30073 – July 30th 2002 -Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 25 – afternoon 1

TRIAL DAY 25 – PART 3- afternoon 1


SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2002, 1:30 P.M. (afternoon 1)


WITNESS:
Madison Lee Goff (Forensic science department university of Honolulu – continued)


–O0O–
THE COURT: WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. A LITTLE BETTER COORDINATED THIS TIME. WE’LL PROBABLY HAVE IT DONE IN A
COUPLE MORE DAYS.
ALL RIGHT. MR. DUSEK.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: I THINK WHEN WE QUIT FOR LUNCH, DR. HASKELL, YOU HAD EXPLAINED —
THE COURT: NO. I THINK YOU HAVE THE WRONG DOCTOR.
MR. DUSEK: GOFF.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. DUSEK: SURE DID.
THE WITNESS: THAT’S A BASIC PROBLEM.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: YOU WERE EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR
CALCULATIONS AND DR. HASKELL’S. IS THERE A TEMPERATURE THAT’S
ACCEPTED AS THE TEMPERATURE THAT PRODUCES MAXIMUM GROWTH IN THE
FLIES THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT?
A.: REALLY THERE ISN’T AN ACCEPTED UNIFORM TEMPERATURE
FOR ALL SPECIES OF FLIES FOR OPTIMAL GROWTH. SOME SPECIES THAT
I WORK WITH IN HAWAII, THE OPTIMAL TEMPERATURE SEEMS TO BE
AROUND 23 DEGREES CELSIUS. OTHER SPECIES 28 DEGREES. SOME
SPECIES WILL GO UP IN 30 TO 32 DEGREES CELSIUS. BUT THERE IS
NO MAGIC NUMBER THAT YOU MIGHT THINK OF FOR OPTIMAL FLY
DEVELOPMENT.
Q.: CAN YOU CONVERT THOSE NUMBERS TO FAHRENHEIT FOR US?
A.: OKAY. JUST A MOMENT WHILE I GET MY BRAIN BACK FROM
LUNCH HERE.
BASICALLY WHEN YOU’RE LOOKING AT 23 DEGREES CELSIUS,
YOU’RE LOOKING AT AROUND 70 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. WHEN YOU GET
UP INTO 28, YOU’RE LOOKING IN THE EIGHTIES. AND WHEN YOU GET
TO 32 ON UP YOU’RE LOOKING IN THE NINETIES IN TERMS OF YOUR
FAHRENHEIT SCALE.
AND KEEP IN MIND I’M TALKING HERE NOT SO MUCH OF THE
ADULT FLIES BUT I’M TALKING ABOUT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE
IMMATURE FORMS.
Q.: DID YOU SEE OR AWARE OF THE TEMPERATURES THAT NEAL
HASKELL WAS USING FOR HIS COMPUTATIONS?
A.: YES. I SAW THOSE IN HIS REPORT.
Q.: AND WHAT FIGURES WAS HE USING?
A.: HE WAS USING THE — FOR THE MAGGOT MASS, HE HAD THE
TEMPERATURE OF 32 DEGREES CELSIUS.
Q.: HE HAD A CHART THAT HE USED THAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY
MARKED AS COURT’S EXHIBIT 174, LABELED AT THE TOP “BROWN FIELD
HOURLY TEMPERATURE RANGES.” THAT’S THE CHART THAT WE HAVE OF
LOOKS LIKE THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY WITH COLORS ALL OVER
EVERYWHERE.
YOU TOLD US EARLIER, BEFORE WE BROKE FOR LUNCH,
REGARDING HIS ASSESSMENT OF TEMPERATURES ON THE LAST DAY, THE
MAGGOT MASS. DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT’S DEPICTED ON EXHIBIT 174?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR US, WHERE IS THAT?
A.: BASICALLY WE’RE LOOKING AT ABOUT — LOOKS LIKE 2:00
TO 3:00 A.M. ON THE 27TH, GOING THROUGH ‘TIL APPROXIMATELY 2:00
TO 3:00 A.M. ON THE 28TH.
Q.: IS THERE A POINTER THERE?
A.: YES, SIR.
Q.: COULD YOU POINT THAT OUT FOR US SO WE KNOW WHICH
COLUMN?
A.: WE’RE LOOKING BASICALLY RIGHT IN THIS AREA.
Q.: UNDERNEATH THE 27 AND AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE
28TH?
A.: THE ORANGE BLOCK.
Q.: AND THE ORANGE COLORS WE CAN CONVERT IT OVER TO WHAT
TEMPERATURE READING ON THE SCALE?
A.: TO THE 90 TO 94 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.
Q.: SO HIS CALCULATIONS BASED UPON WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO
SEE AND READ USED A 90-DEGREE OR 94, 90-TO-94-DEGREE RANGE.
A.: YES. THIS IS THE RANGE INDICATED.
Q.: IS THERE ANY RESEARCH TO SUPPORT THAT?
A.: AS I SAY, I HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING THAT WILL
ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT. AS I SAY, BASICALLY I’VE SEEN DIFFERENT
TEMPERATURES FOR DIFFERENT SPECIES. THE ONLY THING I’VE SEEN
ACTUALLY IS IN THE CHAPTER IN “FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY” WRITTEN BY
DR. HASKELL AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WHERE THEY SUGGEST THIS AS
AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMPENSATE FOR MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURE. AS I
SAY, BASICALLY USING AMBIENT TEMPERATURES, MY MIND YOU SHOULD
STAY WITH AMBIENT TEMPERATURES AND NOT SUDDENLY SHIFT IN THE
MIDDLE OF YOUR CALCULATIONS TO USE MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURES FOR
A WHILE AND THEN SHIFT BACK TO AMBIENT TEMPERATURES.
Q.: LOOKING AT THE CHART 174, LOOKS LIKE HE BEGINS THE
ORANGE BOXES FOR 90 TO 94 DEGREES RIGHT AT 3:00 O’CLOCK IN THE
A.M. HOURS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: IN THE HOUR RIGHT BEFORE THAT WHAT DOES HE HAVE FOR
TEMPERATURES?
A.: THIS WOULD BE RIGHT HERE, THE LIGHT BLUE, WHICH
APPEARS TO CORRESPOND TO A 50-TO-54-DEGREE TEMPERATURE.
Q.: SO HIS COMPUTATIONS ARE BASED UPON AN INCREASE OF 40
DEGREES IN LESS THAN ONE-HOUR PERIOD?
A.: THIS IS WHAT THE CHART WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE.
Q.: IS THAT REALISTIC BASED UPON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF
THE BUG ACTIVITY?
A.: BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING, THE WAY MAGGOTS DEVELOP
AND THE WAY DECOMPOSITION OCCURS, THIS IS NOT A REALISTIC SORT
OF AN APPROACH. IF YOU’RE LOOKING AT MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURES,
YOU SEE THAT THE MAGGOT MASSES BEGIN TO GENERATE TEMPERATURE
ABOVE AMBIENT ALMOST AS SOON AS THE EGGS HATCH AND THE FIRST
INSTARS BEGIN TO AGGREGATE AND FEED. AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
CERTAINLY EXERTS A MEDIATING INFLUENCE ON THIS, BUT IT’S NOT AS
THOUGH YOU’RE SUDDENLY GOING TO JUMP 40 DEGREES INSTANTANEOUSLY
AND CONTINUE THAT FOR A TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR PERIOD.
Q.: AT THE END OF THAT TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR PERIOD IT LOOKS
LIKE AT 3:00 O’CLOCK A.M. ON THE 28TH HE REDUCES THE
TEMPERATURES TO WHAT LEVEL?
A.: IT APPEARS THAT THE TEMPERATURES GOING THROUGH THIS
RANGE ARE DOWN AT THE 65-TO-69-DEGREE CELSIUS — PARDON ME —
FAHRENHEIT RANGE.
Q.: NOW, DO THE TEMPERATURES BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE
DROP THAT FAST THAT QUICKLY?
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. IT MISSTATES THE
EVIDENCE. SHE’S IN THE CRYPT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: OF THE MAGGOT MASS.
A.: THE THING TO CONSIDER HERE FIRST IS THAT THIS BODY IS
NOW IN A CRYPT. OKAY. THIS BODY HAS BEEN IN A CRYPT FOR TWO
HOURS. AND MY EXPERIENCE, WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE BODY COOLS
VERY RAPIDLY. AND THIS INDICATES THE TEMPERATURE IS BEING
MAINTAINED EVEN THOUGH THE BODY IS IN THE REFRIGERATED CRYPT.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, PARTICULARLY WITH A SMALL BODY, YOU’RE GOING
TO GO DOWN VERY QUICKLY TO A LOWER TEMPERATURE BEGINNING TO
APPROXIMATE THE TEMPERATURES IN THE CRYPT.
Q.: WHICH WERE WHAT?
A.: THAT WAS THE 40, APPROXIMATELY 40 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.
Q.: AND ARE YOU GOING TO GET DIFFERENT NUMBERS, DIFFERENT
TIME PERIODS, BASED UPON THE TEMPERATURES YOU’RE USING WHILE
THE BODY IS IN THE CRYPT AS YOU’VE DESCRIBED?
A.: YES. IN MY CALCULATIONS, BASICALLY WHEN THE BODY
GOES INTO THE CRYPT, AT THIS POINT I ASSUME THAT IT’S GOING TO
COOL VERY QUICKLY, AND THEN FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAGGOTS IS GOING TO CEASE VERY QUICKLY.
Q.: AND IF THE MAGGOT DEVELOPMENT CEASES, ARE THEY
GENERATING HEAT ONCE THAT BEGINS?
A.: NO. AS THIS SLOWS DOWN, THEN WHAT HEAT THEY’RE
GENERATING IS BEING OVERCOME BY THE COOLING EFFECTS OF THE
REFRIGERATED CRYPT.
Q.: THE SIZE OF THE BODY, DOES THAT HAVE ANY BEARING ON
HOW QUICKLY THE BODY OR THE MAGGOT MASS WOULD COOL DOWN?
A.: YES, IT DOES.
Q.: HOW? HOW?
A.: WELL, YOU HAVE A LARGER BODY WITH A MAGGOT MASS, THIS
IS GOING TO BE VERY — IT’S GOING TO BE WELL-INSULATED. YOU
HAVE A SMALLER BODY WHERE YOU HAVE HAD PORTIONS OF THE FLESH
REMOVED, YOU HAVE CAVITIES EXPOSED, MUCH MORE SAY SURFACE TO
VOLUME, IT’S GOING TO COOL MORE QUICKLY THAN AN INTACT SAY AN
ADULT BODY. AN ADULT BODY WILL RETAIN THE HEAT LONGER. IT’S
BETTER INSULATED.
Q.: I THINK YOU TOLD US EARLIER THAT BASED UPON YOUR
EXPERIENCE THE FLIES INITIALLY GO TO THE HEAD OPENINGS THAT YOU
DESCRIBED. DO THEY ALSO GO TO THE GENITAL OPENINGS IF THEY ARE
AVAILABLE?
A.: YES. IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE, THAT WOULD BE THE
PROBABLY SECOND CHOICE.
Q.: WHY SECOND INSTEAD OF FIRST OR AT LEAST CO-EQUAL?
A.: FIRST THE VERY NATURE OF THE OPENINGS. YOU TAKE A
LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THE MOUTH, THE NOSE, THE EARS, EYES,
YOU HAVE AN OPEN AREA THAT THE FLIES CAN EASILY PENETRATE IN
ORDER TO LAY THEIR EGGS. OKAY. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ANUS AND
GENITALS, TYPICALLY YOU HAVE A SMALLER OPENING THAT FREQUENTLY
IN DEATH IS PARTIALLY CLOSED. LIMITS THEIR ACCESS.
Q.: IF YOU THEN TALK ABOUT A GENITAL OPENING OF A SEVEN-
YEAR-OLD AS OPPOSED TO AN ADULT, IS THAT GOING TO HAVE ANY
IMPACT?
A.: OKAY. THERE I WOULD PROBABLY DEFER TO THE OPINION OF
A PATHOLOGIST. IT’S SOMEWHAT OUTSIDE THE REALM OF MY
EXPERIENCE. HOWEVER, I CAN SAY WHEN I HAVE A SMALLER PIG THAT
I’M USING AS AN ANIMAL MODEL FOR DECOMPOSITION STUDY, I DO FIND
THAT THE OPENINGS TEND TO DEHYDRATE. AND I GET RELATIVELY
LITTLE INITIAL OVIPOSITION AROUND THE GENITAL OPENINGS.
SOMETIMES MORE AROUND THE ANAL OPENINGS DUE TO DEFECATION. BUT
THE HEAD BY AND LARGE IS THE MAJOR SITE OF INITIAL OVIPOSITION
BY THE FLIES.
Q.: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM MUMMIFIED BODY?
A.: YES, I AM.
Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU?
A.: TO ME THIS MEANS A BODY WHERE YOU’VE HAD A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WATER LOSS, DRYING OUT, START SEEING THE

SKIN BECOME HARDENED, SOMEWHAT SHRIVELED. TYPICALLY YOU SEE
THIS WHERE IT’S EITHER VERY HOT OR VERY COLD. AND IT’S VERY
DRY.
Q.: HOW DOES A BODY IN THAT CONDITION, HOW RECEPTIVE IS A
BODY IN THAT CONDITION TO THE FLIES AND THE LAYING OF THE EGGS?
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION. FOUNDATION. BEYOND THIS
WITNESS’ EXPERTISE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. FELDMAN: REQUEST TO TAKE HIM ON VOIR DIRE.
THE COURT: YOU MAY.

VOIR-DIRE EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, DO YOU HOLD YOURSELF OUT TO BE A FORENSIC
ANTHROPOLOGIST?
A.: NO, I DO NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU TAKEN OR HAVE YOU PRESENTED ANY COURSES IN
THE AREA OF FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY
A.: NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY COURSES IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS IN THE
AREA OF FORENSIC PATHOLOGY?
A.: NO, I HAVE NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN ANY STUDIES YOURSELF THAT
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF BODY DECOMPOSITION?
A.: BODY DECOMPOSITION USING PIGS AS A SURROGATE FOR THE
HUMAN, YES, I HAVE.
Q.: NO. USING HUMANS.
A.: NO.
MR. FELDMAN: NO FURTHER.
RENEW MY OBJECTION.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DULY NOTED AND OVERRULED.

DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: WHAT EFFECT DOES A MUMMIFIED BODY HAVE ON THE
RECEPTIVE NATURE FOR FLIES TO DEPOSIT THEIR EGGS?
A.: IN MY EXPERIENCE WHERE, AS I SAID A COUPLE SECONDS
AGO, IN OUR DECOMPOSITION STUDIES WE USE FIFTY-POUND PIGS AS
MODEL FOR HUMANS. THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND AND IS GENERALLY
ACCEPTED AS BEING AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE FOR THE HUMAN IN THESE
PARTICULAR STUDIES. IN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN WE WERE USING PIGS
WHICH HAVE BEEN IN THE FREEZER FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
AND THEY HAVE DRIED OUT OR THE PIG IS PLACED OUT FOR A WHILE
AND INSECTS EXCLUDED, THE NATURAL BODY OPENINGS, PARTICULARLY
THE HEAD, ARE NOT ATTRACTIVE TO THE FLIES FOR OVIPOSITION.
Q.: WHY NOT?
A.: THEY TAKE A LOOK AT THE SURROUNDINGS. WHEN THEY ARE
GOING TO LAY THEIR EGGS, THEY WANT TO BE SOME PLACE THAT’S
GOING TO BE MOIST. THEY WANT TO BE SOME PLACE WHERE THE
MAGGOTS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY FEED AND COMPLETE
THEIR DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE PROBLEMS WITH PENETRATION OF
DRIED, HARD TISSUE. MAGGOTS ARE SIMPLY NOT SET UP TO BE ABLE
TO PENETRATE THESE TYPES OF TISSUES.
Q.: ASSUMING EGGS ARE LAID ON A SURFACE, WILL THEY ALL
DEVELOP OR ARE THERE CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD CAUSE THEM
TO DIE OR LIE DORMANT?
A.: I THINK DORMANCY IS NOT SOMETHING WE THINK OF WHEN WE
THINK OF AN EGG. EGG IS LAID AND IT TENDS TO COMPLETE ITS
DEVELOPMENT AND HATCH. UNLESS YOU WIND UP WITH ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, EXTREME HEAT AND DRY CAN DESICCATE
THE EGGS VERY EASILY. THEY WILL DRY UP AND YOU CAN COME UP,
FIND A PIG WITH BASICALLY A BUNCH OF DRIED-OUT EGGS ON TOP.
THESE ARE NOT GOING TO HATCH.
Q.: IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD AFFECT THE FLIES
GETTING TO THE BODY AND LAYING THEIR EGGS?
A.: MOSTLY CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ARE GOING TO BE WHAT WILL
AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO GET THERE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF
SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MAY HAVE THE BODY WRAPPED. YOU MAY HAVE
COVERING OVER THE BODY. IT MAY HAVE SOMETHING WHERE THEY JUST
CAN’T GET THERE AND ACTUALLY COME IN CONTACT WITH THE BODY IN
ORDER TO LAY THEIR EGGS.
Q.: HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT IT?
A.: THIS WOULD RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT DELAY IN THE
OVIPOSITION AND THE DECOMPOSITION.
Q.: DOES IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT THE COVERING IS ON
THE BODY BETWEEN THE BODY AND THE FLIES?
A.: THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COVERING WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE
IN TERMS OF HOW LONG IT’S ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE THE FLY TO GET
DOWN AND DEPOSIT THEIR EGGS.
Q.: HOW SO?
A.: IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT’S A VERY LOOSE WEAVE,
SOMETHING THAT IS JUST DRAPED OVER THE BODY, THEN EVEN THOUGH
MANY OF THESE FLIES DON’T LIKE TO GO IN SOME PLACE DARK, MANY
OF THEM DO. AND THEY’LL CRAWL UNDER THIS WHERE THEY HAVE
OPENINGS. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE SOMETHING
THAT IS TIGHTLY WRAPPED, TIED, SEALED, THEN IT MAY BE SEVERAL
DAYS BEFORE THE FLIES ARE ACTUALLY ABLE TO PENETRATE THOSE
WRAPPINGS AND GO DOWN AND LAY THEIR EGGS.
Q.: WERE YOU PROVIDED AT LEAST WITH A DESCRIPTION OF
BEETLES THAT WERE FOUND ON OR AROUND THE BODY?
A.: YES, I WAS.
Q.: DID THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR ABILITY TO DETERMINE
HOW LONG THE BODY WAS THERE OR HOW LONG THE INSECTS WERE ON THE
BODY?
A.: IT DIDN’T GIVE ME MUCH IN TERMS OF DETERMINING HOW
LONG THE INSECTS WERE THERE. BECAUSE THERE I WAS WORKING
BASICALLY JUST ON THE FLY LIFE CYCLE. HOWEVER, MANY OF THE
BEETLES THAT WE FOUND THERE — PARDON ME. NOT WE. — BUT THAT
DAVID FAULKNER COLLECTED FORM THE BODY ARE INSECTS THAT WOULD
COME IN AS PREDATORS INITIALLY. THEY WOULD BE ATTRACTED TO A
BODY WHEN OTHER INSECTS WERE THERE THAT WOULD BE POTENTIAL
PREY. AND HIS COLLECTIONS, DAVID FAULKNER DID NOT COME UP WITH
ANY IMMATURE FORMS OF THESE BEETLES WHICH WOULD TEND TO
REINFORCE A LONGER PERIOD OF INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY. BUT
I’M NOT A HUNDRED PER CENT CERTAIN AS TO THE COLLECTION METHODS
WHICH WERE UTILIZED.
Q.: WHAT WOULD YOU NEED TO KNOW?
A.: WELL, IN HIS REPORT AND IN HIS TESTIMONY AS I RECALL
MR. FAULKNER INDICATED THAT HE HAD GONE —
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. THIS IS NOT
RESPONSIVE. HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTION WHAT WOULD HE NEED TO
KNOW.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT’S WHAT HE’S ANSWERING.
YOU MAY CONTINUE YOUR ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: HE INDICATED HE HAD TAKEN SOIL SAMPLES. HE
HAD POKED AROUND. BUT BASICALLY HE DIDN’T GO INTO ANY DETAILS
AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD TAKEN A BERELESE SAMPLE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: A WHAT?
A.: A BERELESE SAMPLE.
Q.: TELL US WHAT THAT IS.
A.: THIS IS IN MANY RESPECTS THE LAZY MAN’S WAY TO
COLLECT INSECTS. IT WAS DEVISED BY AN ITALIAN ACAROLOGIST
ANTONIO BERELESE IN THE LATE EIGHTEEN HUNDREDS. AND IT’S
SIMPLY A FUNNEL AND THE SCREEN IS PLACED ACROSS THE TOP OF THE
FUNNEL, ACTUALLY A LITTLE WAYS DOWN IN THE FUNNEL SO THINGS
CAN’T CRAWL OUT. AND DOWN UNDERNEATH THE FUNNEL YOU PUT A JAR
OF ALCOHOL, OKAY. SOIL-DWELLING INSECTS, INCLUDING THE LARVAE
OF MANY OF THE BEETLE SPECIES THAT WE’RE INTERESTED IN HERE,
HAVE A NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO SUNLIGHT, NEGATIVE RESPONSE TO
DRYING OUT, AND A POSITIVE RESPONSE TO GRAVITY.
YOU TAKE A SAMPLE OF THE SOIL, LEAF LITTER, WHATEVER
YOU ARE PROCESSING, AND PLACE IT ON THE SCREEN, OKAY, AND THE
INSECTS BEGIN MIGRATING DOWN THROUGH THE LITTER, RESPONDING
NEGATIVELY TO SUNLIGHT OR AN ELECTRIC LIGHT, WHICH WE PUT ON
TOP OCCASIONALLY, AND THE POSITIVE RESPONSE OF GRAVITY. THEY
FALL THROUGH THE SCREEN DOWN INTO THE JAR OF ALCOHOL. YOU
LEAVE THIS IN PLACE FOR ABOUT TWENTY-FOUR TO FORTY-EIGHT HOURS,
AND YOU WILL IN MANY INSTANCES EFFECTIVELY EXTRACTED VIRTUALLY
ALL OF THE SOIL-DWELLING INSECTS THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE
SAMPLE.
HAD THIS BEEN DONE, WE HAVE A MORE COMPLETE PICTURE
OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE SOIL UNDER THE BODY.
Q.: DID YOU NOTICE THE DIVERSITY OF THE TYPES OF BEETLES
THAT WERE COLLECTED?
A.: YES. THERE WAS QUITE A DIVERSITY OF BEETLES THAT
WERE THERE.
Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: IT MEANS WE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF
BEETLES. WE HAD YOUR ROVE BEETLES, WE HAD SOME OF YOUR WHAT WE
CALL HISTER BEETLES. AND THEY ARE BOTH PREDATORS. WE HAD SOME
NITIDULIDAE BEETLES. IN HAWAII WE REFER TO AS A PINEAPPLE
BEETLE. I CAN’T THINK OF THE COMMON NAME OVER HERE. WE HAD
DERMESTES BEETLES. ACTUALLY TWO SPECIES OF THOSE. AND WE HAD
CLERIDAE BEETLES, SO-CALLED CHECKERED BEETLES. WE HAD A COUPLE
SPECIES OF THOSE. SO A FAIR ASSORTMENT OF BEETLES THAT I
ASSOCIATE WITH DECOMPOSITION. AND I WOULDN’T EXPECT TO REALLY
SEE THAT MANY OF THEM IN A SMALL AREA.
Q.: WHY NOT?
A.: THEY TEND TO DISPERSE. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A SOURCE
OF FOOD. THE BODY BECOMES A SOURCE OF FOOD.
Q.: IN THIS CASE, ASSUMING THE BODY WAS MUMMIFIED AND
BASED UPON WHAT YOU TOLD US THAT WOULD MAKE HER UNATTRACTIVE TO
THE FLIES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THEN IF AN ANIMAL CAME BY AND STARTED EATING THE
STOMACH OR CHEST REGION AND OPENED HER UP, WOULD THAT CHANGE
THE RECEPTIVENESS OF THIS BODY TO INSECT ACTIVITY?
MR. FELDMAN: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
MR. FELDMAN: OBJECTION.
THE WITNESS: IF THE INTERNAL TISSUES WERE STILL MOIST AND
A CARNIVORE OR SCAVENGER CAME THROUGH AND DID OPEN UP THE BODY,
THEN I WOULD CERTAINLY ANTICIPATE THAT THE FLIES WOULD BEGIN TO
EXPLOIT THIS AS AN ALTERNATE SAY PORTAL OF ENTRY TO GET INTO
THE ABDOMEN AND DEPOSIT THEIR EGGS.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: BASED UPON YOUR EXPERTISE AND WHAT YOU’VE DETERMINED
HERE IN THIS CASE, ARE YOU ABLE TO TELL US WHEN THIS LITTLE
GIRL WAS KILLED?
A.: NO, I CANNOT.
Q.: WHY NOT?
A.: I AM AN ENTOMOLOGIST, AND BASICALLY I’M ANALYZING A
PERIOD OF INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY.
Q.: IS THAT BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE SKILLS OR YOUR
SCIENCE DOESN’T?
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: MY SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH ESTIMATION OF
THE ACTUAL TIME OF DEATH. WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ESTIMATION
OF THE PERIOD OF POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. PARDON ME. THE PERIOD
OF INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY, NOT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL
PER SE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: BASED UPON YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE INSECTS AND YOUR
KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD, ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY THAT OUR VICTIM
DANIELLE VAN DAM WAS NOT DEAD FROM FEBRUARY 1ST THROUGH
FEBRUARY 12TH?
A.: NO. I WOULD DEFER THAT TO A PATHOLOGIST OR FORENSIC
ANTHROPOLOGIST.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.
THE COURT: CROSS-EXAMINATION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FELDMAN
Q.: GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.
A.: GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q.: YOU TRAVEL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES AND GIVE
LECTURES TO COLLEGES, DO YOU?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: RECENTLY HAVE YOU OR AT LEAST IN MARCH OF THE YEAR
2000 DID YOU SPEAK AT CHICO STATE UNIVERSITY?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: THAT WAS A FAIRLY WELL-ATTENDED LECTURE ON “NOTES
FROM THE DEAD” I THINK IT WAS CALLED, WASN’T IT?
A.: I DON’T REMEMBER THE EXACT TITLE. IT WAS
SURPRISINGLY WELL-ATTENDED.
Q.: AND, OF COURSE, THE ISSUE THAT YOU WERE THERE TO
DISCUSS WAS TIME OF DEATH, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: PARTIALLY.
Q.: AND ISN’T IT TRUE YOU MADE THE STATEMENT, QUOTE, WHEN
THE INSECTS GO INTO THE BODY, WE LOOK AT THOSE WITH THE MOST
ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT. THEN WE WORK BACKWARDS TO MEASURE THE
TIME OF DEATH? THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS, WEREN’T THEY?
A.: IN ALL HONESTY, I DON’T RECALL WHETHER I PHRASED IT
IN THAT MANNER OR NOT.
Q.: IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WOULD AGREE YOU MAY HAVE PHRASED
IT THAT WAY, CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: YES. THIS IS A POSSIBILITY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU WROTE A BOOK. THE BOOK YOU MENTIONED WAS CALLED
“FLY FOR THE PROSECUTION.”
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: “A FLY FOR THE PROSECUTION,” RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU DISCUSS ACTIVITY AFTER ACTIVITY AFTER
ACTIVITY WHERE YOU DETERMINED TIME OF DEATH, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: YES. I’M AT THAT POINT IN THE POPULAR SENSE
REFERRING TO IT AS TIME SINCE DEATH AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT
LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES WE WERE IN.
Q.: OH, YOU MEAN YOU USE DIFFERENT WORDS IN THE BOOK THAT
YOU ARE PUBLISHING THAN YOU DO IN THE COURTROOM?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: NO.
YOU MAY ANSWER, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: YES. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THINGS AS SIMPLY
AS WE CAN, SOMETIMES WE DO USE DIFFERENT PHRASES WHICH ARE NOT
SCIENTIFICALLY OR TECHNICALLY AS ACCURATE, PARTICULARLY IN A
BOOK WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR GENERAL READERSHIP AS OPPOSED TO
BEING A TEXT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SO WHEN YOU TALK TO CHICO STATE ABOUT TIME OF DEATH,
YOU DIDN’T MEAN TO COMMUNICATE THAT FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY AT
LEAST IN THE YEAR 2000 HAD REACHED THE STAGE WHERE IT COULD
ACCURATELY ESTIMATE TIME OF DEATH, EVEN THOUGH YOU USED THOSE
WORDS, SIR.
A.: I BELIEVE IN MY TALK AT CHICO STATE IN ADDITION TO
THE QUOTE WHICH IS THERE, I ALSO EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT WE IN
FACT WERE WORKING WITH A PERIOD OF INSECT ACTIVITY. WHAT YOU
HAVE THERE IS WHAT SOME INDIVIDUAL WHO WROTE THIS DECIDED TO
USE AS A QUOTE. AMONG OTHER THINGS I MAY HAVE SAID.
Q.: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THE PRESS
HAS A TENDENCY TO PICK OUT WHAT THEY WANT AND PUT IT INTO A
PARTICULAR ARTICLE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: SOMETIMES.
Q.: BUT THEY USE YOUR WORDS, YOU JUST DON’T LIKE THE
CONTEXT, IS THAT RIGHT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
YOU NEED NOT ANSWER, DOCTOR.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IN HAWAII WHAT SPECIES OF FLIES ARE YOU MOST
ACCUSTOMED TO DEALING WITH?
A.: IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION WE HAVE
BASICALLY TWO SPECIES THAT ARE IMMEDIATE ARRIVALS, CHRYSOMYA
RUFIFACIES AND CHRYSOMYA MEGACEPHALA.
Q.: BUT YOU KNOW IN THIS CASE WE ARE DEALING WITH INSECTS
THAT AREN’T THOSE TYPE OF INSECTS, RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WE’RE DEALING WITH I THINK IT’S PHAENICIA SERICATA
AND PHORMIA REGINA. THAT’S CORRECT, ISN’T IT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU DON’T SEE THOSE INSECTS SO MUCH IN HAWAII IN YOUR
STUDIES.
A.: PHAENICIA SERICATA WE ENCOUNTER VERY FREQUENTLY. IT
IS NOT AS AGGRESSIVE A FLY AS EITHER THE CHRYSOMYA SPECIES.
PHORMIA REGINA IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS TENDS TO FAVOR COOLER
LOCALITIES, AND WE SEE THIS AT ELEVATIONS ABOVE ONE THOUSAND
METERS.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO MR. FAULKNER, YOU’RE ACQUAINTED WITH
MR. FAULKNER, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND YOU’VE KNOWN MR. FAULKNER PROFESSIONALLY FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YOU HAD CONFIDENCE
IN HIS ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIES OF FLIES, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU SAID YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE COMING TO
COURT. IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE WAS ON HIS HANDS AND KNEES
CRAWLING THROUGHOUT THE BODY SCENE AREA IN AN EFFORT TO LOCATE
INSECTS, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU ARE AWARE THAT AS A RESULT OF THE EXTENSIVE
SEARCH THAT HE WAS PERMITTED TO UNDERTAKE, HE TESTIFIED THAT IT
WAS THE BEST OPPORTUNITY HE HAD EVER HAD TO COLLECT INSECTS.
YOU’RE AWARE OF THAT, AREN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: YOU’RE ALSO AWARE THAT HE GOT IN POISON OAK AS I
GUESS THE PAYMENT FOR HIS LABOR. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
Q.: THAT’S A PRETTY THOROUGH INSPECTION OF THE SCENE,
WASN’T IT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: IT WAS A THOROUGH INSPECTION OF THE SCENE,
BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE OPTIMUM MEANS FOR COLLECTING SOIL-
DWELLING ARTHROPODS.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WELL, NOW YOU’RE TAKING THE POSITION THAT THERE’S AN
OPTIMUM MEANS AND THERE’S I GUESS AN IN-THE-FIELD MEANS. IS
THAT A DISTINCTION THAT YOU MAKE?
A.: THE FIELD COLLECTIONS IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE
FOLLOWED UP WITH LABORATORY PROCESSING.
Q.: AND IT’S YOUR OPINION, ISN’T IT, THAT FOR YOU TO
RENDER OPINIONS BASED ON WEATHER, YOU WANT TO HAVE A HYDROMETER
LOCATED EXACTLY AT THE LOCATION WHERE A PARTICULAR BODY’S BEEN
FOUND SO YOU CAN MEASURE PRECISELY THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
AGAINST YOUR WEATHER STATION DATA, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: I THINK A HYDROTHERMOGRAPH WOULD BE — AT THE SITE
WOULD BE VERY USEFUL.
Q.: AND THAT’S SOMETHING YOU WROTE IN THE BOOK THAT WAS
DESIGNED TO EDUCATE THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: TODAY YOU TOLD US THAT — TODAY YOU TOLD US THAT YOU
THOUGHT THAT A.D.H. WAS A VERY OR THE MOST RELIABLE METHOD OF
EVALUATING WHAT IS IT, THE THERMAL TEMPERATURES OR THE THERMAL
HOURS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN YOUR CALCULATIONS?
A.: IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT
TIME, I WILL GO WITH THE ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS.
Q.: ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS.
HOWEVER, IN YOUR BOOK YOU SAID “OVER-ALL MEAN
TEMPERATURES USUALLY PROVIDE A MORE ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE
ACTUAL CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH MAGGOTS DEVELOP THAN HOURLY
TEMPERATURES.” SO YOUR TESTIMONY CONTRADICTS WHAT YOU SAID IN
YOUR BOOK, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. COMPOUND. FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: COMPOUND.
REPHRASE IT, AND I WILL ALLOW THE AREA OF INQUIRY.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TOLD US JUST NOW THAT YOU THOUGHT A.D.H. WAS THE
MOST ACCURATE MANNER IN WHICH TO UTILIZE TEMPERATURE, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: BUT IN YOUR BOOK YOU TALKED ABOUT UTILIZING THE MEAN,
ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO YOU AGREE THAT YOU CONTRADICT IN COURT TODAY YOUR
TESTIMONY WITH THAT WHICH YOU WROTE IN YOUR BOOK.
A.: MEAN TEMPERATURES IN FACT CAN BE CONVERTED, AND I DO
CONVERT THEM TO A.D.H.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IT’S REALLY BETTER, YOU WOULD AGREE, TO HAVE AN
HOURLY TEMPERATURE DATA SET THAN JUST MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS FOR
ACCURACY PURPOSES, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: IF THE HOURLY TEMPERATURES ARE CLOSELY APPROXIMATED
TO THE SCENE OR SOMETHING IS DONE WHICH WILL ALLOW YOU TO
EXTRAPOLATE FROM THE SCENE TO THE WEATHER STATION.
Q.: AND YOU, YOURSELF, TESTIFIED THAT YOU FOUND THAT DR.
HASKELL’S RELIANCE UPON BROWN FIELD WAS AN APPROPRIATE
EXERCISE.
A.: YES. WE BOTH HIT ON THE SAME SET OF WEATHER DATA AS
BEING APPROPRIATE.
Q.: I’M SORRY. AS BEING APPROPRIATE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THAT’S BECAUSE, FOR INSTANCE, YOU HAD THE HOURLY
DATA, CORRECT?
A.: YES. IT WAS THE BEST. AND IN THE OTHER INSTANCES WE
ACTUALLY DIDN’T HAVE MEANS; WE HAD MEDIUMS.
Q.: YOU TOLD US YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THE BUGS. YOU’VE
ALSO OFFERED TESTIMONY — THAT’S TRUE, ISN’T IT?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: YOU NEVER INSPECTED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE,
CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: HOW OFTEN DO YOU TESTIFY WITHOUT INSPECTING THE
EVIDENCE IN A CASE, SIR?
A.: VERY RARELY.
Q.: WHAT’S VERY RARELY?
A.: I THINK I’VE DONE IT MAYBE TWICE BEFORE.
Q.: OKAY.
YOU TOLD US I THINK THAT — ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YOU
TOLD US YOU TESTIFIED TWENTY-FIVE TIMES APPROXIMATELY. IS THAT
RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: OF THAT NUMBER, HOW MANY FOR THE DEFENSE AND HOW MANY
FOR THE PROSECUTION, IF YOU KNOW?
A.: IN ALL HONESTY I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE BREAKDOWN IS. I
TEND TO BE SOMETIMES MORE FOR THE DEFENSE — PARDON ME — MORE
FOR THE PROSECUTION THAN THE DEFENSE.
Q.: SEVENTY/THIRTY, EIGHTY/TWENTY, NINETY/TEN, SOME
ESTIMATE THAT’S REASONABLE, SIR.
A.: I’D SAY SIXTY/FORTY.
Q.: AND IN WHICH CASES WAS IT THAT YOU FAILED TO EXAMINE
THE EVIDENCE?
A.: I DON’T RECALL.
Q.: BUT YOU DO RECALL THAT YOU FAILED TO EXAMINE THE
EVIDENCE —
A.: THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR ME TO EXAMINE.
Q.: — IN THIS CASE.
A.: WELL, ACTUALLY WHEN I WAS HERE LAST WEEK, I DID PUT
IN A REQUEST WITH THE PROSECUTOR TO SEE THE EVIDENCE.
Q.: DID YOU FIRST GET INVOLVED IN THE CASE LAST WEEK?
A.: I GOT FIRST INVOLVED IN IT ABOUT PROBABLY A WEEK AND
A HALF AGO. IT WAS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO MY BEGINNING MY
DETECTION RECOVERY OF REMAINS COURSE WHICH WAS ON THE 15TH, SO
IT WAS PROBABLY THE WEDNESDAY PRIOR TO THAT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. THE 15TH OF WHEN, JUNE?
A.: JULY.
Q.: SO SOMEWHERE AROUND THE 10TH OF JULY YOU GOT
INVOLVED?
A.: I WOULD SAY THAT WAS PROBABLY WHEN I HAD MY FIRST
TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH THE PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE.

Q.: WHO CALLED WHO?
A.: I BELIEVE MR. CLARKE CALLED ME.
Q.: OKAY.
DID YOU INITIATE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE?
A.: NO.
Q.: DID YOU REQUEST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TO
CONTACT MY OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AVAILABLE BUGS?
A.: NO. I WAS UNABLE TO WORK ON THE CASE UNTIL THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURSE, WHICH WAS ON THE 20TH.
Q.: YOU KNOW MR. RODRIGUEZ, THOUGH, DON’T YOU?
A.: YES, I DO.
Q.: HE’S A FRIEND OF YOURS, ISN’T HE?
A.: YES, HE IS.
Q.: DID YOU RECOMMEND MR. RODRIGUEZ TO MR. CLARKE OR THE
D. A.’S OFFICE?
A.: I DON’T RECALL RECOMMENDING HIM.
Q.: DO YOU REFER TO A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST — STRIKE
THAT.
DO YOU CONSIDER THAT A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST HAS
THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AS A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST?
A.: NO.
Q.: IN THE AREA OF ASCERTAINING — I’M SORRY. I DON’T
WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, SIR. IF YOU — TRY AGAIN.
MR. DUSEK: THERE’S NO FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: YOU DIDN’T COMPLETE THE QUESTION. SO JUST
REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
MR. FELDMAN: SURE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU’RE AWARE THAT A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST HAS
DIFFERENT TRAINING THAN A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND BETWEEN THE TWO IT’S YOUR OPINION, IS IT NOT,
THAT A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST HAS A MUCH GREATER DEGREE OF
QUALIFICATION TO RENDER AN OPINION CONCERNING TIME OF DEATH
THAN DOES AN ANTHROPOLOGIST, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION. IRRELEVANT.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WERE YOU — AS PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS
PROVIDED TO YOU IN RENDERING YOUR OPINIONS IN THIS CASE, WERE
YOU PROVIDED MR. RODRIGUEZ’ CONCLUSIONS THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM,
THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS BETWEEN 28 AND 42 DAYS?
A.: I DON’T RECALL BEING PROVIDED WITH THAT ESTIMATE.
Q.: DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE TO YOU
BASED ON YOUR ENTOMOLOGIC FINDINGS?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. NO FOUNDATION FOR HIS —
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: MY ENTOMOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IS BASED SOLELY ON
THE PERIOD OF INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND BASED ON YOUR TRAINING, YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOUR
PROFESSIONAL AND ENTOMOLOGIC TRAINING, YOU KNOW THAT AS SOON AS
SOMEBODY DIES, THE BUGS ARE AT THE BODY WITHIN MINUTES TO
HOURS, ISN’T THAT TRUE, GENERALLY?
A.: GENERALLY, BUT NOT ALWAYS.
Q.: AND YOU’VE WRITTEN TIME AND AGAIN THAT IT’S THE
UNDERSTANDING WITHIN THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIC COMMUNITY THAT
ONCE A BODY IS DECEASED, THE FLIES ARE THERE WITHIN MINUTES TO
HOURS. THAT’S ONE OF THE BASIC PREMISES OF FORENSIC
ENTOMOLOGY, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, ANOTHER BASIC PREMISE OF FORENSIC
ENTOMOLOGY IS IF IN THE ENVIRONMENT THERE’S A BODY THAT’S
AVAILABLE AND THE TEMPERATURE’S RIGHT, THE BUGS ARE GOING TO GO
THERE, CORRECT?
A.: ASSUMING THAT THERE ARE NO BARRIERS TO THEIR
ACCESSING THE REMAINS, ONE WOULD ANTICIPATE THEIR BEING THERE.
Q.: EXCUSE ME, SIR. AND IN THIS CASE YOU’RE AWARE OF NO
BARRIERS TO THE REMAINS, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: I DON’T KNOW OF ANY PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO THE REMAINS.
Q.: WELL, YOU’RE AWARE, YOU READ FAULKNER, THAT FAULKNER
TRIED TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE WERE ANY BARRIERS, AND HE WAS
TOLD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THERE DIDN’T EXIST ANY. YOU ARE AWARE
OF THAT, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: EVEN IF THE BODY HAD BEEN WRAPPED AS MR. DUSEK WAS
TALKING TO YOU ABOUT IT, YOU JUST TESTIFIED TODAY I THINK IT
WOULD DELAY YOUR CALCULATIONS OR THE ONSET OF THE
OVIPOSITIONING FOR FIVE DAYS. IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?
A.: I DON’T BELIEVE I USED FIVE DAYS.
Q.: WHAT DID —
A.: I SAID SEVERAL DAYS.
Q.: WHEN YOU USE THE WORD SEVERAL, WHAT NUMBER COMES TO
MIND?
A.: THE LONGEST I’VE ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED MYSELF WAS A
TWO-AND-A-HALF-DAY DELAY IN A BODY WHICH WAS WRAPPED IN
BLANKETS AND BOTH ENDS TIED. NORTAVA IN FINLAND WITH THE BODY
COVERED BY A THIN LAYER OF POLYETHYLENE DOCUMENTED I BELIEVE
SEVEN DAYS.
Q.: SO YOU’RE TELLING US THAT IN YOUR OWN RESEARCH THE
MOST YOU’VE SEEN IS A TWO-AND-A-HALF-DAY DELAY, RIGHT?
A.: FOR A BODY WRAPPED, YES.
Q.: FOR A BODY WRAPPED.
AND HOW WAS THAT BODY WRAPPED, SIR?
A.: IT WAS WRAPPED IN TWO LAYERS OF BLANKETS AND WAS
TIED.
Q.: SO THAT IT MADE ACCESS TO THE BODY VERY DIFFICULT,
ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND IT REDUCED THE AROMA AS THE BODY DECOMPOSED,
ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: YOU TOLD MR. DUSEK THAT — I DON’T REMEMBER WHETHER
YOU USED THE WORD LONGEST OR SHORTEST, BUT I’LL USE THE WORD
DEATH, NO — INSECT OVIPOSITIONING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE 12TH.
DO YOU RECALL THAT TESTIMONY?
A.: YES.
Q.: IF THE BODY WAS WRAPPED, ON YOUR LOGIC, AND WE
SUBTRACTED TWO AND A HALF DAYS, THAT WOULD PUT IT TO WHAT, THE
9TH AND A HALF?
MR. DUSEK: VAGUE AS TO WHICH CALCULATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION TO MR.
DUSEK, WHERE YOU TOLD MR. DUSEK THAT YOU ESTIMATED OVIPOSITION
COULD HAVE OCCURRED AS EARLY AS OR AS LATE AS, I CAN’T REMEMBER
WHETHER YOU USED THE WORD EARLY OR LATER, FEBRUARY 12TH, — ARE
YOU TRACKING, SIR?
A.: YES.
Q.: IF, THEN, WE UTILIZE THAT FEBRUARY 12TH DATE, AND YOU
UTILIZE YOUR STUDIES WHICH INDICATE A TWO-AND-A-HALF-DAY DELAY
AND TAKE — AND ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THE
BODY WAS WRAPPED, THEN YOU’RE EITHER EARLIEST OR LATEST TIME
WOULD BE ABOUT THE 9TH, CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE TO THE FORM OF THE
QUESTION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DUSEK CONCERNING WHETHER
OR NOT CARNIVORES WOULD HAVE COME IN, THAT WAS ALL SPECULATIVE,
WASN’T IT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT’S WHAT OCCURRED,
TRUE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. COMPOUND.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: WHEN I LOOKED AT THE SCENE AND AUTOPSY
PHOTOS, IT APPEARED THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF DEFECT TO THE
ABDOMEN. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS AND SCENE PHOTOS,
IT APPEARED THERE HAD BEEN LARGE QUANTITIES OF FLESH REMOVED
FROM THE CHEST AREA. I WAS NOT THERE WATCHING FOR SOMETHING TO
FEED. BUT LOOKING AT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS, THE IMPRESSION WHICH I
RECEIVED WAS IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO CARNIVORE ACTIVITY THAT I
HAD OBSERVED ON PIGS THAT WE USED IN STUDIES AT THE F. B. I.
ACADEMY IN QUANTICO.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO THEY HAVE COYOTES IN QUANTICO?
A.: NO. THEY DO HAVE RACCOONS, THEY HAVE POSSUMS, FOXES,
AND BUZZARDS.
Q.: DID YOU GO OUT TO THE SCENE IN THIS CASE?
A.: YES. I VISITED THE SCENE LAST WEEK.
Q.: WITH WHOM?
A.: WITH MR. COOKSEY.
Q.: ANYBODY ELSE?
A.: NO.
Q.: SO YOU WERE ACTUALLY IN TOWN LAST WEEK?
A.: YES.
Q.: FOR HOW MANY DAYS, SIR?
A.: I CAME IN HERE AND PREPARED TO TESTIFY ON THURSDAY.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET ON THE STAND, SO I BASICALLY FLEW BACK
HOME.
Q.: SO IT WAS THURSDAY THAT YOU HAD GONE OUT WITH MR.
COOKSEY?
A.: ACTUALLY IT WAS WEDNESDAY. CAME IN ON WEDNESDAY. WE
WENT OUT AND TOOK A LOOK.
Q.: WERE YOU WITH ANYBODY ELSE BESIDES MR. COOKSEY?
A.: NO.
Q.: DID YOU GO TO SINGING HILLS?
A.: WE WENT PAST SINGING HILLS.
Q.: DID YOU GO TO THE WEATHER STATION AT SINGING HILLS?
A.: NO, I DID NOT.
Q.: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE WEATHER
STATIONS AND NATIONAL WEATHER STATION STATISTICS?
A.: NATIONAL IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT MORE DETAILED THAN
WHAT WOULD BE PUT TOGETHER FOR PRIVATE OPERATION.
Q.: WHEN YOU SAY THE —
A.: AT LEAST IN THE STATE OF HAWAII.
Q.: WHEN YOU SAY MORE DETAILED, DO YOU MEAN MORE
RELIABLE?
A.: WELL, I MEAN NOT NECESSARILY MORE RELIABLE, BUT THEY
WILL BE TAKING MORE MEASUREMENTS.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE SINGING HILLS DATA WE WERE TOLD
THAT A GOLF BALL STRUCK THE MACHINE AND THAT THE MACHINE HAD
NOT BEEN CALIBRATED FOR MORE THAN A YEAR. DOES THAT HAVE IN
YOUR VIEW ANY EFFECT ON THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF THE
SINGING HILLS DATA?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO WHICH MACHINE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. AND WHAT PART OF THE MACHINE.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WE HAD WITH US AN EMPLOYEE OF SINGING HILLS WHO
TESTIFIED THAT THERE’S AN — APPARENTLY THIS MACHINE THAT’S GOT
A WEATHER — I’M SORRY — A WIND MEASURER ATTACHED TO IT AND IS
ALL ONE PIECE AND THAT THE WIND-MEASURING PORTION GOT STRUCK
WITH A GOLF BALL AND THAT THE MACHINE HAD NOT BEEN CALIBRATED
FOR MORE THAN A YEAR PRIOR TO THE TIME OF OUR TESTIMONY. WOULD
THOSE FACTS AFFECT YOUR VIEW AS TO THE ACCURACY OR VALIDITY OF
THE SINGING HILLS DATA THAT SOURCED FROM THAT MACHINE?
A.: OKAY. I HAD HEARD OF THE GOLF BALL STRIKING THE
WIND- MEASURING DEVICE. THE CALIBRATION, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
SEEN THINGS CALIBRATED MORE. KEEP IN MIND, HOWEVER, THAT THE
SINGING HILLS ALSO GAVE ME ONLY MAXIMUM/MINIMUM TEMPERATURES,
AND I WAS LOOKING ONLY AT MEDIAN TEMPERATURES, WHICH IS WHY I
PUT GREATER RELIABILITY IN THE BROWN STATION.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: OKAY. SO WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US IS THAT IN YOUR
PROFESSIONAL OPINION BROWN FIELD WAS THE MORE RELIABLE DATA
SOURCE FOR THE WEATHER SETS. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES. BOTH DR. HASKELL AND I AGREED ON THAT.
Q.: IS IT A FAIR STATEMENT TO SAY THAT YOUR CALCULATIONS
ARE ONLY AS ACCURATE AS THE NUMBERS THAT YOU INPUT?
A.: THAT’S TRUE.
Q.: SO WITH REGARD, FOR INSTANCE, IN THIS CASE, SIR, YOU
PREPARED A REPORT, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU PREPARED A REPORT AT TIMES I GUESS WHEN THE
EVENTS WERE FRESHER IN YOUR MIND THAN THEY ARE TODAY.
A.: I WOULDN’T SAY THEY WERE NECESSARILY FRESHER.
POSSIBLY I WAS SITTING IN MY LABORATORY WITH ALL MY NOTES,
WHICH IS CERTAINLY MORE RELAXING THAN SITTING ON A WITNESS
STAND.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU PREPARED THE REPORT, THOUGH, WITH THE
SPECIFIC INTENT OF INSURING THAT IT CONTAINED ONLY ACCURATE
INFORMATION, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THE MOST ACCURATE I COULD COME UP WITH.
Q.: AND YOU REVIEWED IT TO INSURE THAT IT WAS THE MOST
ACCURATE YOU COULD COME UP WITH, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: YES. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF TYPOS.
Q.: WELL, DID ANY OF THE TYPOS. — I’M SORRY. WHAT
TYPOS. ARE YOU THINKING OF?
A.: ONE WHERE I — LET’S SEE. ACTUALLY I CAN — APPEAR
ON — OKAY. ON THE THIRD PAGE, THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, IT SAYS
MY OWN EXPERIMENTS HAVE DEMONSTRATED MAGGOT MASS TEMPERATURES
RANGING UP TO 25. IN THE ORIGINAL IT SAYS UP TO 52 DEGREES
ABOVE AMBIENT, WHICH WAS THE FLIP-FLOP OF THE NUMBERS AND
SHOULD IN FACT BE 25 DEGREES ABOVE AMBIENT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. ARE YOU TELLING US YOUR STUDIES HAVE
NOTED THAT IF THERE’S A MAGGOT MASS, THE MAGGOT MASS IS GOING
TO GENERATE HEAT UP TO 25 DEGREES OVER AMBIENT TEMPERATURE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND IS THAT 25 DEGREES CENTIGRADE?
A.: YES.
Q.: GOT TOO MANY CHARTS.
CAREFUL NOT TO HIT YOU. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
A WHILE. I WON’T GET YOU AS BEST I CAN PROMISE.
YOU TOLD MR. DUSEK THAT THE TEMPERATURES AROUND THE
BROWN FIELD DATA SEEM TO BE HIGH. RIGHT?
A.: YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PERIOD FROM THE
APPROXIMATELY 2:00 A.M. ON THE 27TH ‘TIL 3:00 A.M. ON THE 28TH?
Q.: WAS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT TO COMMUNICATE?
A.: YES.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE TEMPERATURE ON THE 28TH, DID
YOU NOTE WHAT DR. HASKELL CALCULATED AS THE TEMPERATURE?
A.: ON THE 28TH?
Q.: YES.
A.: I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY TO BE CERTAIN LOOK AT HIS
REPORT; BUT AS I RECALL, HE WAS LOOKING AT 32 DEGREES —
Q.: OKAY.
A.: — FOR —
Q.: CENTIGRADE?
A.: YES.
32 DEGREES CELSIUS FOR 1:00 ‘TIL 2:00, THEN I BELIEVE
HE DROPPED DOWN TO 65 UP UNTIL 9:00 A.M., AND THEN FROM 9:00
A.M. UP I BELIEVE HE WENT UP TO 70 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. I’M
MIXING MY CENTIGRADE AND FAHRENHEIT HERE. APOLOGIZE.
Q.: SOMEHOW YOU WERE ADDING 10 DEGREES CENTIGRADE TO THE
25 DEGREES THAT YOU NOTED THAT THE MAGGOT MASS GENERATED, IS
THAT RIGHT?
A.: NO.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: LET ME TRY IT A DIFFERENT WAY.
YOUR VIEW IS THAT HASKELL’S CONCLUSION THAT 90
DEGREES I GUESS FAHRENHEIT FOR THE MAGGOT MASS IS NOT
SUPPORTED. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES. WHAT HE IS SAYING HERE OR DO YOU WANT A SIMPLE
YES OR NO?
Q.: YES, PLEASE.
A.: IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING, YOU’RE ASKING IF
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS UNSUPPORTED.
Q.: YES.
A.: AND THAT’S CORRECT. I DO BELIEVE THAT.
Q.: HOWEVER, IF YOU SUBTRACT FROM THE 90 DEGREES
FAHRENHEIT THE 25 DEGREES CENTIGRADE MAGGOT MASS HEAT THAT YOU
ATTRIBUTE TO DECOMPOSING BODIES WITH MAGGOT MASSES, WHAT WOULD
THAT FAHRENHEIT TEMPERATURE BE?
A.: THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS THAT YOU’RE GOING TO COME UP
WITH AROUND 90 DEGREES. HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY THE
SITUATION WE’RE DEALING WITH.
Q.: I’M SORRY. THIS IS NOT –
(JUROR NUMBER 18 RAISED HER HAND.)
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: NEED A BREAK?
JUROR NUMBER 18: YES, JUDGE.
THE COURT: ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A STRETCH BREAK.
PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION. I’M NOT GOING TO GET
INTO IT. I DON’T KNOW HOW FAST WE HAVE TO GET OUT OF HERE.
BE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AT 2:30, PLEASE. 2:30.
(RECESS, 2:18 O’CLOCK, P.M., TO 2:30 O’CLOCK, P.M.)
THE COURT: WELCOME BACK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
ALL RIGHT, MR. FELDMAN.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, I GUESS I GOT A LITTLE BIT DERAILED. YOU TOLD
ME ABOUT ONE OF YOUR — YOU WERE SAYING THAT THERE WERE TYPOS.
IN YOUR REPORT, AND I KNOW THAT YOU TOLD US THAT THERE WAS AT
LEAST ONE. ANY OTHER TYPOS. THAT YOU NOTED?
A.: I BELIEVE I HAD LEFT AN A OUT OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN
LINE TWO.
Q.: ALL RIGHT. SO OTHER THAN THOSE SIMPLE TYPOS., THAT’S
ALL
A.: YES.
Q.: AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAREFULLY REVIEWED TO INSURE
THAT IT WAS ACCURATE?
A.: YES.
Q.: BEHIND YOU WE’RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE WEATHER IN A
WHILE. I KNOW WE TALKED JUST BRIEFLY AT THE BREAK. BUT WE
HAVE A CHART OF THE LIFE CYCLE OF THE BLOW FLY.
FIRST OF ALL, IT’S MARKED IN OUR COURT AS 175.
THAT’S JUST, SIR, THE EXHIBIT NUMBER. COULD YOU ILLUSTRATE TO
THE JURY HOW THIS EVOLUTION PROCESS GOES.
A.: WELL, ACTUALLY WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVOLUTION.
Q.: OKAY.
A.: DEVELOPMENT.
Q.: THE LIFE CYCLE.
A.: DEVELOPMENT.
Q.: SORRY. ALL RIGHT.
A.: OKAY.
Q.: PLEASE.
A.: MAY I STEP DOWN?
Q.: PLEASE.
A.: BASICALLY WHAT I DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER
WITHOUT THE CHART, WE HAVE OUR FEMALE FLY WHO COMES IN TO THE
BODY, TO THE REMAINS, TO THE FOOD SOURCE, IS GOING TO FIRST
SAMPLE, MAKE CERTAIN THAT THIS IS AN ADEQUATE FOOD SOURCE, IS
SOMETHING THAT THE IMMATURES, THE DEVELOPING LARVAE, ARE GOING
TO BE ABLE TO SURVIVE ON. IF IT IS A SUITABLE FOOD SOURCE, SHE
WILL LAY HER EGGS. THESE EGGS WILL HATCH INTO THE FIRST INSTAR
LARVA.
THIS FIRST INSTAR LARVA IS GOING TO FEED AND DEVELOP.
WHEN IT REACHES THE MAXIMUM SIZE THAT IT CAN REACH, GIVEN THE
CONSTRAINTS OF ITS EXTERNAL SKELETON, IT’S GOING TO MOLT INTO
OUR SECOND INSTAR.
THE SECOND INSTAR IS GOING TO GO THROUGH A SIMILAR
SORT OF PATTERN. IT’S GOING TO FEED AS RAPIDLY AS IT CAN,
GOING TO REACH ITS MAXIMUM SIZE. WHEN IT DOES, IT WILL MOLT
AGAIN INTO THE THIRD INSTAR.
THIS THIRD INSTAR IS GOING TO AGAIN FEED AS RAPIDLY
AS IT CAN. BUT WHEN IT REACHES FULL SIZE, IN THIS INSTANCE
INSTEAD OF MOLTING, IT’S GOING TO MIGRATE AWAY FROM THE BODY,
AWAY FROM THE FOOD SOURCE, TO ESCAPE PREDATORS AND PARASITES
WHICH HAVE COME TO THE FOOD SOURCE LOOKING FOR A MEAL. IT’S
GOING TO GO AWAY SOME DISTANCE INTO THE SOIL. AND THERE IT’S
GOING TO ENTER THE PUPARIAL STAGE.
DURING THE PUPARIAL STAGE BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS
THE TISSUE THAT USED TO BE A MAGGOT IS GOING TO BREAK DOWN, AND
WE HAVE A SECOND EMBRYOLOGY THAT OCCURS. AND FROM THAT WE’LL
HAVE THE ADULT FLY EMERGE READY TO CONTINUE ON.
Q.: SIR, ARE THERE TIME PARAMETERS THAT THE STUDIES HAVE
INDICATED FROM I’LL SAY PHASE TO PHASE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AS YOU MIGHT PUT IT INSTAR TO INSTAR?
A.: YES. FOR A GIVEN SPECIES AT GIVEN TEMPERATURES WE DO
KNOW PERIODS OF TIME THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED FOR THE
MAGGOT TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
Q.: HOW ABOUT PHAENICIA SERICATA?
A.: YES, THERE ARE.
Q.: I’M ASKING YOU. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLOW FLY PHAENICIA SERICATA BETWEEN FIRST,
SECOND, AND THIRD INSTAR?
A.: IN ALL HONESTY, I DO NOT RECALL THOSE FIGURES OFF THE
TOP OF MY HEAD. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DATA.
Q.: HOW ABOUT PHORMIA REGINA?
A.: THERE ARE SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTAL CYCLES THERE.
Q.: DO YOU HAVE THE DATA WITH YOU?
A.: I DON’T BELIEVE — I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME DATA
HERE. ACTUALLY IN DR. HASKELL’S REPORT.
Q.: OKAY.
BUT YOU’RE THEN GOING TO RELY ON DR. HASKELL’S WORK
TO RENDER YOUR OPINION AS TO WHAT THE TIME CYCLES OR THE TIMING
IS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS INSTAR STAGES, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.: I WOULDN’T SAY HIS WORK. I WOULD SAY THAT WHAT HE
HAS REPRODUCED HERE ARE THINGS THAT VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY IN
FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY HAS REPRODUCED AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER.
Q.: PLEASE.
A.: NOW, I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE BASED ON
KAMAL 1958 DATA.
Q.: LET ME STOP YOU ON THAT ONE. YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT.
THIS IS ONLY GOING TO TAKE A SECOND.
YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU USED ANDERSON, RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: BECAUSE ANDERSON IS A 2000 STUDY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND IN YOUR VIEW ANDERSON IS MORE RELIABLE OR MORE
ACCURATE THAN KAMAL.
A.: FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WHERE THE TEMPERATURES
AT WHICH SHE REARED THE FLIES ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE
TEMPERATURES WITH WHICH WE’RE WORKING, I REGARD HER DATA AS
BEING MORE RELIABLE.
Q.: BUT WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR BOOK, YOU RELIED UPON KAMAL,
DIDN’T YOU?
A.: YES. MY BOOK WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO ANDERSON’S DATA.
Q.: YOUR BOOK WAS WRITTEN ON A FORMULA OF KAMAL’S THAT’S
BASICALLY BEEN TRIED AND TRUE FOR FORTY OR FIFTY YEARS, ISN’T
THAT RIGHT?
A.: I WANT SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT YOU MEAN BY A
FORMULA.
Q.: WELL, YOUR BOOK WAS WRITTEN UTILIZING THE KAMAL DATA
I THINK HAS BEEN AROUND YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT SINCE THE
FIFTIES. RIGHT?
A.: 1958 WAS THE PUBLICATION DATE.
Q.: SO THE ENTIRE — AT LEAST YOUR EXPERIENCE AND
WHATEVER IT TOOK YOU TO WRITE THE BOOK RELIED UPON THAT DATA
THAT’S HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERGO PEER REVIEW FOR
APPROXIMATELY A HALF A CENTURY, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THE ANDERSON DATA HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO THE SAME
RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW AS HAS KAMAL, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: NO.
Q.: THERE’S ALSO GREENBERG DATA THAT — DID YOU CONSIDER
IN YOUR REPORT, SIR?
A.: I LOOKED AT THE DATA IN GREENBERG, 1991, AND THE DATA
THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE HE PRESENTS IN A VERY
UNUSUAL FORM AS BEING AVERAGE MINIMUMS. AND THIS DOESN’T
REALLY DELIMIT WHAT IT IS WE’RE LOOKING AT AND TEMPERATURES FOR
VARYING WERE DIFFERENT.
Q.: IN YOUR REPORT, SIR, YOU WROTE THAT WEATHER DATA FROM
THE SINGING HILLS WEATHER STATION COMBINED WITH REARING DATA
FROM BOTH 16.1 DEGREES C. AND 21 DEGREES C., THE A.D.H. B-10
REQUIRED FOR THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE WOULD NOT BE ACQUIRED PRIOR
TO 2 FEBRUARY, 2002. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE INVOLVES MIGRATING MAGGOTS.
A.: YES.
Q.: DOES IT INVOLVE NON-FEEDING MAGGOTS OR FEEDING
MAGGOTS?
A.: WELL, MIGRATING MAGGOT IS A NON-FEED STAGE. THESE
ARE TWO TERMS FOR THE SAME THING.
Q.: IT’S AFTER THE THIRD INSTAR.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND WE DON’T HAVE ANY MIGRATING MAGGOTS IN OUR CASE.
YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT, AREN’T YOU?
A.: YES.
Q.: SO THAT CALCULATION THAT YOU DID THAT GOT YOU IN 192
— WELL, I GUESS — POST-FEEDING PRIOR TO 2 FEBRUARY, 2002,
THAT CALCULATION, THAT DOESN’T INVOLVE THE BUGS IN OUR CASE,
DOES IT?
A.: NO, IT DOES NOT.
Q.: SO CAN WE JUST, I DON’T KNOW, ERASE IT OR SCRATCH IT
OUT SINCE IT DOESN’T HAVE ANY BEARING ON OUR CASE?
A.: WHAT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE MAGGOTS WHICH
WERE RECOVERED MEASURED 17.8 MILLIMETERS IN TOTAL LENGTH. IF
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT DEVELOPMENTAL DATA FROM GREENBERG, 1991, YOU
WILL SEE THAT 17.8 MILLIMETERS TOTAL LENGTH IS VERY CLOSE TO
THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A THIRD-INSTAR MAGGOT. AND, THEREFORE,
THIS IS ABOUT READY TO ENTER THE MIGRATING STAGE.
Q.: SO YOU’RE SAYING BECAUSE IT’S ABOUT READY, YOU CAN
USE IT EVEN THOUGH IT ISN’T EXACTLY UNDERGONE THE CHANGE.
A.: NO. I’VE SAID THAT WE DID NOT REACH THAT STAGE.
Q.: SO, THEREFORE, WE DON’T REACH FEBRUARY 2ND AS A
RELEVANT DATE IN OUR CASE, CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. VAGUE.
THE COURT: REPHRASE IT.
SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU FURTHER WROTE USING WEATHER DATA FROM THE BROWN
FIELD WEATHER STATION FROM THE REPORT BY DR. HASKELL, THE
MINIMUM A.D.H. B-10 REQUIRED TO REACH THE THIRD INSTAR AT 16
DEGREES C. WOULD BE ACQUIRED 14 FEBRUARY, 2002, AND AT 23
DEGREES C. ON 13 FEBRUARY, 2002. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: SO IT’S YOUR TESTIMONY, IF I’M UNDERSTANDING YOU
CORRECTLY, SIR, THAT BASED ON YOUR CALCULATIONS, THE EARLIEST
THE FLIES COULD HAVE OVIPOSITED WOULD HAVE BEEN 12 OR 13
FEBRUARY.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO WHICH DATA, WHICH
TEMPERATURES.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
MAKE IT SPECIFIC, AND I WILL ALLOW THE INQUIRY.
/ / /
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WITH REGARD TO OUR REPORT, SIR, — I SQUISHED THE
PAPER A LITTLE. I’M SORRY.
YOU WROTE WEATHER DATA FROM SINGING HILLS — I’M
SORRY. USING WEATHER DATA FROM THE BROWN FIELD WEATHER STATION
FROM THE REPORT BY DR. HASKELL, THE MINIMUM A.D.H. B-10
REQUIRED TO REACH THE THIRD INSTAR AT 16.1 DEGREES C. WOULD BE
ACQUIRED BY 14 FEBRUARY. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND AT 23 DEGREES C. ON 13 FEBRUARY, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IF WE PUT GOFF 16
DEGREES C., THAT WOULD BE A FAIR STATEMENT AS TO THE DATE YOU
WOULD OPINE COULD HAVE BEEN THE EARLIEST FOR OVIPOSITION?
A.: NO.
Q.: FURTHERMORE, YOU WROTE THAT IF YOU UTILIZE 23 DEGREES
C., THE BUGS WOULD REACH THE THIRD INSTAR STAGE ON 13 FEBRUARY,
2002, CORRECT?
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: BUT YOU’RE SAYING THE A.D.H. B-10 REQUIRED TO REACH
THE BEGINNING OF THE PREPUPARIAL OR POST-FEEDING PORTION OF THE
THIRD INSTAR WOULD HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED ON 9 FEBRUARY, 2002,
BASED ON DATA FROM THE 16.1 C. REARINGS AND ON 4 FEBRUARY,
2002, BASED ON THE 23-DEGREE C. REARINGS, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: BUT, AGAIN, THIS IS PREPUPARIAL. WE DON’T HAVE
PREPUPARIAL, DO WE?
A.: YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE PREPUPARIAL. WHAT I AM
SAYING VERY BASICALLY IS THAT YOU HAVE REACHED THE THIRD
INSTAR; AND BASED ON THE LENGTHS OF THOSE MAGGOTS, YOU HAVE
GONE A CONSIDERABLE DISTANCE TOWARD THE PREPUPARIAL.
Q.: OF COURSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO SEE THE BUGS TO KNOW
THAT, WOULDN’T YOU?
A.: I THEORETICALLY SHOULD SEE THE BUGS. HOWEVER, I DO
TRUST THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND THEIR ABILITY TO MEASURE.
Q.: I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO RENDER A PROFESSIONAL OPINION
AS TO HOW CLOSE THE THIRD INSTAR IS TO THE MIGRATING
PREPUPARIAL STAGE, YOU NEED TO SEE THE BUGS, DON’T YOU?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: IT’S BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND SINCE YOU DIDN’T SEE THE BUGS, YOU’RE SPECULATING
ABOUT THE DEGREE OF — YOU’RE SPECULATING ABOUT THE DEGREE OF
DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THIRD-STAGE, THIRD-INSTAR LARVA AND
MIGRATING MAGGOTS.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. MISSTATES THE
EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE AS FORMED.
I WILL ALLOW THE INQUIRY; JUST CHANGE THE QUESTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, YOU WROTE AS THE OVER-ALL TEMPERATURE FOR THE
PERIOD IN QUESTION WERE GENERALLY CLOSER TO THE 16.1-DEGREE C.,
16.1-DEGREE C. REARING DATA, THAT DATA APPEAR MORE APPROPRIATE
AND ONSET OF INSECT ACTIVITY ON 9 FEBRUARY APPEARS REASONABLE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO YOU’RE SAYING IN YOUR REPORT THAT 9 FEBRUARY IS A
REASONABLE DATE BASED ON WHATEVER YOUR DISAGREEMENTS WITH
HASKELL AND FAULKNER MAY BE FOR THE FIRST, INITIAL OVIPOSITION
OF THE BUGS?
A.: YES.
Q.: SO NOW IF I WRITE 9 FEBRUARY ON THE CHART AND SAY
GOFF, IS THAT A FAIR THING TO DO BASED ON YOUR CONCLUSION?
A.: YES. IN MY OPINION THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE PERIOD
OF ONSET.
Q.: OOPS. I’M SORRY. I TOLD YOU I WOULDN’T GET YOU.
SHOWING YOU 170. ONCE AGAIN I’M JUST GOING TO PUT ON
9 GOFF.
MR. FELDMAN: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, I HAVE WRITTEN
ON 170 THE WORD GOFF AND JUST DRAWN A RECTANGLE AROUND IT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, IF IT’S THE CASE THAT IN YOUR VIEW THE INITIAL
ONSET WOULD BE ON THE 9TH AND IT’S TRUE BASED ON YOUR WRITINGS
THAT THE BUGS GET TO THE FRESH BODY FROM MINUTES TO HOURS, SHE
COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD AS EARLY AS THE 9TH, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE BODY WOULD BE
AVAILABLE ON THE 9TH.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IN OTHER WORDS, SHE COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD ON THE 9TH
BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY.
A.: YES.
Q.: KILLED ON THE 9TH?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. BEYOND THE —
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
THE WITNESS: NO.
MR. FELDMAN: I’M SORRY, JUDGE. SUSTAINED, RIGHT?
THE COURT: YES.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE 9TH,
— ON THE 8TH SHE COULD HAVE BEEN ALIVE?
MR. DUSEK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE 9TH
ACCURATELY STATES THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: AS I’VE STATED BEFORE, WHAT I WORK WITH, WHAT THE
FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST DEALS WITH IS NOT THE ACTUAL POST-MORTEM
INTERVAL BUT IN FACT WE ARE LOOKING AT A PERIOD OF INSECT
ACTIVITY ON THE BODY.
Q.: AND INSECTS AND THE BLOW FLIES IN SPECIFIC ARE
ATTRACTED TO FRESH, NOT AGED MEAT FOR WANT OF A BETTER WAY TO
PUT IT, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND WITH REGARD TO THAT ATTRACTION TO THE FRESH AS
OPPOSED TO THE OLD, HAD THE BODY BEEN PUT IN A REFRIGERATOR FOR
A WEEK OR PUT IN A STORAGE COMPARTMENT IN A VAN FOR SEVERAL
DAYS, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE CONDITION OF THE BODY FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF THE BLOW FLY, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY.
Q.: YOU MEAN THAT THE POST-MORTEM CHANGES THAT COULD
OCCUR OVER A FORTY-EIGHT-HOUR PERIOD WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT
WHETHER OR NOT THE BLOW FLY CONSIDERED THE RESOURCE TO BE
FRESH?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES HIS ANSWER.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE IT DOES. BUT I’LL ALLOW YOU TO
ANSWER IF YOU UNDERSTAND IT, DOCTOR.
THE WITNESS: NO. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CORRECT ME IF I’M
WRONG, YOU’RE ASKING IF A BODY IS CONCEALED FOR A PERIOD OF
TWENTY-FOUR TO FORTY-EIGHT HOURS AND THEN EXPOSED THAT THE BLOW
FLIES WOULD STILL FIND IT ATTRACTIVE. THE ANSWER TO THAT IS
YES, THEY WOULD STILL FIND IT ATTRACTIVE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WHAT ABOUT FORTY-EIGHT HOURS; WOULD THEY CONSIDER IT
ATTRACTIVE AT FORTY-EIGHT HOURS?
A.: YES.
Q.: HOW ABOUT NINETY-SIX HOURS?
A.: I’M NOT CERTAIN. THERE YOU WOULD START GETTING INTO
DEGREE OF DRYING.
Q.: OKAY.
SO YOU’RE SAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR DAYS,
IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: I WOULD SAY PROBABLY TWO TO THREE DAYS WOULD BE A
PERIOD OF TIME WHERE I WOULD EXPECT THE BODY THAT WAS, LET’S
SAY, PUT OUT TO BE ATTRACTIVE THROUGH NATURAL BODY OPENINGS.
Q.: THIS NOTION OF THE THERMAL HEATING, THE A.D.H. AND
THE B HYPHEN 10 A.D.H., IF I’M ARTICULATING IT CORRECTLY, WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: OKAY. BASICALLY HERE WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS YOU’RE
TAKING 10 DEGREES CELSIUS AS A BASE TEMPERATURE. BELOW THAT
TEMPERATURE CONSIDER THAT THE FLIES NO LONGER DEVELOP. THEY
BECOME INACTIVE AND WAIT AND SIT UNTIL THE TEMPERATURE GOES UP
ABOVE THAT. YOU CAN WORK WITH STRAIGHT ACCUMULATED DEGREE
HOURS WITHOUT BASE OR YOU CAN ADD A BASE 10 AND SIMPLY SUBTRACT
THIS FROM BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION. IT’S BASICALLY AN OUT
BREAK. YOU DO IT TO BOTH SIDES, AND IT REMAINS EQUAL.
Q.: SINCE WE HAVE LOOKED AT FEBRUARY 9TH AS A POTENTIAL
DAY, LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEATHER. DIRECTING YOUR
ATTENTION TO 186. I THINK WE’RE PROTECTED.
A.: GOOD.
Q.: I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO FEBRUARY THE
9TH. WE HAVE SINGING HILLS. WE HAVE BROWN FIELD. OUR CHART
SAYS THAT SINGING HILLS SHOWS THAT IT WAS 68 DEGREES AT SINGING
HILLS, THAT IT WAS 77 AT BROWN FIELD. WHAT DOES YOUR REPORT
SAY?
A.: ON THE 9TH, ACTUALLY I DON’T HAVE A CALCULATION ON MY
REPORT FOR THE ACTUAL TEMPERATURES AT THAT PARTICULAR FIELD.
Q.: I’M SORRY. YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU DON’T HAVE THE DATA
FOR THE 9TH.
A.: NO, I DIDN’T SAY I DON’T HAVE —
Q.: YOU HAVE THE MEAN DATA. YOU DON’T HAVE THE HOURLY
DATA.
A.: IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, INSTEAD OF PUTTING THE
HIGHEST, LOWEST, HOURLY MEANS, IN THE INTEREST OF SPACE, I
SIMPLY CONSOLIDATED THINGS. I DO HAVE THE DATA. UNFORTUNATELY
THEY ARE IN MY LABORATORY IN HAWAII.
Q.: OKAY.
AT PAGE 13189 — 94 OF YOUR — I’M SORRY. IT’S MY
DISCOVERY. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOUR — I CAN SHOW YOU ON YOUR
CHART.
YOU TOLD US THAT ACCORDING TO ANDERSON, I THINK I’M
GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANOTHER CHART HERE.
MR. FELDMAN: I ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS NEXT IN ORDER, YOUR
HONOR, —
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE 194.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 194 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANALYSIS CORRECTLY, YOU RELY ON
ANDERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHEN THE BUGS WILL HIT
THE THIRD INSTAR STAGE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD INSTAR OR — YOU NOTE
THAT IT REQUIRES AT 16, I’M SORRY, EITHER 16 OR 23 DEGREES C.
2492.1 HOURS. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: 23 DEGREES CELSIUS TO REACH THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE.
Q.: TO REACH THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE?
A.: YES.
Q.: 2492.1, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S RIGHT. AT 23 DEGREES CELSIUS.
Q.: IF I WRITE 23 DEGREES C. REQUIRES — I’M SORRY.
A.: 2492.1.
Q.: 2492.1, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: ON YOUR DATA YOU NOTE THAT ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH — I’M
SORRY. LET’S LOOK AT FEBRUARY THE 2ND.
ON FEBRUARY THE 2ND ON YOUR DATA YOU NOTE 2117.4
HOURS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, YES.
Q.: RIGHT.
A.: YES. THE BASE TIME.
Q.: NOW, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, YOU’RE TELLING US
THAT IN ORDER FOR THE MASS OR THE BUGS TO DEVELOP TO THE
PREPUPARIAL STAGE, THEY HAVE TO AGGREGATE A.D.H. B-10 HOURS IN
THE NUMBER OF 2492.1 BASED ON ANDERSON’S STUDIES. CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: HOWEVER, IN YOUR OWN WORK AND IN YOUR OWN EVALUATION,
YOU ONLY ACCUMULATED 2117.4 HOURS, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: YES.
Q.: SO ON YOUR WORK THE BUGS DIDN’T EVEN GET TO THE STAGE
THAT ANDERSON SAYS IS NECESSARY TO REACH A MINIMUM TIME TO
REACH PREPUPARIAL STAGE AT 16.1 DEGREES C., CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING.
Q.: SO WOULDN’T THAT ADVANCE YOUR DAY FROM THE 2ND TO THE
1ST?
A.: IN ALL PROBABILITY IF WE WERE USING THE 23 DEGREES
WHICH I DON’T BELIEVE IS AN APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE, YES.
Q.: OKAY.
WHAT IF WE’RE USING THE 16 DEGREES?
A.: IF WE’RE USING THE 16 DEGREES, THEN VERY BASICALLY
AGAIN WE DON’T ACQUIRE ENOUGH.
Q.: IN FACT, AT 16 DEGREES YOU NEED 2242.4 HOURS, RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: BUT YOU STILL DON’T REACH IT BECAUSE YOUR NUMBER
CONTINUES TO BE 2117.4, CORRECT?
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: NOW, THAT MEANS THAT — WAS THIS THE LATEST DATE OF
OVIPOSITION THAT YOU ARRIVED AT?
A.: WAS IT THE LATEST DATE OF OVIPOSITION? ACTUALLY
SINCE THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE HAD NOT BEEN REACHED, —
Q.: YES.
A.: — IN ANYTHING WE COLLECTED, —
Q.: YES.
A.: — AND SINCE BASICALLY WE HAD NOT ACQUIRED ENOUGH
HERE, —
Q.: YES.
A.: — I WAS NOT USING SINGING HILLS. I WAS NOT USING
THAT. INSTEAD, AS DR. HASKELL, I WAS USING THE BROWN FIELD.
Q.: BECAUSE YOU REALIZED THAT USING THE SINGING HILLS
DATA MADE WHAT, A CONCLUSION IMPOSSIBLE?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY IMPOSSIBLE.
Q.: BIOLOGICALLY IMPROBABLE?
A.: NO. WHAT WE’RE SAYING IS THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING
WHICH IS NOT IN THE PREPUPARIAL STAGE, AND IN THE PERIOD OF
TIME THAT WAS AVAILABLE IT HAD NOT DEVELOPED TO THAT POINT. WE
DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS TO ACCOUNT FOR A
STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH WASN’T COLLECTED.
Q.: WELL, DID YOU HAVE ENOUGH ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS TO
ACCOUNT FOR A STAGE THAT WAS COLLECTED?
A.: YES. AND THAT IS SHOWN VERY NICELY IN THE SAME
THING. THIS IS WHERE WE CAME OUT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. THAT IS SHOWN IN THE SAME THING, SIR?
A.: IN THE SAME CHART.
Q.: YOU MEAN THE BROWN — OH, SINGING HILLS.
A.: SINGING HILLS.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
A.: AT THAT POINT WAS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE ENOUGH TO REACH
THE THIRD INSTAR.
Q.: AT WHAT DATE?
A.: OKAY. THIS IS ON THE 12TH OF FEBRUARY.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, IF WE GO TO BROWN FIELD AND WE STILL STAY ON THE
9TH, I WANT TO STAY ON THE 9TH JUST TO EVALUATE THE DATA AT
BROWN FIELD. I’M REALLY BAD AT THIS.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE MARKED AS NEXT,
PLEASE, —
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE 195.
DID YOU MARK 194?
MR. FELDMAN: I DID, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A STICKER ON IT?
MR. FELDMAN: I DON’T HAVE A STICKER, BUT I DID GET IT
MARKED.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU CAN GET THE STICKER LATER.
MR. FELDMAN: OKAY.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 195 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
MR. FELDMAN: YOU JUST TOLD ME 195, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CORRECT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: 195 IS THE BROWN FIELD DATA, AND WE’RE GOING TO DEAL
WITH FEBRUARY THE 9TH, OKAY?
A.: OKAY.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE BROWN FIELD DATA, YOUR NUMBERS
SHOW THAT AT BROWN FIELD YOU HAD A DAILY D.H. B-10 OF 55. IS
THAT RIGHT?
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: DAILY B.H.-10 OF 55. IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO WRITE IT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU NOTED THAT ON THAT SAME DATE THE A.D.H. B-10
WAS 2222.3. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: JUST AS MR. DUSEK SAID, IF YOU COULD JUST TALK DOWN
TO US AND EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DAILY B.H. AND THE
A.D.H. B-10. YES. IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THAT TO US SO WE
CAN UNDERSTAND IT AS LAY PEOPLE NOT SCIENTISTS.
A.: OKAY. THE DAILY ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS, THE BASE
10, ARE SIMPLY THE NUMBER OF DEGREE HOURS IN THAT PARTICULAR
DAY BASED ON TEMPERATURES AVAILABLE. THAT WAS THE AMOUNT OF
THERMAL UNITS, THE NUMBER OF THERMAL UNITS THAT WERE ACTUALLY
ACQUIRED ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY. THE ACCUMULATED DEGREE HOURS
BASE 10 IS SIMPLY AN ADDITION OF EACH DAY’S ACCUMULATED DEGREE
HOURS, STARTING WORKING BACK ON THE 27TH, ADDING THAT TO THE
26TH, TO THE 25TH, AND ON DOWN. SO IT’S SIMPLY AN
ACCUMULATION.
Q.: WHAT IS A DEGREE HOUR?
A.: OKAY. A DEGREE HOUR IS THE THERMAL UNIT THAT WE USE
TO CONVERT FROM TEMPERATURE TO TIME.
Q.: NOW, YOU UTILIZED THE WEATHER DATA FROM BROWN FIELD
AS MEMORIALIZED IN DR. HASKELL’S DATA, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND I TOLD YOU AT THE BREAK THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK
YOU QUESTIONS CONCERNING YOUR DATA VIS-A-VIS DR. HASKELL, AND I
ASKED YOU TO AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AT DR. HASKELL, IS THAT
RIGHT, SIR?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: I’M GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO A CALCULATION. YOU DID
USE HASKELL’S DATA ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU CONVERTED IT TO BOTH CELSIUS AND A.D.H. OR
DID YOU CONVERT IT TO DAILY? DID YOU USE HASKELL’S HOURLY ON
FEBRUARY THE 9TH AND CONVERT IT TO DAILY?
A.: THE DAILY IS A SUMMATION OF HIS HOURLY.
Q.: AND YOU DID THAT?
A.: YES.
Q.: CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH WHAT WAS
YOUR CONCLUSION AS TO HIS NUMBER? IT WAS 55. I WROTE IT UP
THERE.
A.: YES.
Q.: COULD YOU PLEASE RUN THE NUMBERS THAT ARE HASKELL’S
AND TELL US WHAT THE ACCURATE NUMBER IS.
A.: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
THE COURT: WHILE THE DOCTOR IS DOING THAT, BOB, LET ME
KNOW AS SOON AS YOU SEE OPHELIA, AND WE WILL MAKE THE SWAP.
THE REPORTER: SHE HAS TO BE CALLED.
THE COURT: SHE’S BEEN CALLED, SO AS SOON AS YOU SEE HER.
(PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WHAT NUMBER DID YOU GET?
A.: WELL, UNFORTUNATELY IT APPEARS I MADE AN ERROR IN
ADDITION.
Q.: WHOOPS.
A.: A BIG ONE.
Q.: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
A.: IT MEANS THAT USING WHAT I HAVE HERE INSTEAD OF 55 IS
143.
Q.: OH. 143. SO ON FEBRUARY THE 9TH, WHERE YOUR
ORIGINAL CALCULATION INVOLVED 55, I’M SORRY, DEGREE HOURS, THE
REAL NUMBER IS WHAT?
A.: 143.
Q.: 143.
AND WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY — ISN’T IT TRUE THAT THE
HOTTER IT IS THE QUICKER THE BUGS DEVELOP?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: NOW LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR OTHER
NOTATIONS.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: THIS IS NOT A MINOR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, IS IT, SIR?
A.: NO, IT IS NOT.
Q.: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO
FEBRUARY THE 8TH.
A.: YES.
Q.: ON FEBRUARY THE 8TH YOU NOTED THE A.D.H. WAS 40.1,
ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: COULD YOU RUN DR. HASKELL’S NUMBERS AGAIN AND TELL US
WHETHER OR NOT YOU COME TO ANOTHER MATHEMATICAL ERROR.
A.: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I’VE JUST
WRITTEN BROWN FIELD AND GOFF TO IDENTIFY, AND I’VE BEEN WRITING
IN GREEN, THE DATA AS IT’S BEEN EVOLVING.
(PAUSE.)
THE WITNESS: THERE I CAME OUT WITH 55.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: ON THE 8TH YOU COME OUT WITH 55. BUT YOU WROTE THAT
IT WAS 40.1, ISN’T THAT TRUE? SIR?
A.: YES.
Q.: AGAIN A MATHEMATICAL ERROR?
A.: MORE PROBABLY AN ENTRY ERROR IN THE COMPUTER.
Q.: LET’S TRY THE 7TH TO SEE WHETHER THERE’S MORE ENTRY
ERRORS IN THE COMPUTER.
FIRST OF ALL, IT’S THE CASE USING DR. HASKELL’S
NUMBER, YOU FIRST CALCULATED THE DAILY D.H. B-10 AT 59.1 ON THE
7TH, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THE
TRANSITION RIGHT NOW BETWEEN REPORTERS. BOB.

8983

Related Posts :