLLECTION.
Q.: WHICH ONES?
A.: I DON’T HAVE THE REPORT. I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THAT.
Q.: WERE THERE INTERNAL ORGANS MISSING?
A.: TO MY RECOLLECTION, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN.
Q.: WHICH ONES?
A.: I DON’T KNOW.
Q.: HOW BIG WERE THEY?
A.: I DON’T KNOW. I DON’T HAVE HIS REPORT IN FRONT OF ME.
Q.: AND WHEN THE ANIMALS ARE CHEWING THAT AREA, IS THERE ANYTHING TO PREVENT THEM FROM EATING ALL OF THE MAGGOTS THAT ARE THERE AT THAT TIME?
A.: OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE. THE MAGGOTS ARE PRETTY MOBILE LITTLE GUYS, AND THEY CAN MOVE PRETTY FAST, AND THEY WILL GET OUT OF THE WAY OF A COYOTE TRYING TO EAT THEM UP.
Q.: THEN IF THEY WERE TO EAT SOME OF THOSE MAGGOTS, THEN THE NEXT GENERATION, THE NEXT FLIES WOULD COME BACK AND HAVE MOIST AREAS TO LAY THEIR EGGS, CORRECT?
A.: WE WOULD NOT HAVE A SECOND GENERATION. YOU’RE TALKING TO ME NOW, MAYBE YOUR TERMS ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT TO ME A SECOND GENERATION MEANS FLIES LAY EGGS, THOSE EGGS COMPLETE THAT LIFE CYCLE, THEN FLIES HATCH OUT, AND THEY REACH SEXUAL MATURITY, THEY MATE AND THEN LAY NEW EGGS BACK ON THE BODY. THAT TAKES BY THE TIME THE FLIES GET READY TO HATCH OUT OF THE PUPARIUM, THE COCOON STAGE, THE BODY IS SO FAR OUT OF CONDITION THAT THE BLOW FLIES NEVER COME BACK AND CHOOSE THAT AS A FOOD SOURCE AGAIN.
Q.: WHETHER IT IS A GENERATION OR JUST A SECOND WAVE OF FLIES, A SECOND WAVE OF FLIES COULD COME AND INFEST THE BODY AFTER THE FIRST WAVE OF FLIES HAD LAID THEIR EGGS, CORRECT?
A.: WE COULD HAVE SUCCESSIVE CLUTCHES ON DAY ONE, DAY TWO, DAY THREE, DAY FOUR. WE SEE THAT, YES, WE DO.
Q.: AND WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, BASED UPON WHAT YOU’VE SEEN WHETHER OR NOT THE FLIES YOU SAW WERE SENT TO YOU BY DAVID FAULKNER WERE FROM THE FIRST WAVE OF FLIES OR THE SECOND WAVE OF FLIES AFTER THE ANIMAL WAS CHEWING ON THE BODY, DO YOU?
MR. FELDMAN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: AGAIN WE MIGHT HAVE A DAY OR TWO DIFFERENCE IN THOSE. BUT THE INITIAL COLONIZATION, THE WAY THESE BLOW FLIES SURVIVE IS BY COMPLETING LIFE CYCLES. IF COYOTES ARE EATING THEM ALL UP, THEN WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE BLOW FLIES.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: OR THE BLOW FLIES CAME IN AFTER THE COYOTES HAD THEIR LAST MEAL.
A.: IN MY OPINION THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.
Q.: WHEN THE FLIES WORK THEIR WAY THROUGH THE CYCLE, WHEN THE FLY LAYS THEIR EGG, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A MOIST, DARK AREA, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: WELL, NOT NECESSARILY DARK. DEPENDS ON THE HABITAT. DEPENDS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. IF THEY’RE IN FULL SUNLIGHT, YEAH, THEY’LL SEEK A DARKER, BUT THEY ARE SEEKING MOIST AREAS, MOISTURE, BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE EGGS TO MATURE AND HATCH.
Q.: AND IF THEY CAN’T FIND — ASSUMING THERE’S ENOUGH FLIES TO SHOW UP AND FIND THE BODY, IF THEY CAN’T FIND A RECEPTIVE AREA, THEY MOVE ON, CORRECT?
A.: THEY WILL MOVE ON TO OTHER FRESH ANIMALS, YES.
Q.: ASSUMING THAT THEY LAY THEIR EGGS, DO THE EGGS NEED SOMETHING TO CAUSE THEM TO GROW?
A.: TEMPERATURE. HEAT.
Q.: DO THEY NEED ANY MOISTURE?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY. IT’S NOT LIKE YOU’RE TAKING GRASS SEED AND PUTTING IT ON A PETRI DISH AND THEN WETTING IT DOWN, NO. IT’S NOT LIKE THAT. THEY CAN HATCH UNDER PRETTY EXTREME CONDITIONS AS A MATTER OF FACT.
Q.: THEY NEED THE MOISTURE, THAT’S WHY THEY GO TO THE NOSE, THE MOUTH, THE EARS, DON’T THEY?
A.: NO. THE MOISTURE IS NECESSARY ONCE THE EGGS HATCH. THE FIRST-STAGE MAGGOTS WILL FEED ON THE MUCOUS MEMBRANES PRIMARILY OF THE TISSUES, AND THEY DON’T — THEY WON’T BE WORKING DEEP INTO THE — THE FIRST- AND SECOND-STAGE LARVAE WILL NOT BE WORKING INTO THE DEEPER PARTS OF THE TISSUES. IT’S WHEN WE GET TO THE THIRD STAGE THAT WE MOVE INTO THE DEEP MUSCLE TISSUES AND SO FORTH. BUT IT’S A PROGRESSION FROM OUTSIDE IN. THEY DON’T BURROW IN AS — THEY DON’T DO THAT.
Q.: WILL THE EGGS LAY DORMANT IF THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT RECEPTIVE?
A.: THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY LAY DORMANT IS IF TEMPERATURES WERE BELOW THE DEVELOPMENTAL THRESHOLD.
Q.: HOW ABOUT THE HUMIDITY OR THE MOISTURE, WILL THEY LIE DORMANT IF THAT’S NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THEM TO DEVELOP?
A.: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q.: THE NEXT LEVEL IS TO WHEN — IS FROM FIRST INSTAR TO SECOND INSTAR?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THEY ALSO NEED MOISTURE AT THAT TIME, DON’T THEY?
A.: THEY ARE FEEDING ON THE MUCOUS MEMBRANES WHICH PRIMARILY ARE MOIST AREAS, AND SO AGAIN YOU HAVE THOSE MUCOUS MEMBRANES IN THE PELVIC AREA, YOU HAVE THOSE IN THE EYES, THE MOUTH, THE NOSE, EARS.
Q.: IF THOSE AREAS HAD DRIED OUT, THEY WOULD LIE DORMANT, WOULDN’T THEY?
A.: NO. THEY WOULD, IF THE TEMPERATURES WERE HIGH ENOUGH, THEY WOULD TRY TO FIND AREAS ON THE BODY THAT WERE SUSCEPTIBLE OR WERE ATTRACTIVE TO THEIR FEEDING STYLE.
Q.: AND IF THERE WERE NO AREAS, THEY WOULD LIE DORMANT, WOULDN’T THEY?
A.: THEY WOULD NOT. THEY WOULD DIE.
Q.: AND THE SECOND, THE NEXT LEVEL, THEY ALSO REQUIRE MOISTURE.
A.: AGAIN, THEY NEED FRESH — THEY NEED FRESH TISSUE TO FEED ON. THEY CAN’T — THEY DON’T FEED ON ADVANCED DECOMPOSING TISSUE. IT’S — IT HAS TO BE OF A CERTAIN BIOCHEMICAL NATURE.
Q.: WOULD BLEACH ON THE BODY AFFECT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE?
A.: I DON’T THINK IT WOULD AFFECT THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE BECAUSE THE REPRODUCTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE WHEN THEY LAY THE EGGS. AND AS FAR AS THE BLEACH AFFECTING, I DON’T KNOW.
Q.: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD KILL THEM, LIKE A POISON?
A.: I DON’T RECALL ANYBODY HAS DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THAT. I HAVE DONE RESEARCH REGARDING MURIATIC ACID DUMPED ON A BODY AND WHAT IT DID WAS THE MURIATIC ACID, WHICH WAS P.H. OF ONE, WHICH IS REALLY NASTY STUFF, LOT MORE NASTY THAN BLEACH IS, WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE EGG LAYING WAS DELAYED BY ABOUT TWO TO THREE DAYS. EVENTUALLY THEY CAME IN AND FINALLY COLONIZED IT, BUT IT WAS DELAYED BY TWO OR THREE DAYS.
Q.: BLEACH ON THE BODY WOULD ALSO SPEED UP THE DRYING PROCESS, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: I DON’T KNOW.
Q.: THE WIND HAS AN EFFECT ON THE FLIES, DOESN’T IT?
A.: IT MIGHT HAVE SOME EFFECT.
Q.: WELL, IT MIGHT HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHETHER OR NOT THE WIND IS BLOWING THE SCENT FROM THE BODY TO THE FLIES, WOULDN’T IT?
A.: THE FLIES WILL TRACK UPWIND CERTAINLY.
Q.: THEY WILL NOT TRACK DOWNWIND, WILL THEY?
A.: I THINK THEY HAVE A TENDENCY TO TRACK UPWIND.
Q.: HAVE A TENDENCY OR THAT’S THE WAY THEY DO IT?
A.: A TENDENCY TO TRACK UPWIND, YES.
Q.: THEY CANNOT SMELL SOMETHING THAT’S DOWNWIND, CAN THEY?
A.: NO.
Q.: SO THEY GET THEIR SMELLS FROM UPWIND?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND THE WIND ALSO ACCELERATES THE DRYING-OUT PROCESS, DOESN’T IT?
A.: IF IT’S A DRY WIND, IT MIGHT, YES.
Q.: DO YOU HAVE DRY WINDS IN SANTA ANA CONDITIONS?
A.: I THINK THAT WE ESTABLISHED THAT, YES.
Q.: THE FLIES ALSO HAVE DIFFICULTY IN FLYING IN WIND.
A.: NOT TO MY RESEARCH KNOWLEDGE. I COLLECTED FLIES COMING INTO CARRION BAITS AND/OR DEAD PIGS AND/OR DEAD HORSES WHEN WINDS ARE FORTY-FIVE AND FIFTY MILES AN HOUR. I WAS QUITE SURPRISED. BUT WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TEND TO COME ALONG THE GROUND RIGHT ABOVE THE GROUND LEVEL. AND SO THERE’S A LOT LESS WIND EFFECT IN THAT GROUND EFFECT AREA.
Q.: BUT THEY WOULD WANT A MOIST, FRESH BODY TO GO TO, WOULDN’T THEY?
A.: YES. AND IF THE BODY HAS CHANGED BEYOND THAT, THEN THEY’RE NOT GOING TO COME TO THAT BODY AGAIN.
Q.: WHICH WAYS DO THE WINDS BLOW HERE IN SANTA ANA CONDITIONS?
A.: TO MY RECOLLECTION, I THINK DOWN FROM THE NORTH, AND THEY FLOW FROM NORTH TO SOUTH.
Q.: OKAY.
DOES THE RAIN HAVE ANY FACTOR ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE FLIES?
A.: NOT DIRECTLY. OF COURSE, IF — NOT ON DEVELOPMENT. NOW, AS I TESTIFIED EARLIER, IF WE HAVE VERY DRY CONDITIONS, WHEN THE MAGGOTS GO TO CRAWL OFF DURING THIS MIGRATION PHASE, AS I STATED EARLIER, WE HAVE LITERALLY HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF DEAD MAGGOTS. THEY JUST COOK. WHEREAS, IF YOU HAVE MOIST, MOIST SOIL AND SO FORTH, THEY HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO GET AWAY AND BURROW INTO THE SOIL AND SURVIVE THAT WAY.
BUT RAINFALL CAN ALSO REDUCE THE FLIGHT ACTIVITY IF IT’S A COLD OR COOL RAIN DURING COOLER TEMPERATURES. THAT CAN INHIBIT THE BLOW FLY FLIGHT ACTIVITY SO THERE ARE SOME DAYS, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE HAVE HEAVY RAINS ALL DAY, AND MAYBE YOU DON’T HAVE THAT HERE, OBVIOUSLY YOU DON’T, BUT IF YOU HAVE HEAVY RAINS ALL DAY, THE BLOW FLY ACTIVITY CAN BE COMPLETELY SUPPRESSED FOR THAT WHOLE DAY BASED ON THE HEAVY RAINS.
Q.: IF YOU HAVE AN UNSEASONABLY DRY YEAR, LOWEST RAINFALL IN 150 YEARS, WOULD YOU EXPECT A LITTLE BIT OF RAIN TO ACTIVATE THE FLIES AND THEIR REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE?
MR. BOYCE: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, OR THE TESTIMONY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
HE CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: NOT NECESSARILY. AGAIN THESE AREN’T LIKE MOSQUITOS WHERE MOSQUITOS CAN LAY DORMANT FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS AND THEN ONCE RAINFALL HITS THEM, ONCE WATER HITS THEM, THEY’LL GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP INTO LARVAE AND GO ON. BLOW FLIES ARE PRIMARILY — THEY’RE NOT LIKE SEEDS. THEY DON’T NECESSARILY NEED RAINFALL TO ACTIVATE THEM. WHAT YOU MIGHT NEED IS RAINFALL TO KEEP THE LITTLE ANIMALS ALIVE THAT KEEP THE BLOW FLIES ALIVE IN THE OUTDOOR POPULATION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: HOW MUCH RAIN DID WE HAVE IN FEBRUARY?
A.: I DON’T THINK YOU HAD VERY MUCH. MAYBE A COUPLE TRACES, MAYBE A TENTH OR TWO-TENTHS. AND I’M JUST RECALLING. I COULD REFER TO THE WEATHER CHARTS IF YOU WANT ME TO.
Q.: DO YOU HAVE IT?
A.: I MAY NOT HAVE IT. I DON’T HAVE IT ON MY — I DON’T HAVE IT ON MY REPORT. MAY HAVE — I HAVE — NATIONAL WEATHER STATION BROWN FIELD DATA.
Q.: IS IT HERE IN COURT?
A.: I DON’T THINK SO.
(MR. FELDMAN POINTED TO MR. DUSEK’S TABLE.)
THE WITNESS: OR MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY. MAYBE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: ARE YOU TELLING — IS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THE RAINFALL AT BROWN FIELD WILL DUPLICATE WHAT WAS AT DEHESA?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY. BECAUSE WE HAVE RAINFALL ONE PLACE AND NOT AT ANOTHER.
Q.: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE RAINFALL AT DEHESA WAS OR CLOSER TO DEHESA IN FEBRUARY?
A.: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
Q.: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW BEFORE YOU VENTURED ANY OPINIONS REGARDING THE LIFE CYCLE OF THESE FLIES?
A.: NO. I DON’T THINK IT’S NECESSARY. IT’S NOT ESSENTIAL.
Q.: ANY DROUGHT WOULD YOU EXPECT FEWER ANIMALS TO BE AROUND?
A.: WITH REGARD TO THAT, PROBABLY WE HAVE FEWER ANIMALS. HOWEVER, THE LOCATION OF WHERE THE BODY WAS FOUND, WE HAVE A NICE BODY OF WATER, WE HAVE A GOLF COURSE THAT HAS PLENTY OF WATER ON IT, AND I WOULD EXPECT A HIGHER NUMBER OF ANIMALS TO BE COMING INTO THE POND AND INTO THE AREAS ON THE WATER HAZARDS AND SO FORTH AT THE GOLF COURSE AND, THEREFORE, MIGHT HAVE A HIGHER POPULATION OF ANIMALS IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA WHICH WOULD THEN CONTINUE TO FEED THE NORMAL POPULATION OF BLOW FLIES. YOU KNOW, MAYBE A LITTLE DEAD MOUSE WILL ONLY RAISE TWENTY-FIVE, THIRTY BLOW FLIES; BUT IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH DEAD MICE AROUND OR DEAD RATS OR DEAD GOPHERS OR WHATEVER, THAT’S HOW YOU MAINTAIN THE STANDARD POPULATIONS IN ANY GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
Q.: SO BASED UPON THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT A HIGHER FLY POPULATION IN THAT REGION THIS YEAR, IS THAT WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US?
A.: WELL, IT MAY NOT BE HIGHER, BUT IT CERTAINLY COULD BE MORE CONCENTRATED BASED ON THE ANIMALS.
Q.: AND JUST AS POSSIBLY IT COULD BE LOWER ALSO?
A.: POPULATIONS COULD BE HIGH, LOW, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE FLIES COMING INTO THE BODIES. SO THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THEM PRESENT MEANS THEY’RE NOT EXTINCT HERE.
Q.: WHAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT THE FLY POPULATION WAS?
A.: YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A RECORD OVER THE YEARS AND DO TRAPPINGS.
Q.: HAVE SOMEBODY OUT THERE LOOKING?
A.: TRAPPING, YES.
Q.: OKAY.
THIS POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, BASICALLY ENTOMOLOGISTS GIVE US THE MINIMUM PERIOD OF TIME, DON’T THEY?
A.: WELL, THAT’S PRIMARILY WHAT YOU’RE SETTING, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SET A MAXIMUM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL TIME.
Q.: YOU’VE DONE SOME WRITING IN THIS FIELD, HAVEN’T YOU?
A.: YES, I HAVE.
Q.: AND IN THAT WRITING YOU DESCRIBED THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL AS PRIMARILY THE MINIMUM THAT PEOPLE IN YOUR FIELD DO, CORRECT?
THE COURT: ARE WE GOING TO MARK THAT, COUNSEL?
MR. DUSEK: I WASN’T GOING TO.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT’S FINE.
MR. FELDMAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, IF IT’S BEING SHOWN, —
THE COURT: OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, THAT’S FINE, MR. FELDMAN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
PEGGY, WHAT’S THE NEXT IN ORDER ACCORDING TO OUR GOOFUP?
THE CLERK: 183.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 183.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 183 FOR IDENTIFICATION.)
/ / /
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: I PLACED A CHART ON THE BOARD THAT HAS SOME WRITING ON IT, DR. HASKELL. YOU’VE DONE SOME WRITING IN THIS FIELD, HAVEN’T YOU?
A.: A LITTLE BIT, YES.
Q.: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE TOP PARAGRAPH?
A.: WELL, I — IT — YOU — YOU’RE STATING THIS FROM ONE OF MY PUBLICATIONS.
Q.: YOU WROTE THAT, DIDN’T YOU?
A.: WELL, SHAHID MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN IT OR HALL MIGHT HAVE WRITTEN IT. I CERTAINLY REVIEWED IT, AND I CERTAINLY AGREED WITH THAT.
Q.: YOU PUT YOUR NAME ON THAT ARTICLE.
A.: I SAID I AGREE WITH IT.
Q.: SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A MINIMUM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, AS CALCULATED BY USING THAT FLY DATA, CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT. BUT IT DOES NOT EXCLUDE A MAXIMUM BEING CALCULATED ALSO.
Q.: WHAT DID YOU WRITE IN THIS PARAGRAPH? COULD YOU READ THAT FOR US.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, THE RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
THE COURT: IT DOES, INDEED.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: NOWHERE IN THAT ARTICLE DO YOU TALK ABOUT DETERMINING THE MAXIMUM P.M.I., DO YOU?
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. IT REFERS TO THE EXHIBIT, YOUR HONOR, AS OPPOSED TO THE ARTICLE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
I’M ASSUMING THIS IS THE ARTICLE, COUNSEL.
MR. DUSEK: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: IT’S BEEN A NUMBER OF — I THINK IT’S BEEN TWO YEARS SINCE I READ THAT ARTICLE IN TOTAL. I’M NOT A HUNDRED PER CENT SURE WHAT THE ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE STATES. I KNOW I HAVE OTHER WORKS THAT WE TALK ABOUT FIXING A MINIMUM AND A MAXIMUM TIME BASED ON POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ESTIMATES FROM INSECTS.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: THE BEST WAY OF USING YOUR WORK IN FLIES IS TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THE BODY WAS EXPOSED TO SEE IF THE PERSON COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED FROM THE MINIMUM UP ‘TIL THE RECOVERY TIME, CORRECT?
A.: WELL, THAT’S THE WAY WE DO IT. THAT’S THE WAY WE DO IT.
Q.: AND WHEN YOU TRY TO DETERMINE A MAXIMUM, THEN YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE BODY WAS KILLED AS SOON AS THE FLIES GET THERE, RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS OUR BASIC ASSUMPTION. IF YOU’LL CHECK “ENTOMOLOGY AND DEATH PROCEDURAL GUIDE,” YOU WILL SEE THAT THAT’S OUR BASIS RIGHT THERE. SO WE ASSUME THE FLIES HIT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY UPON DEATH.
NOW, THERE CAN BE DELAYS, OF COURSE. A BODY COULD LAY THERE A FEW HOURS OR A COUPLE DAYS. BUT IF THE TEMPERATURES ARE HIGH ENOUGH, THE FLIES WILL COLONIZE.
Q.: SO YOU ASSUME FOR YOUR CALCULATIONS HERE THAT I THINK YOU’VE SEEN WHERE THE BODY WAS LAST SEEN ON I THINK FEBRUARY 1ST OF 2002.
A.: I BELIEVE THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: YOU ARE AT LEAST AWARE OF THAT INFORMATION.
A.: YES.
Q.: SO YOUR ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE BODY WAS TAKEN ALIVE, TAKEN TO DEHESA ALIVE, AND KILLED AT DEHESA SO THAT YOU COULD BEGIN YOUR CALCULATIONS?
A.: I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BODY. ALL I KNOW IS I’M BASING MY OPINION ON THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL BASED ON THE INSECTS THAT ARE RECOVERED AND THAT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY IT WOULD TAKE THOSE SPECIMENS TO GROW TO THAT AGE GIVEN THIS LOCATION, GIVEN THE TEMPERATURES, AND GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.
Q.: BY DOING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THE MINIMUM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, CORRECT?
A.: WE WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM. WE CAN ALSO CALCULATE A MAXIMUM.
Q.: TO DO THE MAXIMUM, THOUGH, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THE BODY WAS UP ‘TIL THAT POINT IT WAS KILLED AT THE SCENE, CORRECT?
A.: WELL, IF THE BODY WAS KILLED AT THE SCENE, THEN THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM WOULD BE THE SAME TIME.
Q.: AND YOU ARE ASSUMING FOR YOUR TESTIMONY HERE THAT THAT’S WHAT HAPPENED?
A.: YES, I AM.
Q.: YOU DID NOT EVEN CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE BODY WAS BEING TRANSPORTED AT SOME TIME BEFORE IT WAS DROPPED AT THE SCENE?
A.: WHAT I’M CALCULATING IS THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL BASED ON THE INSECTS THAT ARE FOUND ON THE REMAINS, AND THEN DEALING WITH THE TEMPERATURES THAT DRIVE THAT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Q.: IN PROCESSING THE DATA AND DEVELOPING THE P.M.I. ESTIMATE, THE ENTOMOLOGIST MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT THE ESTIMATE IS OF DURATION OF ATHROPOD ACTIVITY AND NOT NECESSARILY THE TOTAL POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A.: I THINK I’VE STATED THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES ALREADY TODAY.
Q.: DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A.: YES, I DO. YES, I DO.
Q.: HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU PUT IN ON THIS CASE, SIR?
A.: I DON’T KNOW. QUITE A FEW NOW.
Q.: I ASSUME YOU’RE BEING PAID.
A.: YES, I AM.
Q.: HOW MUCH
A.: $250.00 AN HOUR FOR CASE WORKUP.
Q.: HOW MUCH FOR OTHER STUFF?
A.: FOR HERE, THREE FIFTY AN HOUR.
Q.: THREE FIFTY AN HOUR FOR BEING HERE MEANS?
A.: IN COURT. IN COURT.
Q.: HOW LONG HAS THE WORKUP BEEN?
A.: I HAD SUBMITTED A BILL FOR ABOUT $5,000.00 AS I THINK THROUGH JULY 1ST. AND I HAVE BEEN AWFUL BUSY WORKING ON THIS CASE THE LAST FIFTEEN, EIGHTEEN DAYS. AND SO I’M NOT A HUNDRED PER CENT SURE HOW MUCH TIME I HAVE AT THIS POINT.
Q.: GIVE US YOUR BEST ESTIMATE.
A.: SIR, I DON’T KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN. I THINK WE CALCULATED ABOUT TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR TRAVEL AND TESTIMONY TIME. AND THEN GETTING BACK HOME. I REDUCE MY TRAVEL TIME TO $150.00 AN HOUR CHARGE BECAUSE IF I’M TRAVELING AND NOT AT HOME, I CAN’T DO CASE WORK.
Q.: BUT THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS, ISN’T IT?
A.: THAT’S RIGHT.
Q.: ESTIMATE FOR US THE TOTAL FEE.
A.: I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME I’VE PUT IN IN THE LAST WEEK. AND I WOULD BE IN ERROR IF I ATTEMPTED TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT FIGURE.
Q.: HAVE YOU WORKED ON ANY OTHER CASES LAST WEEK?
A.: NOT VERY MANY, IF ANY. I DON’T RECALL AT THIS POINT.
Q.: WOULD YOU WANT TO LOOK UNDERNEATH THE BODY TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY MOISTURE UNDERNEATH THE BODY AS IT WAS RECOVERED?
A.: I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE — ONE OF THE OBSERVATIONS THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE REGARDING THAT.
Q.: WOULD YOU WANT TO LOOK UNDER THERE TO SEE IF THERE’S BEEN ANY SEEPAGE OF FLUIDS FROM THE BODY TO THE GROUND?
A.: SURE. THAT WOULD BE A CLUE AS TO HOW LONG THE BODY MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THAT LOCATION.
Q.: HOW WOULD THAT BE A CLUE?
A.: WELL, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE DECOMPOSITION IN A GIVEN AREA, FLUIDS WILL LEACH OUT BECAUSE THE MAGGOTS THEMSELVES GENERATE THE MOISTURE THAT’S COMING FROM THE BODY IN THIS — I TALKED ABOUT THE EXTERNAL DIGESTION THAT THE MAGGOTS DO. WELL, THEY GENERATE THIS FLUID IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FLUID OF OUR BODIES, AND THEN THE DECOMPOSITIONAL FLUIDS WILL LEACH THEN INTO THE SOIL.
Q.: WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DECOMPOSITION, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUTREFACTION, AREN’T YOU, TO SEE THE MOISTURE THAT WOULD LEACH THROUGH THE BODY?
A.: THAT WOULD BE THE PUTREFACTION STAGE OF — WE CALL IT PUTREFACTION STAGE OF DECOMPOSITION.
Q.: AND THERE IS, IF THE BODY IS MUMMIFIED FROM THE GIT-GO, YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT THE PUTREFICATION, WOULD YOU?
MR. FELDMAN: GIT-GO? OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: YES. REPHRASE IT.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: IF THE BODY MUMMIFIES FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT THAT PUTREFACTION STAGE, WOULD YOU?
A.: IF IT — IF YOU HAVE A MUMMIFIED BODY WITHOUT ANY INSECT ACTIVITY ON IT, YOU WOULDN’T HAVE LEACHING AND PUTREFACTION, NO.
Q.: WHAT WAS FOUND UNDERNEATH THIS BODY?
A.: ACCORDING TO DAVID FAULKNER, THERE WAS NO FLUIDS AND NO SMELL.
Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: WELL, IT COULD MEAN THAT THE BODY DRIED OUT QUITE QUICKLY AND THAT THE FLUIDS THAT THE MAGGOTS, THE MAGGOTS THAT WERE IN THE MAGGOT MASS GENERATING WERE EVAPORATING SO FAST DUE TO THIS SANTA ANA WIND THAT THEY MAYBE DIDN’T REACH THE SOIL.
Q.: WOULDN’T IT ALSO MEAN THAT THE BODY HAD MUMMIFIED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE ONLY THING RECEPTIVE TO THE MAGGOTS WAS AFTER THE ANIMALS HAD GOTTEN INTO THE INSIDES?
A.: IF IT HAD MUMMIFIED THAT MUCH, WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD THAT. WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD THE COLONIZATION.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM BODY SILHOUETTE?
A.: IF THAT’S REFERRING TO THE OUTLINE OF THE FLUIDS, THE PURGED FLUIDS OR LEACHING FLUIDS, THEN I ASSUME THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE REFERRING TO.
Q.: THAT’S WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.
A.: RIGHT.
Q.: IF THAT ISN’T THERE, THAT’S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT THIS BODY WAS EXPOSED TO DRY, HOT CONDITIONS, CORRECT?
A.: IT COULD BE.
Q.: WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE?
A.: IT COULD BE THE BODY WASN’T THERE AT THAT LOCATION THE WHOLE TIME.
Q.: DO YOU SEE ANY SIGNS IN THIS CASE FROM YOUR OBSERVATIONS THAT THE BODY WAS ONLY — AT MULTIPLE PLACES AFTER IT WAS DEAD?
A.: IN REVIEWING SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, THERE WAS — AND ALSO IN REVIEWING THE REPORTS, WHAT I SAW WHAT APPEARED TO BE AREAS OF DECOMPOSITIONAL FLUID ON THE TRAIL AWAY FROM WHERE THE REMAINS FINALLY LAY, AND THAT IS A POSSIBILITY I THINK ALSO.
Q.: DID NOT THAT — DIDN’T THAT LOOK LIKE REMAINS BEING TAKEN AWAY BY COYOTES BACK TO THEIR DEN? ISN’T THAT AN EXPLANATION?
A.: THE FACT THAT THERE WAS HEAD HAIR THERE, I SAW DOCTOR BAST THE OTHER NIGHT DISCUSS ONE OF THE WAYS WE CAN TELL WHERE A BODY HAS LAIN AFTER THE BODY HAS BEEN MOVED IS THE HEAD HAIR REMAINS BEHIND. SO THE OTHER — HER INTERPRETATION TO BE THE BODY WAS DRAGGED TO THAT LOCATION.
Q.: BY THE ANIMALS.
A.: BY THE ANIMALS.
Q.: SO IT WOULD BE THE ANIMALS DRAGGING THE BODY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: DID YOU ANALYZE THE BEETLES THAT WERE INVOLVED?
A.: I LOOKED AT THE BEETLES AND GAVE THE FAMILY IDENTIFICATION FOR THE BEETLES.
Q.: AND BEETLES COME IN TO FEED ON A MUMMIFIED BODY, DON’T THEY?
A.: NOT ALL THE BEETLES WE HAD IN OUR MIX. SOME OF THE BEETLES COME IN TO FEED ON THE EGGS AND MAGGOTS THAT ARE FROM THE FLIES. OTHER BEETLES COME IN TO FEED ON THE DRIED REMAINS.
Q.: SO THE BEETLES WOULD BE SOMETHING SHOWING UP THERE AFTER THE FIRST TIME THE FLIES SHOW UP.
A.: I SEE THE MAJORITY OF THE BEETLES I FOUND ON THIS — DAVID FAULKNER RECOVERED AND THEN IDENTIFIED IN — CONSISTENT WITH HIS IDENTIFICATIONS AS BEING BEETLES THAT WE COULD SEE ANY TIME FROM DAY TWO TO THIRTY DAYS.
Q.: DAY TWO TO THIRTY DAYS?
A.: M-HM.
Q.: IS THAT A YES?
A.: YES. YES. YES. YES.
Q.: THERE ARE ALSO BEETLES THAT EXTENDED THAT TIME PERIOD BEYOND THIRTY DAYS, WEREN’T THERE?
A.: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND ANALYSIS.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. DUSEK
AND MR. CLARKE.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: THERE IS A DIVERSE NUMBER OF BEETLES, WASN’T THERE?
A.: WELL, NOT ANY MORE DIVERSE THAN I NORMALLY SEE ON BODIES FROM CASES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
Q.: BY THE VARIETY OF BEETLES THAT THEY HAD THERE, THEY ALL ARE SHOWING UP AT DIFFERENT TIMES, AREN’T THEY?
A.: SOME OF THEM WOULD SHOW UP EARLIER THAN OTHERS, YES.
Q.: WHAT’S THE LATEST SOME OF THEM WOULD SHOW UP?
A.: OH, WE COULD SEE THE — UNDER THESE CONDITIONS ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF, TWO WEEKS.
Q.: WHAT’S THE EARLIEST?
A.: TWO DAYS. DAY. TWO DAYS.
Q.: AND THE ONES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A MONTH, WHAT TYPES WERE THEY?
A.: THE DERMESTES BEETLES COULD COME IN AT A MONTH. BUT, AGAIN, WHAT SUGGESTS THAT THEY WEREN’T HERE THAT LONG IS THAT WE DON’T HAVE ANY BEETLE LARVAE. NOW, IF WE HAVE BEETLES OF CERTAIN SPECIES BEING THERE AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, WE ARE GOING TO SEE THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE LARVAE, OF THOSE BEETLES, JUST AS WE SAW THE OFFSPRING OF THE FLIES.
Q.: BUT YOU FELT THEY COULD BE THERE FROM TWO TO THIRTY DAYS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: SOME OF THE BEETLES I FOUND ON CORPSES THAT HAVE BEEN OUT SIX MONTHS. THE PRESENCE OF THE ADULT BEETLES, YES.
Q.: THE ONES THAT WE HAD IN THIS CASE?
A.: YES. THE RED-LEGGED HAM BEETLE, I’VE SEEN IT ON CORPSES — AT THE BODY FARM WE HAD IT ON CORPSES THAT WERE THREE, FOUR, FIVE MONTHS OLD. SOME OF THE DERMESTES BEETLES. I’M THINKING I FOUND DERMESTES BEETLES OUT TO — WELL, I KNOW THAT WE HAD SOME BODIES TEN YEARS OLD. I HAD A CASE IN ANNAPOLIS WHERE WE HAD DERMESTES BEETLES STILL LIVING ON THE REMAINS AT TEN YEARS.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. FELDMAN?

REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TALKED ABOUT A BELIEF THAT YOU HAD SEEN RECORDS THAT INDICATED THAT AT LEAST WITH REGARD TO THE TORSO AND HEAD THERE WAS AN INFESTATION WITH MAGGOTS AND TINY FLIES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: OF COURSE THAT WAS BASED UPON THE REPORT OF ONE OF THE OFFICERS THAT FIRST GOT TO THE SCENE, DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: DOES THAT — DOES THE PRESENCE, THEN, OF THE MAGGOTS AND BEETLES IN THE — I’M SORRY — THE PRESENCE OF MAGGOTS AND TINY FLIES SUPPORT YOUR POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL OR DOES THAT UNDERCUT YOUR POSITION, SIR?
A.: IT SUPPORTS THE POSITION. THE FACT THAT WE HAD THE TINY FLIES, THE CHEESE SKIPPER FLIES, AND THE PHORID FLIES WITHOUT LARVAE, THEIR BABIES, WOULD SUGGEST A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME AS OPPOSED TO THREE TO FOUR TO FIVE, SIX WEEKS.
Q.: AND THAT THERE WAS AN ODOR OF PUTREFACTION, THAT WOULD SUPPORT YOUR OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, TOO, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES. PUTREFACTION IS AN IMPORTANT BYPRODUCT.
Q.: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 169, MR. DUSEK ASKED YOU IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE RAINFALL WAS. FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 169, MR. FAULKNER NOTED THAT THERE WAS RAINFALL OF APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER OF AN INCH BETWEEN THE 17TH AND THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION?
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES THE EXISTENCE OF THIS RAINFALL IN ANY WAY CHANGE YOUR OPINION AS TO WHAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS?
A.: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q.: MR. DUSEK WAS ASKING YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT A QUARTER OF AN INCH OF RAIN WOULD WASH OFF ALL THE BUGS SO THAT I GUESS IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO YOUR JOB. WOULD A QUARTER OF AN INCH DO THAT?
A.: AT THE BODY FARM WE HAD AN INCH AND A HALF OF RAIN IN FIFTEEN OR IN FORTY-FIVE MINUTES ONE DAY. AND IT JUST MAKES THE MAGGOTS MORE AGGRESSIVE. ACTUALLY IN THAT CASE WE HAD THEM CRAWLING UP A TREE. WE’VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE. BUT IT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING. THE MAGGOTS WERE CRAWLING UP THE TREES. THEY WERE FIFTEEN TO TWENTY FEET IN THE TREES. AND THE FACT THAT THE RAINFALL COULD NOT — DID NOT WASH THEM OFF OR DETER THEM IN ANY WAY.
Q.: NOW, THIS BODY FARM, YOU MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. WHAT IS IT, PLEASE?
A.: THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACILITY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE, IS THE ONLY PLACE AS FAR AS I KNOW IN THE WORLD, UNLESS THERE’S SOME PLACE IN RUSSIA THAT THEY CAN DO THIS, WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY USE FRESHLY DEAD HUMANS TO STUDY THE PROGRESSION OF DECOMPOSITION OVER DAYS, WEEKS, MONTHS, YEARS.
Q.: SO IT’S A PLACE WHERE SCIENTISTS ARE STUDYING HOW BODIES DECOMPOSE IN AN ENVIRONMENT AND HUMIDITY THAT’S CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WE DON’T HAVE A BODY FARM IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
A.: NO. I WOULD IMAGINE YOU PROBABLY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING A BODY FARM PUT IN HERE.
Q.: CAN’T GET ONE AT THE SINGING HILLS GOLF COURSE.
A.: YOU PROBABLY CAN’T.
Q.: YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING A STORAGE COMPARTMENT. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WAS PUT INSIDE OF A STORAGE COMPARTMENT OF A MOTOR HOME. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FURTHER ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THAT PERSON WEIGHED ABOUT 57 POUNDS. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME THAT THAT PERSON WAS KILLED AND LEFT INSIDE THIS STORAGE COMPARTMENT FOR WE’LL SAY TWO OR THREE DAYS AND THEN — I’LL ASK YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THAT PERSON WAS REMOVED AND DEPOSITED RIGHT AT THE DEHESA SITE.
SIR, WITH REGARD TO THAT COMPARTMENT, WOULD THERE BE AN ODOR?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: IT WOULD BE MY OPINION THAT IF WE WERE IN THE HEAT OF THE DESERT THAT WAS DESCRIBED TO ME IN A COMPARTMENT LIKE THAT, THE BODY WOULD CERTAINLY BE DECOMPOSING, AND IT WOULD BE DECOMPOSING AT A FAIRLY HIGH RATE. THE FACT THAT IT’S IN THE COMPARTMENT AND NOT OUT IN THE OPEN WOULD REDUCE MUMMIFICATION AND ENHANCE THE DECOMPOSITION AND WOULD LEAVE BEHIND AFTER THREE DAYS A FAIRLY GOOD ODOR. I THINK WE COULD TEST THAT FAIRLY HANDILY BY PUTTING AN ANIMAL IN A COMPARTMENT SIMILAR TO THAT AND FIND OUT AFTER THREE DAYS EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF SMELL WE MIGHT HAVE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, THAT ODOR WOULD BE SO STRONG YOU WOULDN’T NEED A DOG TO SMELL IT, WOULD YOU?
A.: NO.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TESTIFIED YOUR STUDIES REGARDING DECOMPOSING BODIES. HAVE YOU DEVELOPED ANY FAMILIARITY WITH AN ODOR THAT ATTACHES TO A DECOMPOSING BODY?
A.: YES. I CERTAINLY HAVE.
Q.: AND WITH REGARD TO YOUR EXPERTISE, SIR, HAVE YOU DEVELOPED ANY EXPERTISE WITH REGARD TO HOW LONG AND HOW GREAT THE ODOR MIGHT PROGRESS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME?
A.: WELL, TO THE EXTENT THAT I’VE SEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF DEAD THINGS AND SEEN THEM IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTS AND HABITATS THAT WE COULD HAVE A DURATION OF ODOR LEFT BEHIND AFTER A THREE-DAY EXPOSURE IN THAT TYPE OF CONDITION.
Q.: AND THAT ODOR WOULD NOT — I’M SORRY. THE ODOR WOULDN’T REQUIRE A DOG TO SMELL IT, WOULD IT, BASED ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER IT BASED ON HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: IF IT WERE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, I THINK IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE POSSIBLE TO SMELL.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND IF IT WERE CONTAINED WITHIN A CONTAINER COMPARTMENT IN A HYPOTHETICAL MOTOR HOME, OH, WE’LL SAY AT TEMPERATURES THAT RANGE BETWEEN SIXTY AND EIGHTYISH, MIGHT THAT ACCELERATE ANY DECOMPOSITION?
A.: WELL, THE DECOMPOSITION WOULD BE MOVING ALONG PRETTY GOOD.
Q.: NOW, LET’S ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WAS PLACED AT THE DEHESA SITE FOLLOWING THREE DAYS AT EIGHTY-DEGREE TEMPERATURES AND THE ODOR THAT YOU HAVE JUST TALKED ABOUT, WOULD THAT BODY BE THE KIND OF BODY THAT THE BLOW FLIES MIGHT FIND ATTRACTIVE OR WOULD THERE BE SOME PHYSIOLOGIC CHANGES TO THE BODY?
A.: AFTER THREE DAYS I THINK THE BLOW FLIES STILL COULD FIND IT ATTRACTIVE. BUT THE DECOMPOSITION WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE, AND WE WOULD START SEEING OTHER CRITTERS COME IN ALSO THAT WOULD LIKE AN OLDER BODY.
AND ON THAT POINT IT MIGHT — I’VE SEEN THE GREEN BOTTLE FLY PHAENICIA SERICATA AND ANOTHER SPECIES RELATIVE OF THAT GREEN BOTTLE FLY, THEY COME IN ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. BUT AFTER THE FIRST DAY OR DAY AND A HALF OF DECOMPOSITION, WE DON’T SEE THEM ANY MORE IN THE ATTRACTABILITY AND THE BLACK BLOW FLY THEN COMES IN AND COLONIZES ON SUCCESSIVE DAYS BY LAYING EGGS. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT FLY, THE GREEN BOTTLE FLY, IS A VERY OPPORTUNISTIC — HE HAS TO COME IN OR SHE HAS TO COME IN AND GRAB THAT FOOD RESOURCE IMMEDIATELY. THAT’S HER SURVIVABILITY FOR HER OFFSPRING. AND AFTER A PASSAGE OF TIME, I WOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED PHAENICIA SERICATA TO HAVE BEEN THERE IF THE BODY HAD EXPERIENCED MUCH DECOMPOSITION AT ALL.
Q.: AND YOU DID FIND PHAENICIA SERICATA THERE, DIDN’T YOU?
A.: DR. FAULKNER DID OR DAVID FAULKNER DID.
Q.: SO THAT’S INCONSISTENT WITH THE NOTION THAT THE BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED SAY ON FEBRUARY 4TH OR FEBRUARY 3RD OR FEBRUARY 2ND, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: ABSOLUTELY.
Q.: BEFORE WE BROKE AT RECESS OVER NOON, YOU STARTED TO TALK ABOUT SOME ASPECTS OF THE HANDS BEING MUMMIFIED. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD FREQUENTLY SEEN HANDS MUMMIFIED.
A.: HANDS AND LEGS AND FEET GENERALLY MUMMIFY IN DECOMPOSING BODIES DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE CHIEF CLEARING OF THE SOFT TISSUES, IN OTHER WORDS, THE MUSCLE AND THE FATS IN THE HEAD AND TORSO AREA, ARE PRIMARILY ACCOMPLISHED BY THE BLOW FLY LARVAE. AND WHEN THEY FINISH AND MOVE OFF, THEN THESE OTHER AREAS ARE LEFT TO MUMMIFY. AND I’VE GOT ALL SORTS OF RESEARCH FROM OUR BODY FARM STUDIES PLUS DOZENS OF CASE WORK THAT CONFIRM THAT.
Q.: SO ARE YOU SAYING, THEN, SIR, THAT YOU CAN’T JUST RELY UPON MUMMIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: THAT’S EXACTLY RIGHT. WHAT WE RELY ON IS THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE INSECT.
Q.: AMONG A VARIETY OF OTHER MATTERS.
A.: RIGHT.
Q.: THAT THE PATHOLOGIST MIGHT BRING UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BUT NOT PARTICULARLY IN THIS CASE.
A.: THEY COULD.
Q.: IS IT COMMON IN A DECOMPOSITION CASE FOR BODIES TO MUMMIFY IN THE AREA OF THEIR HANDS OR FEET?
A.: ABSOLUTELY. ALL THE TIME.
Q.: SO YOU DIDN’T SEE ANYTHING UNUSUAL IN THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT MADE YOU FEEL AS THOUGH THERE WAS ANYTHING PARTICULARLY STRIKING OR UNUSUAL.
A.: NOT THE HANDS OR THE FEET, NO.
Q.: YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECALLED THE EXISTENCE OF TISSUES AT AUTOPSY. FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION, LET ME GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE AUTOPSY PROTOCOL. YOU WILL NOTE THAT I CIRCLED JUST PORTIONS. PLEASE HELP YOURSELF. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF THE INTERNAL ORGANS PRESENT AT TIME OF AUTOPSY.
A.: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
YES. THIS HELPS QUITE A BIT.
WHAT THE — AT LEAST IN MY INTERPRETATION WHAT IT’S SAYING IS THAT —
MR. DUSEK: NO QUESTION PENDING.
THE COURT: ASK THE QUESTION, MR. FELDMAN.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DOES HAVING REVIEWED THE AUTOPSY PROTOCOL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IN FACT DR. BLACKBOURNE NOTED IN HIS AUTOPSY THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF INTERNAL ORGANS BEING PRESENT AT TIME OF AUTOPSY?
A.: FROM THE EXTERNAL EXAMINATION IT’S — THE DESCRIPTION IS THAT THE SKIN IS TOTALLY GONE FROM THAT AREA OF THE — THAT AREA OF THE BODY, ABDOMINAL AREA, AND THAT THERE IS A FIVE-INCH-BY-FIVE-INCH OPENING OR DEFECT HE CALLS IT IN THE ENTIRE ABDOMINAL WALL. IN OTHER WORDS, GOING CLEAR THROUGH. WHICH THERE WERE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS I GUESS THERE WERE SOME LOOPS OF THE INTESTINE OR BOWEL TO SHOW THROUGH THAT. HE SAID THE REMAINDER OF THE ABDOMEN IS COVERED BY MUSCLE AND SOFT TISSUES ONLY, WHICH WAS MY INTERPRETATION. AND THAT THE PELVIC AREA WAS — THE GENITALS WERE GONE. AND DUE TO POST-MORTEM CHANGES.
Q.: DO COYOTES EAT LIVER?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WELL, YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT COYOTES WOULD EAT INTERNAL ORGANS. DO YOU RECALL THOSE QUESTIONS, SIR?
A.: YES.
Q.: DO YOU CONSIDER THE LIVER TO BE A PORTION OF THE INTERNAL ORGANS OF A HUMAN BEING?
A.: YES.
Q.: DID DR. BLACKBOURNE NOTE THE EXISTENCE OF SOME OF THE LIVER REMAINING AT TIME OF AUTOPSY?
A.: HE HAS A WEIGHT OF LIVER OF SO MUCH.
Q.: YES.
A.: AND IT SAID PART OF THE RIGHT LOBE OF THE LIVER —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE WITNESS: THAT PART OF IT IS —
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN CONCLUDE YOUR ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: SURE.
THE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT LOBE OF THE LIVER IS CERTAINLY INTACT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU THAT THE ANIMALS DIDN’T EAT AWAY ALL OF THE INTERNAL ORGANS?
A.: NO. THERE WAS A HOLE PUT IN THE SIDE OF THE ABDOMEN. WHAT CLEARED THE — WHAT CLEARED THE SKIN, I’M NOT SURE WHAT MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. BOYCE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: ALSO DR. BLACKBOURNE NOTED THAT THERE WAS PORTIONS OF THE — AT LEAST THE HEART AND A WEIGHT OF 120 GRAMS WAS PRESENT. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: AT THIS POINT IN TIME I’M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: MR. DUSEK ASKED YOU ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD A RECOLLECTION AS TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF CERTAIN INTERNAL ORGANS THAT WERE PRESENT AT AUTOPSY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES.
Q.: I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DIDN’T HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION.
A.: NO.
Q.: I WANT TO SEE IF I CAN REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AND ASK YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PORTION OF THE AUTOPSY WHICH SPECIFICALLY REFLECTS THE LUNG AND THE HEART.
A.: CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM, THE —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY. HE’S JUST READING.
THE COURT: JUST READ IT TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, AND MR. FELDMAN WILL HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
THE WITNESS: ALL RIGHT.
(THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, DOES REVIEWING THE AUTOPSY PROTOCOL NOW REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT AT LEAST DR. BLACKBOURNE NOTED AND YOU CONSIDERED THE EXISTENCE OF A HEART WHICH WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 120 GRAMS AND AT LEAST THE RIGHT LUNG —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: JUST CONCLUDE YOUR QUESTION, MR. FELDMAN, AND I’LL ENTERTAIN THE OBJECTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: — AND THE RIGHT LUNG WHICH WEIGHED APPROXIMATELY 190 GRAMS?
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: YES. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THOSE ORGANS WERE PRESENT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND ALSO THE LEFT LUNG WHICH WEIGHED 180 GRAMS.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: IN ADDITION TO YOUR REVIEW OF DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC’S REPORT, YOU MADE MENTION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF YOUR REVIEW OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY. DO YOU RECALL REVIEWING THE TESTIMONY OF A DETECTIVE COLLINS OR A LIEUTENANT COLLINS WHO TESTIFIED AT PRELIMINARY HEARING?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: WELL, —
MR. DUSEK: NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: AT THIS POINT IN TIME LET’S GET A FOUNDATION, MR. FELDMAN.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU REVIEW FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OPINION — FOR PURPOSES OF OFFERING OPINIONS TO THE JURY, YOU CONSIDERED A WIDE RANGE OF INFORMATION, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AMONG THAT RANGE OF INFORMATION WAS THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF A LIEUTENANT WITH THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT NAMED COLLINS WHO TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS MATTER, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION LIEUTENANT COLLINS’ STATEMENT THAT —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. 115 STATEMENT —
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: — ACTIVITIES —
MR. DUSEK: — AT THE PRELIM.
THE COURT: I WILL SEE YOU ALL AT SIDEBAR.
BOB.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)
(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
THE COURT: MR. FELDMAN, DO YOU WANT THE QUESTION READ BACK OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO REPEAT IT?
MR. FELDMAN: I CAN TRY IT AGAIN.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, IN CONSIDERING YOUR OPINIONS REGARDING POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER, LIEUTENANT NAMED COLLINS, THAT HE OBSERVED AT THE SCENE THE ACTIVITY OF SOME INSECTS AROUND DANIELLE VAN DAM’S FACE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT IN ALLOWING THE LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER IS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCTOR RELIED ON THAT IN PART IN HIS OPINIONS. IT IS NOT FOR THE TRUTHFULNESS OF WHAT LIEUTENANT COLLINS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SEEN.
ALL RIGHT. MR. FELDMAN.
MR. FELDMAN: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, I’M CHANGING SUBJECTS ON YOU A LITTLE BIT.
IF THERE WAS A DEAD —
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IT’S THE CASE, IS IT NOT, THAT THE BLOW FLIES ARE ATTRACTED TO A DEAD BODY WHETHER OR NOT ANIMALS HAVE OPENED IT UP?
A.: TRY THAT AGAIN.
Q.: SURE.
IS IT THE CASE THAT BLOW FLIES ARE ATTRACTED TO DEAD BODIES WHETHER OR NOT THE DEAD BODY HAS BEEN OPENED UP BY ANIMALS?
A.: FRESH DEAD BODIES. THE MUMMIFIED DEAD BODIES, NO.
Q.: BUT WE’VE ALREADY DISCUSSED YOUR BEST OPINION — WHAT’S YOUR BEST OPINION OR ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY STUDIES THAT CAN TELL US HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR A BODY TO BECOME MUMMIFIED AS WE’VE SEEN IN SOME OF THE PHOTOS THAT YOU’VE BEEN PRESENTED TODAY?
A.: ABOUT THE ONLY STUDY I’M AWARE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN DESERT AREAS WOULD BE A STUDY BY ALLISON GALLOWAY. AND THAT WAS DOWN AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA. AND I’M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THAT DATA SHOWS. BUT THEY CAN MUMMIFY FAIRLY QUICKLY IN THE PROPER — BUT WITH REGARDS TO HOW LONG, I DON’T RECALL. AND I’M NOT A HUNDRED PER CENT SURE THE DATA IS THERE.
Q.: YOU JUST SAID FAIRLY QUICKLY, THOUGH. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: RIGHT. DAYS.
Q.: OKAY. DAYS.
A.: DAYS.
Q.: IN OTHER WORDS, THE BLOW FLIES WOULD HAVE I’LL SAY THE ADVANTAGE OF TIME TO GET TO THE BODY BEFORE MUMMIFICATION SETS IN, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: OF COURSE.
Q.: SO MERELY BECAUSE WE SEE MUMMIFICATION DOES NOT RULE OUT YOUR OPINION?
A.: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q.: SO JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENS THAT THERE’S MUMMIFICATION IN PARTICULAR PORTIONS OF THIS, THAT DOES NOT CHANGE YOUR OPINION THAT THAT BODY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN OUT —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: JUST A MINUTE.
THE FORM OF THE QUESTION IS LEADING. REPHRASE THE QUESTION, MR. FELDMAN.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SO JUST BECAUSE WE SEE MUMMIFICATION, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ANY THAT THE BODY COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE LAID OUT ANY SOONER THAN FEBRUARY THE 10TH?
A.: NO.
Q.: OR 9TH?
A.: NO.
Q.: OR 8TH?
A.: NO.
Q.: OR 7TH?
A.: NO.
MR. DUSEK: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DOES MUMMIFICATION, DOES THE PROCESS OF MUMMIFICATION REQUIRE THAT THERE BE SOME DIRECT ACCESS TO THE BODY PART BY THE SUN OR CAN THE MUMMIFICATION OCCUR WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHERE THE SUN IS?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT. IT DOESN’T NEED — YOU CAN HAVE MUMMIFICATION IN AREAS WHERE IT CAN BE DARK AND COOL AND A — DARK AND COOL OR WE MAY HAVE SOME AIR FLOW ACROSS THE BODY. CERTAINLY THAT CAN OCCUR.
Q.: AND, SIR, YOU TESTIFIED — I THINK YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS ON DIRECT ABOUT — I’M SORRY — ON CROSS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IF THERE WAS A MAGGOT MASS SAY IN THE PELVIC AREA AND THE COYOTES CAME IN AND THEY ATE THAT AREA OUT, THAT FACT SCENARIO WAS PUT TO YOU. I’M ASKING YOU ASSUMING ALL THOSE FACTS ARE TRUE, WHAT EFFECT ON THE BLOW FLIES?
A.: THE BLOW FLIES HAD COME IN EARLIER ANYWAY, AND SO IT DOESN’T AFFECT THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN’T AFFECT THEIR PRESENCE OR ABSENCE BECAUSE IF THEY ARE THERE, THE COYOTES DIDN’T EAT THEM ALL, AND THERE WAS CERTAINLY NOT THAT MUCH TISSUE REMOVED TO HAVE COMPLETELY DEVOIDED THE AREA OF ALL SOFT TISSUES AND THE BLOW FLIES.
Q.: REDIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT 7.
A.: YES.
Q.: MR. DUSEK CALLED YOUR ATTENTION TO A, D, AND E. DOES THE CONDITION OF THE BODY AS DEPICTED IN A, D, AND E CHANGE YOUR OPINION AS TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE’VE ALREADY DIRECTED THE REASON WHY I THINK THE MAGGOT MASS — AFTER LOOKING AT THE AUTOPSY REPORT, IT REINFORCES WHAT I’VE ALREADY SAID. THOSE ORGANS HAD NOT
BEEN —
THE COURT: LOOK OUT.
THE WITNESS: LOOK OUT.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU. WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ONE DAY. SO IT’S ON THE DEFENSE’ CHART.
THE COURT: IT STILL HASN’T HAPPENED. IT’S COME CLOSE.
MR. FELDMAN: NO, NO, JUDGE. IT GOT ME.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT’S THE FIRST HIT.
MR. FELDMAN: WELCOME BACK FROM VACATION, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING A BLANKET. YOU WERE AWARE THAT MR. FAULKNER WENT BACK TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED LAW ENFORCEMENT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM HAD BEEN COVERED. YOU TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, RIGHT?
A.: I CERTAINLY DID.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WERE YOU AWARE —
THE COURT: YES. GO AHEAD.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WERE YOU AWARE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE HAD BEEN ANYTHING COVERING DANIELLE VAN DAM?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY AGAIN.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: YES. I TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, OF COURSE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT, I’M SORRY, THAT MR. FAULKNER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE BODY HAD MOVED AND SPECIFICALLY WENT AND ASKED QUESTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE BODY HAD BEEN MOVED?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE AND TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT SPECIFICALLY SAID NO, THERE’S NO EVIDENCE THAT THE BODY HAD BEEN MOVED, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S ALSO CORRECT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. YOU WERE ASKED A QUESTION DOES BLEACH DO SOMETHING. DID YOU EVER HEAR — IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU’VE BEEN PRESENTED THAT SUGGESTS THIS BODY WAS BLEACHED?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION AS TO WHAT HE’S BEEN PRESENTED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE BLEACH QUESTION WAS ALL ABOUT.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, DOES THE DIRECTION OF THE SANTA ANA WINDS, WHETHER THEY’RE NORTH-SOUTH, EAST-WEST, DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Q.: IT’S THE CASE, THEN, IS IT, IF THE TEMPERATURE IS HIGH ENOUGH AND THE BODY’S OUT THERE, THE FLIES ARE GOING TO COLONIZE IT, PERIOD?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT. IF IT’S EXPOSED. IF IT’S OPEN AND EXPOSED. IF IT’S COVERED, NO, NOT RIGHT AWAY.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. BOYCE.)
MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. BOYCE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IF A BODY’S COVERED, THOUGH, I’M SORRY, BECAUSE YOU JUST MENTIONED THAT, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT COVERAGE, THE COVERAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE TO SEAL, ENCASE THE BODY ALMOST TOTALLY, RIGHT, TO MASK THE ODOR?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. LEADING.
THE COURT: REPHRASE IT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WHAT SEAL WOULD A COVERING REQUIRE TO PRECLUDE MAGGOT INFESTATION OR BLOW FLY INFESTATION?
A.: PRIMARILY SOME TYPE OF PLASTIC THAT WOULD BE TAPED AND FOLDED OVER AND TAPED AGAIN. I DON’T THINK JUST A BLANKET BEING WRAPPED AROUND THE TAPE WOULD TOTALLY EXCLUDE THE BLOW FLY COLONIZATION. I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN MAGGOTS GO THROUGH WEAVE OF FIBERS ON BLANKETS TO GET ACCESS.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONCLUSIONS, NOW, WE HAVE YOU WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS OR SO OF MR. FAULKNER AND HIS POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ESTIMATE. AND EARLIER TODAY YOU USED THE WORD THAT YOU WERE SAYING YOU WERE BEING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT IT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SELF-DESCRIBE I’LL SAY AS BEING CONSERVATIVE ABOUT YOUR POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ESTIMATE?
A.: I’M REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE OPENED UP A WIDER WINDOW TO TRY TO ENCOMPASS A MORE — A WIDER TIME WHEN THE PROBABILITY OF THAT COLONIZATION DID OCCUR.
Q.: SO IS IT THE CASE, THEN, THAT YOU MAY HAVE A DISAGREEMENT THAT’S ONE OVER HOURS, THERE CERTAINLY IS NO DISAGREEMENT OVER WEEKS?
A.: ABSOLUTELY.
Q.: AND THAT’S REALLY NOT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST WITHIN YOUR PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY, IT’S NOT UNUSUAL FOR ENTOMOLOGISTS TO DISAGREE, SAY, OVER A DAY OR TWO, OVER WEEKS BEFORE, PERHAPS?
A.: WE HAVE ARGUMENTS IN COURT OVER A DAY OR TWO ON A REGULAR BASIS.
Q.: I’M GOING TO TRY IT AGAIN.
AND A DAY OR TWO FROM — GIVE US THE 14TH.
A.: I SAID THE 14TH.
Q.: HE GAVE US THE 16TH.
A.: 16TH.
Q.: AND YOU WENT BACK AS FAR BACK AS MAYBE THE 12TH.
A.: IT COULD BE. NOT LIKELY.
Q.: THAT’S PUSHING IT, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: BUT YOU’RE TRYING TO BE FAIR.
A.: I’M TRYING TO ASSESS THE SITUATION REGARDING A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.
Q.: AND THAT’S A SCIENTIFIC ESTIMATE?
A.: YES, IT IS.
Q.: NOW, MR. DUSEK RAISED QUESTIONS THAT YOU WERE RETAINED BY THE DEFENSE. YOUR BILLS AREN’T GOING TO TOTAL $46,000.00, ARE THEY?
A.: I WISH THEY WOULD, BUT I DON’T THINK SO.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
THE COURT: ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. DUSEK?

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: D.N.A. IS A MORE EXACT SCIENCE THAN WHAT YOU’RE DOING, ISN’T IT?
MR. FELDMAN: SPECULATION. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER.
MR. BOYCE: IRRELEVANT.
THE WITNESS: DEPENDS ON WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: D.N.A.
A.: SIR, PLEASE. I UNDERSTAND THAT —
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR. JUST OBJECTION.
THE COURT: WHOA. I THINK IT’S TIME FOR THE AFTERNOON BREAK.
ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION OF THE COURT NOT TO DISCUSS ANY OF THE EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY AMONG YOURSELVES OR WITH OTHERS NOR FORM OR EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER UNTIL IT’S SUBMITTED TO YOU.
PLEASE BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT 3:15. 3:15, PLEASE.
(THE JURY RECESSED AT 2:58 O’CLOCK, P.M.)
(THE FOLLOWING OCCURRED OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE
JURY:
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT, DOCTOR, BECAUSE I NEED TO COMMENT ON A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE JURORS AND ALTERNATES HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM.
THE OBJECTION IS GOING TO BE SUSTAINED, MR. DUSEK, BECAUSE THE FACT THE D.N.A. ANALYSIS COST MORE THAN BUG ANALYSIS IS ALL WELL AND GOOD, AND YOU CAN ARGUE THAT TO THE JURY. BUT IT’S LIKE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES.
DOCTOR, YOU HAVE A GREAT TENDENCY TO GET INVOLVED WAY TOO OFTEN IN THIS. YOUR JOB HERE AT LEAST FROM MY PERCEPTION IS TO BE AN EXPERT WITNESS AND TELL THIS JURY WHAT YOU KNOW AND WHAT YOU BASE IT ON, NOT TO GIVE WAR STORIES AND NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN ARGUMENTS WITH THE LAWYERS.
SO THEY’LL ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS; YOU DO THE ANSWERING. AND DON’T GET INVOLVED ANY FURTHER THAN THAT. OKAY?
THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.
THE COURT: FAIR ENOUGH.
ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE THE AFTERNOON BREAK?
MR. FELDMAN: NO. THANK YOU.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 3:15.
(RECESS, 3:00 O’CLOCK, P.M., TO 3:15 O’CLOCK, P.M.)
??
8250