25072 – July 25th 2002 -Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 23 – afternoon 1

TRIAL DAY 23 – PART 2- afternoon 1


SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2002, 1:05 P.M. (afternoon 1)


WITNESS:
William C. Rodriguez (Forensic anthropologist, testified Danielle could have been killed as early as January 16th 2002 – Examination and cross 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. RODRIGUEZ, I THINK WHEN WE QUIT FOR LUNCH YOU HAD JUST GIVEN US AN EXPLANATION REGARDING POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD IN THIS CASE REGARDING A TIME PERIOD ASSOCIATED WITH FLY OR INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THOSE NUMBERS AND THE TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT?
A.: I AM.
Q.: IS THAT THE SAME THING, THOSE TIME PERIODS RELATING TO FLY ACTIVITY, AS POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: MANY TIMES THAT IS USED, THE TERMS ARE USED INTERMITTENTLY. WHEN WE LOOK AT INSECT, FORENSIC INSECT EVIDENCE FOR THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE INSECTS ARE BASICALLY — THAT TIME WE COME UP WITH — THE ENTOMOLOGIST, I SHOULD SAY, COME UP WITH THAT PROVIDES US A TIME PERIOD FROM THE TIME THESE INSECTS INHABITED THE BODY TO THE TIME AT THE POINT THEY WERE COLLECTED AND ANALYZED. THAT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THAT’S WHEN THAT BODY DIED, BECAUSE WE CANNOT DETERMINE ABSOLUTELY THAT THAT BODY HAD NOT BEEN KEPT IN SOME KIND OF CONTAINER OR BODY MOVED ABOUT IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WAS NOT GOOD FOR THE FLIES.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE INSECT ESTIMATE, THAT IS ONLY TELLING US WHEN THOSE INSECTS INHABITED THE BODY. IT DOES NOT TELL US ACTUALLY THAT THAT BODY OR THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS DECEASED AT THAT TIME. AND SO WE BASICALLY LOOK AT IT, AND IT GIVES US JUST A MINIMUM TIME PERIOD. WE LOOK AT THAT WHEN THE BODY WAS INHABITED BY THESE PARTICULAR INSECTS AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING.
Q.: AND TO DETERMINE STATE OF MUMMIFICATION AND P.M.I. IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE WERE AT THE GOLF COURSE THE OTHER DAY, DID YOU GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT THERE REGARDING THE FROST DAYS AT THE GOLF COURSE?
A.: I DID.
Q.: AND WE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED TESTIMONY FROM HIM REGARDING THOSE FROST DAYS. DOES THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS AND YOUR CONCLUSIONS?
A.: IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT PLAYS INTO THE METEOROLOGICAL DATA. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, POST-MORTEM DECOMPOSITION CHANGES, INCLUDING MUMMIFICATION, SAPONIFICATION, ARE ALTERED BY THE ENVIRONMENT, AND CERTAINLY TEMPERATURES AND HUMIDITY. AND LIKE MANY OTHER BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL PROCESSES, WITH INCREASED HEAT THESE PROCESSES SPEED UP. AS HEAT OR — BECOMES COLDER, THEY DECREASE. THIS IS WHY THE BODIES PRESERVE VERY WELL THE COLDER TEMPERATURE, THE SLOWER THE DECOMPOSITION.
AND TALKING TO THE GREENSKEEPER AND LOOKING AT THE WEATHER STATION DATA, HE HAD NOTED THERE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN NINE FROST DAYS AT THE FIRST OF THE MONTH THAT WERE I BELIEVE WERE CONSECUTIVE IN WHICH HE HAD FROST. NOW, HE WAS EXPLAINING HOW THAT IN THE GREENSKEEPING FIELD THAT YOU CAN’T CUT THE GRASS IF THERE’S FROST, OTHERWISE YOU WILL DAMAGE THE VIABILITY OF THAT GRASS. AND SO THAT’S SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT TO THE GOLF COURSES, CERTAINLY THEY LOSE MONEY.
BUT WHEN YOU CALL COOL TEMPERATURES, THAT ALSO PLAYS INTO THE MUMMIFICATION FOR PRESERVATIONAL EFFECT OF THE BODY. COOL TEMPERATURES ARE GOING TO RETARD DECOMPOSITION. IT’S ALSO GOING TO ASSIST IN MUMMIFICATION, MUCH LIKE THE PERUVIAN INCAN MUMMIES I MENTIONED ON THE MOUNTAIN. WHEN A BODY IS LYING ON A SUBSTRATE OR THE SURFACE IT’S LYING ON, WHEN THE BODY DECOMPOSES INITIALLY, IN A TYPICAL DECOMPOSITIONAL FASHION, THE BODY WILL HEAT UP BECAUSE OF THE ACTION OF THE BACTERIA. IT CREATES HEAT AS THE BACTERIA METABOLIZE IN THE BODY. IN FACT, SOME BODIES WHEN THEY DECOMPOSE IN A VERY HOT, HUMID ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION, THEY CAN BE SO UNCOMFORTABLE TO EVEN HANDLE WITH A LATEX GLOVE ON YOUR HAND. EXTREMELY WARM AND UNCOMFORTABLE. THEY CAN GET SO HOT FROM THE DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS.
AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN AS THAT DECOMPOSITION SLOWS DOWN, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE BODY BEGINS TO EQUALIZE TO AMBIENT TEMPERATURE. YOU HAVE A THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM. THE BODY REMAINS PRETTY MUCH SIMILAR TO THE SAME SURROUNDING AIR TEMPERATURE.
DURING THE EVENING HOURS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT THE TEMPERATURES COOL DOWN DURING THE NIGHT, THAT BODY WILL COOL ALSO. AND THAT BODY WILL MAINTAIN THAT COOLNESS UNTIL THE TEMPERATURES BEGIN TO RISE. AND THIS BODY BEGINS TO REACT, HEAT UP IN THE SOLAR ACTIVITY. IT’S MUCH LIKE IF YOU TOOK ONE OF THE BLUE ICE GEL PACKETS THAT YOU MAY USE TO KEEP YOUR LUNCH COOL, IF YOU TOOK SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND PLACED IT OUT ON VERY HOT SURFACE WITHOUT REFRIGERATING IT, IT’S GOING TO HEAT UP WITH THE DAY. AND SO THAT IF YOU CAME ALONG THE STREET AND PICKED UP THAT ICE PACK, IT WOULD BE WARM TO YOU BECAUSE IT BUILT UP THAT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU TOOK THAT ICE PACK AND LEAVE IT DURING THE NIGHT AND THE TEMPERATURES IN THE AREA GET VERY COOL, YOU HAVE FROST, YOU GET TEMPERATURES GET DOWN BELOW FREEZING AND YOU COME ALONG IN THE MORNING AND HANDLE THAT GEL PACK, IT’S GOING TO FEEL COLD. IT WILL MAINTAIN THAT TEMPERATURE.
AND SO WHEN YOU GET THAT COOLING EFFECT, NOT ONLY DOES IT ADD TO THE MUMMIFICATION AS I MENTIONED OCCURS IN A DRY ENVIRONMENT WITH BOTH YOUR HOT AND COOL TEMPERATURES, BUT IT ALSO CAN DELAY INSECT ACTIVITY OR ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE INSECTS TO THE BODY.
WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THE INSECTS ARE FLYING AROUND, —
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, THERE’S NO QUESTION PENDING. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: HE’S ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DOES THIS IMPACT THE INSECT ACTIVITY ON THE BODY WHEN IT GETS TO THOSE COLD TEMPERATURES?
A.: IT DOES.
Q.: HOW?
A.: WHAT YOU HAVE IS A MICROCLIMATIC CONDITION. AS THE BODY COOLS DOWN DURING THE NIGHTS, YOU HAVE COOL TEMPERATURES. AND IT WARMS UP DURING A DAY ENOUGH FOR FLY ACTIVITY, THE FLIES MAY BE BUZZING AROUND ACTIVE AND CAN DEPOSIT THEIR EGGS AND FEED. BUT IF THEY LAND ON A BODY THAT HAS BEEN LYING OUT AND IT’S BECOME VERY COLD, WHEN THEY LAND ON THAT SURFACE, IT’S KIND OF LIKE TO THEM LANDING ON A LITTLE ICEBERG. AND IT’S NOT GOING TO BE VERY ATTRACTIVE.
AND WE’VE SEEN AND DOCUMENTED THIS IN MANY CASES. IT’S A MICROCLIMATIC CONDITION OF THE BODY. I’VE HAD AN ACTUAL CASE WHERE THE BODY OF A NUDE FEMALE WHO HAD BEEN STABBED MULTIPLE TIMES, BEEN LYING OUT IN AN AREA VERY SANDY, LOAMY-TYPE SOIL, TEMPERATURES GOT VERY COOL AT NIGHT. WHEN YOU SEE THAT BODY AT DISCOVERY AND THE TEMPERATURES ARE WARM ENOUGH DURING THE DAY FOR FLY ACTIVITY, THERE ARE FEW FLIES ATTRACTED TO THAT BODY. AND THE ONES THAT ARE, YOU COULD ACTUALLY SEE THEM IN THE VIDEO WALKING OVER THE WOUNDS, NOT FEEDING, NOT EATING. THEY WOULD STAY FOR JUST A FEW SECONDS AND FLY OFF. BECAUSE THAT BODY WAS — IS TOO COLD FOR THEM TO BE REALLY INTERESTED IN IT.
SO YOU WILL SEE A DECREASE IN THAT ACTIVITY AS THAT BODY COOLS. AND THIS NOT ONLY AFFECTING THE DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS BUT CAN AFFECT HOW INSECTS INTERACT WITH IT.
Q.: AFTER YOU REVIEWED ALL THE MATERIALS AND BASED UPON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND BACKGROUND, WERE YOU ASKED AND DID YOU COME TO AN ESTIMATION OF THE P.M.I., THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: I DID.
Q.: AND WHEN WE USE THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AS THE BEGINNING OF THAT PERIOD?
A.: WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN PRESUMABLY OF THE TIME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WAS DECEASED TO THE TIME THEY WERE RECOVERED OR DISCOVERED.
Q.: FROM THE TIME OF DEATH?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WHEN YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, DID YOU CONSIDER THE NUMBER RANGE PROVIDED BY DAVID FAULKNER?
A.: I DID.
Q.: DID YOU CONSIDER THE NUMBER RANGE PROVIDED BY NEAL HASKELL?
A.: I DID.
Q.: AND BASED UPON THOSE NUMBERS AND THE REST OF YOUR DATA, WHAT DID YOU DETERMINE THE P.M.I. TO BE?
A.: I LOOKED AT THE FINDINGS OF MR. FAULKNER AND DR. HASKELL, THE ENTOMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, AND I’M BEING NOT A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST, I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE OR TRY TO INTERPRET NECESSARILY THEIR DATA. I DID ALSO LOOK AT THE REPORT OF DR. CYRIL WECHT WHO WAS CONSULTED AND, OF COURSE, DR. BLACKBOURNE WHO CONDUCTED THE AUTOPSY AND PROVIDED TESTIMONY. AND BASED ON THE OVER-ALL EVIDENCE AND LOOKING AT THE METEOROLOGICAL SITUATION, I AM MAKING MY ESTIMATE BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE AND WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE WEATHER CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RELAYED. AND I’M MAKING AN ESTIMATE.
AND IN MY ESTIMATE I, BASED ON THE GROSS DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES, NOT THE FLIES, I CAN LOOK, CERTAINLY USE THE FLIES AS SOME EVIDENCE FOR SOME TIME WINDOW, BUT WHAT I’M RELYING ON AS A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST ARE THE GROSS PHYSICAL CHANGES THAT I SEE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVIRONMENT. AND BASED ON MY REVIEW OF ALL THE MATERIAL, I CAME UP WITH AN ESTIMATE OF APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO SIX WEEKS.
Q.: FOUR TO SIX WEEKS FROM WHERE?
A.: FROM THE TIME OF DISCOVERY, ON THE 27TH I BELIEVE THAT WAS.
Q.: SO THAT WOULD TAKE US BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY AND INTO THE LAST WEEK OR SO OF —
A.: I BELIEVE THAT WOULD TAKE US TO THE 6TH OR BACK.
Q.: 6TH OF?
A.: FEBRUARY.
Q.: OR EARLIER?
A.: OR EARLIER.
Q.: WERE THERE FACTORS —
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. DUSEK

AND MR. CLARKE.)
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: I THINK THE 6TH GOES BACK THREE WEEKS. WE HAVE A CALENDAR.
THE COURT: I BELIEVE THEY ARE IN THIS PILE.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: DR. RODRIGUEZ, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A CALENDAR FOR FEBRUARY, THE YEAR 2002, BEHIND YOU. AND ASSUMING THE BODY WAS FOUND AND PHOTOGRAPHED AS YOU SAW ON FEBRUARY 27TH, THE FOUR-TO-SIX-WEEK ESTIMATE THAT YOU PROVIDED TAKES US BACK TO WHAT TIME PERIOD?
A.: PAST THE FEBRUARY TIME PERIOD.
Q.: WHAT FACTORS WERE OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE IN COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION?
MR. FELDMAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
THE WITNESS: THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, THE CONDITION OF THAT BODY, THIS TO ME, LOOKING AT THIS CASE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE BODY OF A SMALL CHILD, SMALL BIOMASS THERE, AND THE CONDITIONS ARE IDEAL FOR MUMMIFICATION. IF THIS IS AN ADULT, YOU WOULD HAVE GOT SOME MUMMIFICATION, BUT NOT NEARLY AS QUICKLY AND OF THE SAME CONDITION AS THAT OF A SMALL BODY. THIS IS JUST IN LOOKING AT ME, IT WAS VERY APPARENT, THIS WAS A VERY RAPID DECOMPOSITION, MUMMIFICATION, THAT YOU HAD VERY QUICK DRYING. YOU HAVE IDEAL TEMPERATURES, LOW HUMIDITY. ALL THAT SUPPORT THE VERY RAPID MUMMIFICATION THAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IN CHILDREN VERSUS ADULTS.
Q.: YOU GAVE US A TIME PERIOD OF FOUR TO SIX WEEKS. WHY CAN’T YOU BE ANY MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT?
A.: AGAIN, IT’S AN ESTIMATE. THERE IS NO ACCURATE METHOD. I’M RELYING SOLELY ON MY EXPERIENCE, THE DATA I HAVE HAD PROVIDED TO ME, TO PROVIDE A WINDOW OF POSSIBILITY.
Q.: IS THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO DO IT OR THE SCIENCE ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH TO GET IT ANY MORE PRECISE THAN THAT?
A.: THE SCIENCE —
MR. FELDMAN: ARGUMENTATIVE AND FOUNDATION. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU MAY ANSWER.
THE WITNESS: THE SCIENCE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. WHEN WE’RE LOOKING AT —
MR. FELDMAN: NO QUESTION PENDING.
THE COURT: HE’S ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO THIS SITUATION?
A.: THE LONGER WE HAVE IN A POST-MORTEM INTERVAL OR THE LONGER THE DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES OR THE MORE DECOMPOSED A BODY IS, THE HARDER IT IS TO DETERMINE AN ACCURACY OF HOW LONG SOMEONE HAS BEEN DECEASED. WHEN WE’RE TALKING JUST TWO OR THREE DAYS OR THE BODY’S IN ACTIVE DECAY OR SOMETHING, THE INSECTS ARE TREMENDOUSLY WONDERFUL DATA. BUT ONCE THE BODY DECOMPOSES, WE LOSE THINGS SUCH AS EVIDENCE OF TISSUE INJURY THAT MANY TIMES IN THESE BODIES WE CANNOT TELL WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT BODY BECAUSE THE SOFT TISSUES ARE GONE. WE MAY HAVE NOTHING LEFT BUT THE SKELETON. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH ADVANCED DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES, WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE MORE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIATIONS AND MORE ENTERS INTO THE EQUATION, AND IT BECOMES MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.
THE LONGER THE BODY IS OUT THERE, THE LONGER — THE MORE ADVANCED THE DECOMPOSITION, THE LONGER OR THE HARDER IT IS TO TRY. AND IT CAN BE VERY TRICKY BECAUSE IT CAN MANY TIMES JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, WE HAVE —
MR. FELDMAN: NO QUESTION PENDING. OBJECTION.
THE COURT: HE’S ANSWERED THE QUESTION.
NEXT QUESTION.
BY MR. DUSEK:
Q.: IS THERE AN EXAMPLE THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATEMENT?
A.: YES. YOU CAN GET BODIES THAT EXTEND PRESERVATION, AND WE SEE THIS IN MUMMIFIED BODIES OR WE’VE HAD BODIES THAT APPEAR VERY FRESH, CAN EVEN BE AUTOPSIED, BUT THEY’VE BEEN DEAD FOR LITERALLY MONTHS. BUT THEY WERE IN A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT IT CAUSED THIS UNIQUE PRESERVATION, EITHER THROUGH MUMMIFICATION OR SAPONIFICATION.
MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, DOCTOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: GOOD AFTERNOON, DOCTOR.
A.: GOOD AFTERNOON.
Q.: SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME DID YOU ATTEND MEDICAL SCHOOL.
A.: NO, I DID NOT.
Q.: HAVE YOU RECEIVED — YOU’RE NOT A FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: YOU’RE NOT A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: YOUR TRAINING I THINK YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION OCCURRED AT THE BODY FARM. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S WHERE I CONDUCTED MY RESEARCH AND RECEIVED MY ACADEMIC TRAINING.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
AND THE BODY FARM IS IN TENNESSEE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THE ENVIRONMENT IN TENNESSEE, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO, SAY, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA?
A.: OH, IT’S QUITE DIFFERENT.
Q.: HOW DIFFERENT?
A.: OH, MAJORITY DIFFERENT. BASICALLY YOU CAN GET A LOT MORE HUMIDITY. THERE IS A GREATER VARIATION IN THE WEATHER.
Q.: YOU MEAN YOU GET REAL SEASONS, FOR INSTANCE?
A.: THAT IS TRUE.
Q.: YOU DON’T HAVE SANTA ANAS, FOR INSTANCE.
A.: NO.
Q.: IN FEBRUARY YOU WOULDN’T EXPECT IT TO BE 78 DEGREES ON THE 7TH.
A.: NOT ON A NORMAL TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS.
Q.: OR 79 DEGREES ON THE 10TH.
A.: NO, SIR.
Q.: OR 95 DEGREES ON THE 22ND.
A.: NOT UNLESS WE HAVE ABNORMAL WEATHER.
Q.: IN TERMS OF YOUR ANTHROPOLOGIC EXPERIENCE, HAVE YOU CONSULTED IN CASES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA?
A.: I HAVE IN CALIFORNIA. I DON’T KNOW IF YOU WOULD NECESSARILY CALL THE ACTUAL CONSULTATION. I’VE SEEN CASES THAT I’VE REVIEWED. BUT THE ONES I’VE ACTUALLY CONSULTED ON, FOR EXAMPLE, I’VE LOOKED AT CASES IN RECENT PAST IN MERCED COUNTY.
Q.: THAT’S NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
A.: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.
Q.: NO. I’M TALKING ABOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THAT WOULD BE THE AREA, SERIOUS, FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT-OF-TOWNERS, SOUTH OF WE’LL SAY LOS ANGELES.
A.: I’VE DONE CASE REVIEWS.
Q.: HOW MANY CASE REVIEWS HAVE YOU DONE INVOLVING THE DEHESA AREA?
A.: I DON’T BELIEVE ANY.
Q.: JUST THIS ONE?
A.: I BELIEVE SO.
Q.: NOW, WITH REGARD TO EXPERIENCE, DO YOU CONSIDER BRIAN BLACKBOURNE TO BE A MAN WITH SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENCE?
A.: DR. BLACKBOURNE IS VERY WELL RESPECTED AMONG THE FORENSIC FIELD. I HAVE NOTHING BUT THE HIGHEST REGARDS FOR HIM.
Q.: AND DR. BLACKBOURNE HAS BEEN THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST IN THIS COUNTY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND IN TERMS OF ISSUES INVOLVING MUMMIFICATION, FOR INSTANCE, HE MIGHT HAVE SOME GREATER EXPERIENCE, HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE, THAN YOU WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF THE BODIES MUMMIFIED IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND MORE SPECIFICALLY IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: DR. BLACKBOURNE CERTAINLY HAS EXPERIENCE IN POST-MORTEM CHANGES AND PARTICULARLY WITHIN THE AREA THAT HE OPERATES.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: NOW, BUT MY QUESTION WAS DON’T YOU AGREE HE’S GOT MORE EXPERIENCE THAN YOU DO ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE IN THIS COUNTY.
A.: I THINK SEEING BODIES IN THIS GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, YES, SIR.
Q.: YOU TOLD US YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT DR. BLACKBOURNE PROVIDED YOU. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DR. BLACKBOURNE PROVIDED TO YOU WAS A POST-MORTEM INTERVAL OF TEN DAYS. DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES, SIR, I DO.
Q.: IF WE LOOK AT THE CHART, AND IF WE TAKE DR. BLACKBOURNE, — I AM JUST GOING TO USE ANY RANDOM COLOR. DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 169, DR. BLACKBOURNE CONDUCTED AN AUTOPSY ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH. YOU RECALL THAT FROM YOUR REVIEW, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND ONE OF HIS ESTIMATES OF THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS BETWEEN TEN DAYS AND GREATER THAN THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: SO IF WE COUNT BACK TEN DAYS, I DON’T KNOW WHETHER WE COUNT TO THE 19TH OR THE 18TH, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT ONE OF THE OPINIONS THAT’S BEEN RENDERED WITH REGARD TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO’S GOT A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IS THAT SHE COULD HAVE DIED AS EARLY AS THE 18TH, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS WHAT DR. BLACKBOURNE STATED.
Q.: SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, I’M WRITING ON THE CHART IN GREEN, DOCTOR, I’M JUST WRITING THE WORD BLACKBOURNE.
NOW, YOU TOLD US YOU ALSO RELIED UPON A FORENSIC EVALUATION FROM A DOCTOR NAMED CYRIL WECHT. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND DR. WECHT TOO OFFERED AN OPINION AS TO WHAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND DR. WECHT, AS YOU KNOW, IS A BOARD-CERTIFIED — NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED BOARD-CERTIFIED PATHOLOGIST. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU CONSIDERED IN RENDERING YOUR OPINIONS THAT HE, TOO, AGREED WITH DR. BLACKBOURNE THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ON THIS CASE, BASED UPON HIS REVIEW OF VIRTUALLY THE SAME INFORMATION YOU HAD, WAS TEN DAYS. AGREED?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE AND MISSTATES HIS UNDERSTANDING.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
WELL, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, DOCTOR? THAT IS THE KEY POINT.
MR. FELDMAN: I’LL REPHRASE THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT’S FINE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU REVIEWED A DOCUMENT FROM DR. WECHT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THAT DOCUMENT, DR. WECHT RENDERED AN OPINION AS TO WHAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS IN THIS CASE. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND DR. WECHT SPECIFICALLY INDICATED THE LIST OF INFORMATION THAT HE HAD REVIEWED IN FORMING THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A TEN-DAY POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. AGREED?
A.: HE REPORTED A TEN TO FOUR WEEKS.
Q.: TEN DAYS WAS HIS START POINT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT WAS HIS MINIMUM.
Q.: ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL PUT WECHT HERE. AGAIN ON THE 18TH.
NOW, YOU TOLD US JUST A MOMENT AGO THAT YOUR OPINION WAS 28, I THINK YOU SAID 28 DAYS TO 42 DAYS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: 28 DAYS FROM THE 28TH, SIR?
A.: THE 27TH.
Q.: FROM THE 27TH. SO IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THURSDAY, THE 31ST, IS THAT A FAIR START POINT?
A.: FAIR.
Q.: AND I’LL JUST WRITE. . .
AND ACTUALLY YOUR OPINION OF 42 DAYS, BASED ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE, WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT THE EARLIEST DANIELLE VAN DAM COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED WAS — I’M SORRY. I FORGOT. 42 DAYS BEFORE THE 27TH?
A.: I BELIEVE — NO. LET’S REFER BACK HERE AGAIN. 28.
Q.: I GUESS WHAT I’M REALLY ASKING YOU TO DO IS CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME, I WAS ABLE TO FIGURE OUT THAT THE 31ST OF JANUARY WAS ONE OF THOSE DATES. I’M NOT ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S THE EARLIEST TIME IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT SHE COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED BASED ON YOUR FINDINGS, COULD HAVE BEEN DEAD.
A.: THE EARLIEST?
Q.: YES, SIR.
A.: IT COULD HAVE BEEN UP TO FOUR WEEKS.
Q.: YOU DIDN’T WRITE FOUR WEEKS; YOU WROTE 28 DAYS TO 42 DAYS.
A.: EXCUSE ME. SIX WEEKS, 42 DAYS.
Q.: SO, I’M SORRY, I’M BAD ON THE MATH.
A.: I’M WITH YOU ON THAT.
Q.: 42 DAYS WOULD GIVE US WHAT DAY IN JANUARY?
A.: I COULDN’T RECALL WITHOUT A CALENDAR IN FRONT OF ME.
Q.: WELL, HERE’S THE CALENDAR.
A.: BUT IT’S JUST FEBRUARY.
Q.: OKAY.
28. SOMEWHERE AROUND WHAT, THE 16TH OR 18TH OF JANUARY? IS THAT RIGHT? SOUND FAIR?
A.: SOUNDS FAIR.
Q.: OKAY.
SO I AM GOING TO WRITE ON 169 DR. RODRIGUEZ, 1/16 TO ABOUT 1/31. FAIR?
A.: SURE.
Q.: BUT WOULD YOUR OPINION CHANGE ANY IF YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE MATERIAL PERCIPIENT, LIVE WITNESSES THAT SAID THIS IS COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE; SHE WAS ALIVE IN THESE DAYS? DOES THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ANY?
A.: CERTAINLY THE WAY THE — IN THE BACKWARDS IN TIME SHE WAS ALIVE. I’M JUST GIVING MY ESTIMATE BASED ON THE MUMMIFICATION HOW LONG A BODY COULD HAVE TAKEN TO GET TO THAT PARTICULAR STAGE.
Q.: SO YOU DON’T MEAN TO SUGGEST TO THE JURY THAT IT WAS DANIELLE VAN DAM, IT’S JUST SOME OTHER BODY, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THAT PARTICULAR BODY.
Q.: THAT PARTICULAR BODY REFERRING TO DANIELLE VAN DAM?
A.: YES.
Q.: THAT PARTICULAR BODY THAT IN YOUR VIEW WAS KILLED OR DEAD AS OF 31 JANUARY UP TO 16 JANUARY, THAT PARTICULAR BODY?
A.: NOT TO THE — NOT IN THE BACKWARD TAPES, NO.
Q.: WAIT A MINUTE. YOU WERE JUST ASKED BY MR. DUSEK DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS. DO YOU RECALL THAT QUESTION?
A.: I DO.
Q.: AND WE DEFINED POST-MORTEM INTERVAL AS TIME OF DEATH, CORRECT?
A.: IN TERMS.
Q.: PARDON ME?
A.: IN TERMS. I MEAN, AS WE SAID, THEY CAN BE USED POST-MORTEM INTERVAL TIME SINCE DEATH.
Q.: TIME SINCE DEATH. TIME OF DEATH. IS THERE A DISTINCTION? I’M ASKING.
A.: CERTAINLY. TIME SINCE DEATH WOULD BE BASICALLY AN APPROXIMATE TIME. TIME OF DEATH WE’RE TALKING SPECIFICALLY THE DAY OR ACTUAL TIME OF DEATH.
Q.: OKAY.
SO HOW DO YOU DEFINE P.M.I., POST-MORTEM INTERVAL?
A.: THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TIME A BODY HAS BEEN DECEASED BASED ON THE DECOMPOSITIONAL EVIDENCE.
Q.: AND DID YOU TAKE INTO — I’M SORRY. YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION —
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE SENT TO YOU SOME INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I GO ANYWHERE, I NEED TO ASK FOR A SIDEBAR.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
BOB.
MR. FELDMAN: SORRY.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: I’M SORRY, SIR. IT’S JUST TOO CRAMPED.
REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF MUMMIFICATION, HOW QUICKLY CAN MUMMIFICATION OCCUR?
A.: I’VE SEEN BODIES MUMMIFY WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.
Q.: AND THAT WOULD BE A DEAD BODY, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YES.
Q.: IT WOULDN’T BE A LIVE BODY, RIGHT?
AND WITH REGARD TO DEAD BODIES, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT LARGE, FLYING, HIGHLY MOBILE FLIES ARE TYPICALLY THE FIRST INSECTS TO BE ATTRACTED BY THE FAINT AROMAS EMANATING FROM A FRESH CORPSE? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A.: I WOULD AGREE.
Q.: I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT.
AND BLOW FLIES FREQUENTLY ARRIVE MINUTES TO A FEW HOURS AFTER DEATH, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND ON BODIES WHICH HAVE NOT SUFFERED TRAUMA, FLIES INITIALLY FEED AND LAY EGGS IN THE NATURAL BODY OPENINGS, SPECIFICALLY THE EARS, NOSE, MOUTH, AND, IF EXPOSED, THE ANUS AND GENITALIA. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
A.: I AGREE WITH THAT.
Q.: NOW, THESE BLOW FLIES, THEY’RE THE INSECTS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE DECOMPOSITION PROCESS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THEY ARE ONE OF THE INSECTS, YES.
Q.: AND BLOW FLIES CAN BEAT, IN OTHER WORDS, GET TO THE BODY BEFORE MUMMIFICATION OCCURS, CAN’T THEY?
A.: THEY CAN GET TO THE BODY IMMEDIATELY AFTER DEATH.
Q.: AND ONCE THEY GET TO THE BODY, A RULE OF THUMB GENERALLY ALLOWS UTILIZATION OF THE STAGE OF BLOW FLY MATURATION TO ASSESS THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. FELDMAN: I ASK TO HAVE MARKED AS NEXT IN ORDER THIS LITTLE CHART.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IT WILL BE 189.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 189 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, SHOWING YOU WHAT’S BEEN MARKED 189. 189 ACTUALLY TAKES VERBATIM — SORRY. 189 ARE YOUR WORDS, ISN’T THAT — 189 HAS GOT SOME OF YOUR WORDS IN IT, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT’S FROM ONE OF MY PUBLICATIONS.
Q.: AND YOU TOLD MR. DUSEK THAT ONE OF THE VARIABLES THAT YOU CONSIDER IN EVALUATING THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL IS ENTOMOLOGY. RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: BECAUSE ENTOMOLOGY AS YOU TOLD US ON I THINK THE OTHER CHART IS A VERY, VERY VALUABLE TOOL TO ASSESS WITH ACCURACY THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. CORRECT?
A.: IT IS.
Q.: AND ONE OF THOSE REASONS IS BECAUSE, AS YOU HAVE PUBLISHED AND POINTED OUT, THE BLOW FLY PERMITS ENTOMOLOGISTS, FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS, AND OTHERS TO DO CALCULATIONS BASED UPON KNOWN LIFE CYCLE EVOLUTION, CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: WHAT YOU’RE PROPOSING TODAY, THOUGH, IS THAT SOMEHOW THE NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THINGS GOT INTERRUPTED BY VIRTUE OF A MUMMIFICATION THAT OCCURRED AT THE EARLIEST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS POST MORTEM.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU BASE THAT CONCLUSION ON THE WINDS, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S ONE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS.
Q.: THE SUBSTRATE.
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: THE ENVIRONMENT.
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: AND ONE OF THE WAYS YOU EVALUATED THE ENVIRONMENT WAS THAT YOU WENT WITH MR. DUSEK AND OFFICER HOLMES TO THE AREA OF SINGING HILLS, AND THIS WAS TWO DAYS AGO, IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: OF COURSE DO YOU REMEMBER TWO — DID YOU KNOW THAT TWO DAYS AGO WAS ONE OF THE HOTTEST DAYS WE’VE SEEN IN SAN DIEGO THIS YEAR?
A.: IT WAS WARM. BUT RELATIVE TO WHAT I’M USED TO.
Q.: WHAT YOU’RE USED TO.
WAS MR. DUSEK WEARING A TIE?
A.: I DON’T RECALL. BUT HE WAS CERTAINLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE HEAT.
Q.: WAS HE DOING A LOT OF SWEATING OUT THERE?
A.: I THINK EVERYBODY WAS SWEATING.
Q.: OKAY.
AND YOU SAID YOU TALKED TO THE GROUNDSKEEPER. I’M SORRY. I’M TRYING TO FIND ONE OF THE CHARTS.
DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 2. WHOOPS. LET ME DO THIS.
SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBIT 2. WE SEE WHAT’S BEEN REPRESENTED TO US TO BE THE RECOVERY SITE.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND WE WERE TOLD THAT THE SINGING HILLS GOLF COURSE IS UP WHERE I’M POINTING, AND THERE’S ACTUALLY ON 2-A AN OVAL CIRCLED AREA. CAN YOU SEE IT, SIR?
A.: I CAN MAKE IT OUT.
Q.: THIS IS ABOUT THE AREA YOU WENT TO, DO YOU RECALL?
A.: I BELIEVE. IT WAS A VERY SHORT DISTANCE FROM THE SITE, DRIVE.
Q.: VERY SHORT, A MILE?
A.: YEAH. I THINK A LITTLE OVER A MILE.
Q.: THE GOOD NEWS IS WE HAVE THIS METAL TO CATCH IT. THE BAD NEWS IS IT FALLS FROM TIME TO TIME.
YOU TOLD US YOU TOOK ABOUT TEN STEPS IN ORDER FOR YOU TO GET FROM THE STREET WHICH WAS I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US IN THE HUNDREDS OF DEGREES, UP TO WHERE THE BODY SCENE WAS. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: I SAID THAT I TOOK APPROXIMATELY TWELVE STEPS IN MY STRIDE TO GET TO THE EDGE. IF I WENT ANY FURTHER, I WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN. THERE’S LIKE A CUT WITH A BERM BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ACCESS IT THROUGH AN — I GUESS SOME STEPS HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE. AND IF I HAD GONE ANY FARTHER, I WOULD HAVE JUST TOPPLED OFF.
Q.: OKAY.

SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US NOW IS THAT WHERE YOU WENT TO, WHAT YOU SAW, IS NOT THE SAME AS THAT WHICH IS DEPICTED IN 2-B BECAUSE IT’S BEEN CHANGED. WE KNOW THAT. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: THE FOLIAGE HAS BEEN CUT DOWN. IT’S STILL ELEVATED ABOVE THE ROADSIDE.
Q.: BUT WE DON’T HAVE THE FOLIAGE, CORRECT?
A.: NOT ALL OF IT.
Q.: WE DON’T HAVE THE AREA WE CAN SEE IN D BECAUSE IT’S BEEN CLEARED, RIGHT?
A.: IT’S BEEN CLEARED OUT. I CAN’T SAY, YOU KNOW, TO WHAT EXTENT.
Q.: DID YOU SEE ANY ANTHILLS?
A.: I DIDN’T PARTICULARLY LOOK FOR ANY.
Q.: WELL, I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US THAT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE ENTOMOLOGIST MIGHT HAVE GOT IT WRONG IS BECAUSE THE ANTS CARRIED OFF THE BLOW FLY LARVAE.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: THAT’S ARGUMENTATIVE AS PHRASED. REPHRASE IT, AND I WILL ALLOW IT.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IS IT THE CASE THAT YOUR POST-MORTEM INTERVAL IS SO GREAT IS BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR OPINIONS IS BASED UPON THE INFERENCE THAT FLIES MAY HAVE CARRIED OFF BLOW FLY LARVA?
A.: THAT’S INCORRECT.
Q.: WHAT DID I SAY? I’M SORRY. I MISSPOKE. THAT ANTS CARRIED OFF BLOW FLY LARVA.
A.: WHEN I MENTIONED ABOUT THE ANTS CARRYING, I DID NOT SAY THAT DEFINITELY OCCURRED. I SAID THAT CAN EXPLAIN THE ABSENCE.
Q.: OKAY.
A.: I WASN’T THERE TO SEE THE ANTS.
Q.: WELL, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU REVIEWED FAULKNER’S REPORT.
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE REVIEWED FAULKNER’S INVENTORY, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: THERE WAS ONLY ONE ANT, DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: I DO NOT RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT HE MENTIONED THAT ANTS WERE LOCATED THERE.
Q.: FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION, I’M GOING TO TRY AND FIND MR. FAULKNER’S REPORT AND SEE WHETHER THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE NUMBER OF ANTS.
I DON’T WANT TO LOSE MY BINDER, BUT I’M JUST PROVIDING YOU — I’VE MADE SOME NOTES ON IT. YOU DON’T HAVE TO PAY ANY ATTENTION OF WHAT ANY OF MY WRITING SAYS. I WANT YOU TO BE COMFORTABLE YOU’VE GOT THE WHOLE REPORT TO LOOK AT. BUT I’M SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 WHICH SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES —
A.: I BELIEVE IT JUST SAYS ANTS. PLURAL.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
AND YOU READ HIS TESTIMONY, DID YOU?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: AND DIDN’T HIS TESTIMONY INDICATE THERE WAS BUT ONE ANT THAT HE SAW?
A.: I DON’T RECALL.
Q.: REGARDLESS. I THINK WHAT YOU’VE JUST TOLD US IS THAT ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE EXISTENCE OF BLOW FLIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MUMMIFICATION IS THAT THE ANTS COULD HAVE CARRIED OFF THE BLOW FLY, BUT YOU WEREN’T SAYING THAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY?
A.: I CANNOT ABSOLUTELY SAY.
Q.: BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T THERE, RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO WHAT YOU’RE DOING IS JUST YOU’RE SPECULATING, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: IS IT THE CASE THAT YOU ARE SPECULATING?
MR. DUSEK: SAME OBJECTION.
THE COURT: SAME RULING.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DID SOME WORK IN DESERT STORM WITH REGARD TO — AND THAT HAD TO DO WITH YOUR JOB AS AN ANTHROPOLOGIST WHICH IS TO NOT CONSIDER TIME OF DEATH BUT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS OF REMAINS THAT I HAVE LOOKED FROM THAT PART OF THE COUNTRY.
Q.: I’M SORRY. BOSNIA, DESERT STORM.
A.: KOSOVO.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
WITH REGARD TO THE CLIMATE AT DESERT STORM, THAT’S BASICALLY THE DESERT, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: DID YOU FIND ANY BODIES THAT IN YOUR OPINION HAD LAID OUT FOR 42 DAYS?
A.: I DIDN’T LOOK SPECIFICALLY. WE HAD FAIRLY RAPID RECOVERY. AND OTHER BODIES THAT I’VE LOOKED AT FROM DESERT ENVIRONMENTS I’VE SEEN VERY EXTENSIVE MUMMIFICATION.
Q.: YOU’VE SEEN EXTENSIVE MUMMIFICATION ON TEN DAYS ALSO, HAVEN’T YOU?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: HAVE YOU SEEN EXTENSIVE MUMMIFICATION ON SEVEN DAYS?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHAT WOULD YOU SAY IS THE SHORTEST POST-MORTEM INTERVAL YOU’VE SEEN MUMMIFICATION?
A.: AGAIN, EXTERNAL MUMMIFICATION, WHERE YOU HAVE THE EXTERNAL TISSUES?
Q.: YES, SIR.
A.: I’VE SEEN IT IN LESS THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.
Q.: AND WHAT ABOUT FOR THE ENTIRE BODY?
A.: THE ENTIRE BODY I DON’T THINK I CAN RECALL SPECIFICALLY A TIME PERIOD FOR THE ENTIRE BODY.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
MR. DUSEK SHOWED YOU SOME OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS. SPECIFICALLY DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION WHAT’S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED 7. IT’S CORRECT, IS IT NOT, THAT MUMMIFICATION WILL GENERALLY COMMENCE OR WILL BE OBSERVED EARLY ON IN THE AREA OF THE EXTREMITIES?
A.: YES. THE AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE THE MOST MUSCULATURE AND THE LESS AMOUNTS OF YOUR TYPICAL LIKE SOFT TISSUE ORGAN.
Q.: SO IT’S NOT UNUSUAL TO FIND MUMMIFICATION IN HANDS OR THE FOOT, IS IT?
A.: IT’S ONE OF THE FIRST AREAS TO MUMMIFY.
Q.: SO THE FACT THAT THERE’S MUMMIFICATION ON THE HANDS AND THE FOOT, THAT’S NOT NECESSARILY THE PREDICATE OR THE CONDITION PRECEDENT TO ALLOW YOU TO OFFER THE OPINION THAT SHE WAS DEAD AS EARLY AS THE 16TH OF JANUARY.
A.: YOU’RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE BODY. I WOULDN’T RELY ON JUST A SINGLE AREA OF THE BODY.
Q.: WELL, YOU WOULD WANT TO RELY ON EVERY PIECE OF DATA YOU COULD GET YOUR HANDS ON.
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: NOW, YOU KNEW COMING INTO COURT TODAY THAT BOTH FAULKNER AND HASKELL HAD TESTIFIED THAT IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, AND THEY MEANT TIME OF DEATH AS IT WAS DEFINED IN OUR COURTROOM, WAS ABOUT TEN DAYS, TEN TO TWELVE TO FOURTEEN DAYS, AND I COULD BE REMEMBERING INCORRECTLY, IT’S ON THE CHART, PRIOR TO THE RECOVERY OF DANIELLE VAN DAM. YOU KNEW THAT.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: AS TO THE DEFINITION OF THE INTERVAL, SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU WERE AWARE THAT MR. FAULKNER TOLD US THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WHICH HE DEFINED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH THE WORDS TIME OF DEATH WAS APPROXIMATELY I THINK SIXTEEN DAYS BEFORE, FOURTEEN TO SIXTEEN DAYS. YOU’VE GOT THE NOTES IN FRONT OF YOU.
A.: HE —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. MISSTATES. HE SAID MINIMAL.
THE COURT: BOTH OF YOU, ALL SIDES, COME ON OVER.
(SIDEBAR DISCUSSION, OUT OF THE HEARING OF THE JURY,
AS FOLLOWS:

(PROCEEDINGS NOT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

(END OF SIDEBAR DISCUSSION.)
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: REDIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 69 — I’M SORRY — 189. YOU WROTE DESPITE SOME VARIABILITY IN THE LENGTH OF THE BLOW FLY DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, A RULE OF THUMB ENABLES UTILIZATION OF THE STAGE OF BLOW FLY MATURATION TO ASSESS THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. CORRECT?
A.: CORRECT.
Q.: WHEN YOU WROTE AND USED THE TERM POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, WHAT DID YOU MEAN TO COMMUNICATE?
A.: THE TIME AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN DECEASED.
Q.: THE TIME OF DEATH?
A.: INTERVAL.
Q.: OKAY.
WELL, I’M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THAT’S ALL, WHETHER OR NOT THERE’S A DISTINCTION IN YOUR MIND, SIR, BETWEEN THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL AND WHAT A LAY PERSON MIGHT CALL, QUOTE, TIME OF DEATH.
A.: I THINK WE’RE KIND OF GETTING IN SEMANTICS HERE. BUT POST-MORTEM INTERVAL IS THE LENGTH OF TIME. TIME OF DEATH IS THE ACTUAL TIME THE INDIVIDUAL DECEASED. BUT I CAN SEE THE CONFUSION. PEOPLE INTERMITTENTLY EITHER PURPOSELY OR NON-PURPOSELY, THESE THINGS CROSS.
Q.: WELL, I JUST WANT — WHAT — WHEN YOU WROTE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, WERE YOU REFERRING TO THE TIME SINCE A PERSON WAS DEAD OR AS THE LAY PERSON IS USING IT TIME OF DEATH?
A.: TIME SINCE.
Q.: TIME SINCE DEATH?
A.: BECAUSE WE’RE TALKING INTERVAL.
Q.: I UNDERSTAND.
IN OTHER WORDS, WINDOW, CAN WE USE THE WORD INTERVAL INTERCHANGEABLY WITH WINDOW?
A.: I THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR.
Q.: ALL RIGHT.
SO THE POST-MORTEM WINDOW, THEN, IN YOUR VIEW IS THE 31ST TO THE 16TH?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT. ON MY POST-MORTEM INTERVAL.
Q.: DIDN’T THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TELL YOU THAT DANIELLE VAN DAM HAD BEEN SEEN ALIVE IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME?

A.: YES, I DID RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION.
Q.: IS THAT BEFORE OR AFTER YOU WROTE YOUR REPORT, SIR?
A.: THAT WAS BEFORE.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MR. BOYCE.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: I THINK I MIGHT HAVE MISSPOKE THE LAST QUESTION. WHAT I MEANT TO ASK YOU WAS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD BEEN AWARE DANIELLE VAN DAM HAD BEEN REPORTED ALIVE AFTER THE 31ST OF JANUARY.
A.: IF I RECALL PROPERLY — LET ME JUST REFER BACK TO MY NOTES, IF I MAY. I BELIEVE SHE WAS SUPPOSEDLY LAST SEEN OR REPORTED ALIVE IN THE EVENING OF THE 1ST OR SOME TIME BETWEEN THE EARLY MORNING OF THE 2ND. AM I IN FAIR RECOLLECTION?
Q.: NO. YOU GOT IT. YES.
WITH REGARD TO YOUR EXPERIENCES IN THIS CASE, I THINK YOU INDICATED IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF MR. DUSEK’S QUESTIONS THAT THE AREA WHERE DANIELLE VAN DAM WAS LOCATED OR THE WHOLE SINGING HILLS AREA COULD BE CONSTRUED AS A MICROCLIMATE. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: NO. WHAT I STATED IS THAT THE BODIES OR A BODY LYING, THIS CAN BE A MICROCLIMATIC CONDITION.
Q.: AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THE BLOW FLIES, FOR INSTANCE, AND THE OTHER MAGGOTS, WHEN THEY DEVELOP INTO A MAGGOT MASS, THEMSELVES GENERATE TEMPERATURES THAT CAN RAISE THE BODY AS MUCH AS NINETY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: THEY DO RAISE THE TEMPERATURE SOMEWHAT WITHIN THE MASS.
Q.: YES. WITHIN THE MASS.
AND THE MASS, THE HEAT OF THE MASS, WHICH MIGHT IN THIS CASE HYPOTHETICALLY HAVE BEEN IN THE CHEST, WOULD EXTEND OUT INTO THE EXTREMITIES OF THE BODY. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: DEPENDING ON THE SIZE. I DON’T THINK I SAW ANY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ACCURATELY DEPICT THE ACTUAL SURFACE OR BODY AREA OF THE MAGGOTS MASS.
Q.: BUT DID YOU READ POLICE REPORTS WHERE ON-SCENE OFFICERS WERE LOCATING OR IDENTIFYING THE EXISTENCE OF MAGGOTS, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE MOUTH AND HEAD AREAS? WERE THOSE PROVIDED TO YOU?
A.: YES, I —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE TESTIFIED.
THE WITNESS: I DID RECEIVE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS, AND THEY DID MENTION THE INSECT ACTIVITY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND SPECIFICALLY YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION THAT AS DR. BLACKBOURNE EXPOSED AND EXAMINED THE ABDOMINAL CAVITY, HE NOTED THE CAVITY WAS INFESTED WITH MAGGOTS.
A.: I BELIEVE THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND THAT SIMILAR INFESTATION WAS FOUND IN THE MOUTH AND NASAL CAVITY, CORRECT?
A.: I’M NOT SURE IF DR. BLACKBOURNE STATED THAT.
Q.: NO. THIS COMES FROM THE MORGUE SCENE INVESTIGATOR’S REPORTS.
A.: I DO REMEMBER A MORGUE INVESTIGATOR NOTING, BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY REPORT I BELIEVE I RECEIVED THAT THERE WAS ANY MENTION OF ACTIVITY ON THE HEAD, FACE AREA. AND I BELIEVE THAT INVESTIGATOR REPORT BY THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT WAS THE ONLY INSTANCE I SAW.
Q.: SO YOU WEREN’T PROVIDED WITH A REPORT FROM A DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC.
A.: YES. I DID RECEIVE THAT.
Q.: DON’T YOU RECALL THAT IN DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC’S REPORT IT INDICATED THAT THE TORSO AND HEAD WERE INFESTED WITH MAGGOTS AND TINY FLIES?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. 352. BASED UPON TOMSOVIC’S TESTIMONY, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: YES. SUSTAINED.
THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST QUESTION AND PARTIAL ANSWER.
MR. FELDMAN: YOUR HONOR, I’M SORRY.
THE COURT: TOMSOVIC TESTIFIED TO ONE IN THE EYE, AND THAT’S IT.
MR. FELDMAN: BOTH, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: MOVE ON. MOVE ON.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE PROVIDE YOU WITH EVIDENCE FROM DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC, HIS INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND WITH REGARD TO THE INCLUSION OF THE STATEMENTS IN THE INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT, DID YOU READ THAT TOMSOVIC WROTE, QUOTE, —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. 352.
THE COURT: YOU DON’T NEED TO QUOTE IT. JUST ASK HIM IF HE READ IT AND IT HAD ANY IMPACT. IF IT DID, I WILL ALLOW HIM TO ANSWER. IF NOT, MOVE ON.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU READ DETECTIVE TOMSOVIC’S REPORT?
A.: I DID.
Q.: AS THE JUDGE INDICATED, DID IT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR OPINION?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY.
Q.: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY NOT —
A.: NO.
Q.: BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T PAY ATTENTION TO WHETHER OR NOT OR YOU DON’T HAVE A RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS OR WAS NOT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. 352.
THE COURT: COUNSEL, JUST LIMIT YOUR QUESTIONING WITHOUT UTILIZING THE STATEMENT THAT YOU KNOW I’M GOING TO SUSTAIN AN OBJECTION ON.
MR. FELDMAN: I’M TRYING. I’M TRYING.
THE COURT: NOT VERY WELL. LET’S KEEP GOING.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: I’M ONLY ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE AWARE THAT ON-SCENE LAW ENFORCEMENT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE NOTED THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. 352.
THE COURT: IT’S GOING TO BE SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN
Q.: DID YOU SEE ANY REPORTS THAT NOTED THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MAGGOTS AND TINY FLIES AT THE SCENE?
MR. DUSEK: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: YES. I BELIEVE THE INVESTIGATIVE REPORT TALKED OF REFERENCE OF THE CARRION INSECTS.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AND ALSO THERE WAS AN ODOR OF PUTREFACTION. DID YOU NOTE WHETHER THAT WAS NOTED IN ANY OF THE INVESTIGATOR’S REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE?
A.: I BELIEVE THE REPORTS NOTED THERE WAS VERY LITTLE DECOMPOSITIONAL ODOR.
Q.: IS THERE A WAY — I THINK YOU DESCRIBED IT THERE WERE FOUR STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: IN THE NORMAL PROCESS.
Q.: ONE YOU CALLED FRESH, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: I DON’T REMEMBER. DID MR. DUSEK GIVE YOU A CHART ON THAT?
A.: I DON’T BELIEVE SO.
MR. FELDMAN: ASK TO HAVE MARKED —
THE WITNESS: SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHAT CHART?
MR. FELDMAN: WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IF WE HAVE IT, I WAS GOING TO HAVE YOU REFER TO IT. IF WE DON’T HAVE IT, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO DRAW IT FOR US.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
MR. FELDMAN: SO, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK TO HAVE MARKED NEXT IN ORDER —
THE COURT: RIGHT. IT WOULD BE 190 FOR IDENTIFICATION, PEG.
MR. FELDMAN: MAY I WRITE ON THE RIGHT CORNER THE 190?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
(CHART MARKED TRIAL EXHIBIT NUMBER 190 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: SIR, WE’RE REALLY CRAMPED HERE. COULD YOU PLEASE WRITE OUT FOR US THE FOUR STAGES OF DECOMPOSITION AS YOU’VE TESTIFIED.
A.: (THE WITNESS COMPLIED.)
BASICALLY, UNDER TYPICAL DECOMPOSITION, YOU SEE IN THE LITERATURE AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO STUDY IT, THEY CAN BREAK IT DOWN INTO MORE STAGES, BUT I LIKE TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT SIMPLIFIED, BECAUSE IT IS A COMPLEX PROCESS AS I MENTIONED. BUT BASICALLY YOU HAVE THE FRESH STAGE. THIS IS EARLY ON IN THE DECOMPOSITIONAL CYCLE WHEN THERE’S VERY LITTLE CHANGES THAT OCCUR.
AS THE BODY BEGINS TO UNDERGO PUTREFACTION AND AUTOLYSIS, AS I MENTION, THE BACTERIA WITHIN THE GUT BEGINS TO GIVE OFF BYPRODUCTS. THESE GASES INFILTRATE THE TISSUES. THEY BEGIN TO EXTEND THE BODY. AND THIS IS WHAT WE REFER IN GENERALIZATION AS THE BLOATED STAGE.
THEN AS THE ORGANS BEGIN TO LIQUEFY, AS THEY ARE BROKEN DOWN, THE INTERNAL CONTENTS OF THE BODY, THESE MANY TIMES CAN BE PASSED OUT UNDER THE GASEOUS PRESSURE. THEY CAN LEAK OUT AS I MENTIONED DURING EARLIER TESTIMONY THE ANUS, THE NOSE, AND MOUTH. MANY TIMES THIS IS REFERRED TO AS POST-MORTEM PURGING, WHERE YOU HAVE THIS PURGING OF THESE DECOMPOSITIONAL FLUIDS.
Q.: I WANT TO JUST STOP YOU THERE JUST FOR A SECOND.
YOU MENTIONED ON DIRECT THAT THERE WERE TWO TYPES OF BACTERIA, ONE THAT REQUIRED OXYGEN AND ONE THAT DIDN’T REQUIRE OXYGEN. I KNOW ONE IS CALLED ANAEROBIC BACTERIA. THAT’S ONE THAT DOESN’T REQUIRE OXYGEN. THAT’S CORRECT, ISN’T IT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ANAEROBIC BACTERIA, THEY SOURCE FROM THE STOMACH WHEN THE HEART STOPS BEATING, IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: OF COURSE, YOU HAVE IT ACTIVE IN YOUR BOWEL EVEN NOW.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ANAEROBIC BACTERIA, DO THEY COME IN THE FIRST STEP, SIR, OR SECOND STEP OR IN ONE OF THE LATER STEPS?
A.: THE ANAEROBIC BACTERIA ARE ALWAYS THERE. IT’S JUST THAT THEY TAKE HOLD OF THE BODY BECAUSE THERE IS A — THE ENVIRONMENT BEGINS TO BREAK DOWN, THE CELLS BREAK DOWN. YOU HAVE THE AUTOLYSIS. AND THIS IS WHERE THEY TAKE HOLD. AND IT’S A GOOD THING THAT THEY DON’T TAKE HOLD WHILE WE’RE ALIVE.
Q.: RIGHT.
OKAY. THE NEXT STAGE AFTER THE BLOATING STAGE.
A.: THEN BASICALLY YOU HAVE ACTIVE DECAY WHICH IS JUST WHAT I MANY TIMES REFER TO THE ACTIVE DECAY STAGE. EXCUSE ME. AND THIS IS BASICALLY WHERE THE BODY’S IN REALLY FULL ACTIVE DECAY. THERE’S MAJOR BREAKDOWNS OF THE TISSUE. YOU MAY START SEEING SOME REMOVAL OF THE SOFT TISSUES AND SKELETON EXPOSED.
Q.: OKAY.
THIS STAGE, WHAT YOU’RE CALLING THE BREAKDOWN OF TISSUE, — LET’S BACK UP FOR A MINUTE.
IN THE FIRST STEP YOU SEE A CONDITION CALLED RIGOR MORTIS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: YES. THE FRESH STAGE. THAT WOULD BE THE EARLY STAGES OF DEATH.
Q.: IN OTHER WORDS, THE BODY BASICALLY GETS STUCK, THE MUSCLES STOP WORKING, THE BODY FREEZES IN POSITION. IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: IT’S A CHEMICAL REACTION WHERE THE MUSCLES, THE CELLULAR MATERIAL ACTUALLY GET GELLED, AND IT CAUSES THE BODY TO STIFFEN. RIGOR MORTIS.
Q.: AND THAT — NOW, THERE’S A BODY OF LITERATURE FROM THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST THAT IDENTIFIES THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY I THINK EIGHT TO SIXTEEN OR EIGHT TO TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOR FIRST-STAGE RIGOR. ISN’T THAT RIGHT? NO. LET ME RESTATE THAT.
ISN’T IT CORRECT THAT FIRST-STAGE RIGOR IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED TO LAST — ONSET AT EIGHT HOURS AND BE DONE WITH AT THIRTEEN HOURS POST MORTEM?
A.: IN GENERAL. YOU SEE VARIATIONS IN THE LITERATURE.
Q.: BASED UPON THE ENVIRONMENT?
A.: BASED UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
Q.: OKAY.
I’M SORRY. I KNOW I INTERRUPTED YOU. COULD YOU TELL US THE FOURTH STAGE, PLEASE.
A.: OKAY. THEN BASICALLY WHAT I USE AS THE LAST STAGE IS THE DRY STAGE. AND THIS IS BASICALLY WHERE MOST OF THE TISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY THE PROCESS OF PUTREFACTION, AUTOLYSIS, BLOW FLY ACTIVITY. AND WE BEGIN TO SEE SKELETALIZED REMAINS. THEN SOME OF THE TISSUES WITH THE LACK OF MOISTURE MAY BE SOMEWHAT DRY, MUMMIFY. AND THIS IS BASICALLY THE KIND OF FINAL PRECLUSION STAGE TO FULL SKELETIZATION, WHERE MANY TIMES YOU SEE THE LATE, WE REFER TO LATE SUCCESSIONAL STAGE INSECTS, DERMESTES BEETLES THAT COME IN AND FEED ON THE VERY DRY TISSUES OF THE BODY.
Q.: IF YOU ARE GOING TO SEE DERMESTES BEETLES, YOU ARE GOING TO SEE LARVAE FIRST, AT LEAST SO FAR AS THEIR PURPOSES IN TERMS OF THE ENTOMOLOGIC ISSUES REGARDING POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, ISN’T THAT RIGHT?
A.: IF FOOD AND THE BODY SOURCE IS FAVORABLE.
Q.: OKAY.
WITH REGARD TO THE STEPS NOW THAT YOU’VE INDICATED ON 190, WHERE DOES MUMMIFICATION FIT IN?
A.: MUMMIFICATION CAN — AGAIN IS AN ABERRATION IN A WAY OF THE DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE. A BODY CAN GO UNDER THE NORMAL CONDITIONS — THIS IS OUR NORMAL DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS. HOWEVER, IF WE TAKE SOME OF THE PLAYERS IN DECOMPOSITION, SUCH AS THE FLIES OR BACTERIA OR OXYGEN OUT OF THE EQUATION, AND YOU HAVE HOT OR DRY OR COMBINATION WITH — EXCUSE ME — HOT OR COLD TEMPERATURES WITH LOW HUMIDITY, THAT BODY THEN WILL PROCEED TO MUMMIFICATION.
Q.: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US IS IF THE TEMPERATURES ARE RIGHT, THE BODY IS GOING TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO JUMP OVER THE MAGGOT INFESTATIONS FROM THE BLOW FLIES, SKIP THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLOW FLIES, AND DENY ACCESS TO THE BLOW FLIES.
A.: IT’S NOT SKIPPING. WHEN THE FLIES COME IN, THEY HAVE TO HAVE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT TO FEED AND REAR THEIR YOUNG. IF THE TISSUES BECOME MUMMIFIED AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT FAVORABLE, THE FLIES WILL NOT DEPOSIT EGGS. THOSE THAT THEY DEPOSIT, IF THE ENVIRONMENT’S NOT FAVORABLE, DRY, BLOW OFF, GET SCAVENGED.
IN THE CASE OF DECOMPOSITION, WHERE YOU HAVE MOIST CONDITIONS WITH THE ANAEROBES, WITHOUT OXYGEN, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE FIND IN BODIES THAT ARE PUT IN WATER OR BURIED, THIS IS WHY THEY PRESERVE, BECAUSE THEY SAPONIFY.
AND SO BASICALLY AGAIN IN THE DECOMPOSITIONAL CYCLE YOU HAVE WHAT IS A TYPICAL DECOMPOSITIONAL CYCLE WHERE THE BODY GOES TO THE FRESH, BLOATED, ACTIVE, AND THEN THE DRY STAGE ON TO SKELETAL. NOW, IF WE CHANGE UP THE PLAYERS AND GET — WE CAN EITHER GET MUMMIFICATION, WE CAN GET SAPONIFICATION. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT DURING ANY OF THESE STAGES THAT A PORTION OF THE BODY MAY SAPONIFY BECAUSE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT OR, FOR EXAMPLE, MUMMIFY.
MANY TIMES WE SEE BODIES THAT ARE LYING SOMEWHERE AND A LOT OF THE BODIES IN ADVANCED DECOMPOSITION AND MAYBE JUST THE ELBOW OR THE FOOT OR THE HEAD IS MUMMIFIED. THAT’S THE ONLY PART OF THE BODY THAT IS MUMMIFIED. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SCENE, MANY TIMES WE WILL SEE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF THAT. BECAUSE THE BODY’S HEAD WAS RIGHT NEXT TO A DRYING VENT OR THE HEAD WAS SITTING WHERE THE WINDOW, WHERE THE SUN COMING THROUGH THE PANE OF THE WINDOW HEATS THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE BODY. SO YOU CAN HAVE CONDITIONS WHERE YOU CAN GET PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION, PARTIAL SAPONIFICATION, OR THE BODY CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE STAGES. BUT THE INSECTS THAT FEED, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HOSPITABLE ENVIRONMENT. OTHERWISE THEY WILL NOT FEED.
Q.: WHAT IS, AS YOU USE THE TERM, A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT OR A HOSPITABLE ENVIRONMENT?
I DON’T THINK I NEED YOU TO BE ON THE CHART ANY MORE. IT’S YOUR CHOICE. WHEREVER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE, SIR.
A.: I WILL SIT DOWN IF THAT’S —
Q.: PLEASE.
A.: A HOSPITABLE ENVIRONMENT IS WHERE YOU HAVE RELATIVE HUMIDITY THAT IS BASICALLY, ACCORDING TO ENTOMOLOGISTS, YOU KNOW, IN ABOUT FIFTY PER CENT HUMIDITY OR MORE. AND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE DRYING CONDITIONS. IT’S GOT TO BE HUMID. THE MORE HUMID THE BETTER IT IS.
Q.: LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IN A MARINE-LAYERED AREA. WOULD THAT INCREASE HUMIDITY?
A.: IT DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU’RE TALKING. IN REFERENCE TO THE OCEAN.
Q.: I AM. I’M TALKING IN REFERENCE TO THE OCEAN. WE LIVE IN SAN DIEGO. SAN DIEGO WE’VE GOT AN OCEAN. RIGHT? THERE’S FOG THAT BLOWS IN OFF THE OCEAN THAT GETS INLAND. DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A MARINE LAYER OR SOMETHING THAT IN YOUR OPINION MIGHT AFFECT THE HUMIDITY?
A.: YOU CAN GET WHAT IS CALLED THE MARINE LAYER. NOW, I WASN’T HERE IN FEBRUARY. BUT I CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK BEING HERE IN SAN DIEGO DURING THE TIME I’VE BEEN HERE. I’VE HEARD MR. DUSEK AND MR. CLARKE, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT —
Q.: TIME OUT.
THE COURT: WE DON’T WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HEARD THEM SAY.
THE WITNESS: EXCUSE ME.
LET ME JUST REPHRASE.
MR. FELDMAN: NO. I’M SORRY. IT’S MY TURN AGAIN.
THE WITNESS: OKAY.
BY MR. FELDMAN
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND THE — IN THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE DANIELLE VAN DAM WAS LOCATED, WE HAD A SHADE TREE. THE SHADE TREE WILL KEEP TEMPERATURES RELATIVELY MORE STABLE THAN IF SHE WAS COMPLETELY EXPOSED, WOULDN’T YOU AGREE?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND A STABLE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE WILL ALLOW BETTER AND MORE ACCURATE INFERENCES AS TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL THAN IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE IS UP AND DOWN, WOULD YOU AGREE?
A.: CERTAINLY.
Q.: A BODY IN THE SHADE WILL DECOMPOSE LESS RAPIDLY THAN THE BODY THAT’S COMPLETELY EXPOSED, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: YOU WILL SEE SOME VARIATION, YES.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF MUMMIFICATION, IF ONLY A PORTION OF THE BODY IS EXPOSED TO THE SUN AND ANOTHER PORTION OF THE BODY IS NOT, MIGHT THAT CAUSE MUMMIFICATION OF ONLY A PARTICULAR PORTION OF A BODY AS OPPOSED TO MUMMIFICATION OF THE ENTIRE BODY?
A.: YES. YOU GET WHAT WE REFER TO MANY TIMES AS A DIFFERENTIAL DECOMPOSITION.
Q.: WITH REGARD TO THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF —
MR. FELDMAN: EXCUSE ME JUST FOR A MINUTE.
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MR. FELDMAN
AND MS. SCHAEFER.)
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TOLD US ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD AFFECT THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF MUMMIFICATION IS WIND VELOCITY. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: NOT NECESSARILY WIND VELOCITY, BUT THE PRESENCE OF WIND.
Q.: WHEN YOU WENT ONTO THE GOLF COURSE THE OTHER DAY, YOU SAID YOU LOOKED AT THE WEATHER STATION. RIGHT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND DID YOU SPEAK WITH EITHER THE CONTRACTORS OR I DON’T KNOW WHETHER HE’S THE GOLF PRO OR THE PERSON THAT’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WATERING OF THE AREA?
A.: THAT WAS THE SUPERINTENDENT I SPOKE TO.
Q.: DID HE TELL YOU THAT THE WEATHER STATION WAS NOT FUNCTIONING? WELL, DID HE TELL YOU THAT A GOLF BALL HAD STRUCK THE WEATHER STATION IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT I DON’T KNOW IMPOSSIBLE, BUT CERTAINLY EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN WHAT THE WIND WAS IN FEBRUARY?
A.: YES. HE TOLD ME THAT A GOLF BALL HAD HIT THE MACHINE AND THAT THE WEATHER INSTRUMENT WAS INOPERABLE.
Q.: THEREFORE, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT EFFECT, IF ANY, THE WINDS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD SINCE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WINDS WERE. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: NO.
Q.: I’M SORRY. YOU SAY IT’S NOT A FAIR STATEMENT. YOU CAN INFER WHAT THE WINDS WERE EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T HAVE ACCURATE RECORDS AS TO WHAT THE WINDS WERE?
A.: THE RECORDS, AS I MENTIONED IN EARLIER TESTIMONY, I RECEIVED MULTIPLE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS. AND THEY INDICATE VARYING WIND SPEEDS.
Q.: UH-HUH.
A.: NOW, CERTAINLY THE COURSE AT SINGING HILLS, THAT’S INOPERABLE. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA OF THE FOUR OR FIVE WEATHER STATIONS THAT PEOPLE ARE USING IN TESTIMONY, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM, YOU CAN SEE EVIDENCE OF THE SANTA ANA WINDS WHICH WERE EXPRESSED BY MR. FAULKNER THAT YOU HAVE SOME DIFFERENTIAL TEMPERATURES BASICALLY COME IN DURING THE SANTA ANA WIND AREAS. BUT AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL, ACCORDING TO THE ACTUAL VELOCITY, —
Q.: YES.
A.: — WE DON’T KNOW FOR THAT SPECIFIC AREA WHERE DANIELLE WAS FOUND.
Q.: SO, I’M SORRY, I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, THE SANTA ANA WINDS THEN WOULD INCREASE OR POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE MUMMIFICATION SPEEDS. THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: YES. BECAUSE BASICALLY YOU HAVE WIND AND A DRYING EFFECT.
Q.: SO WHERE WE SEE EVIDENCE OF WIND AND A DRYING EFFECT AT LEAST ON MR. FAULKNER’S TESTIMONY IS BETWEEN THE 7TH AND THE 12TH. AND THEN AGAIN ON THE 20TH THROUGH THE 26TH.
A.: I BELIEVE THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: NOW I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME HYPOTHETICALLY THAT THE BODY WASN’T DEPOSITED UNTIL THE 13TH. YOU’VE TOLD US THAT MUMMIFICATION COULD SET IN WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OR LESS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?
A.: YES.
Q.: AND THAT YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE ENTOMOLOGISTS HAD TO SAY CONCERNING THEIR POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ESTIMATES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU TOLD US THAT YOU CONSIDERED WHAT DRS. WECHT AND BLACKBOURNE SAID CONCERNING THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO IT’S FAIR TO SAY, IS IT NOT, THAT YOU WOULD NOT DISAGREE THAT THE BODY COULD HAVE BEEN LAID OUT SAY FROM THE 18TH?
A.: NO.
Q.: BASED ON THE MUMMIFICATION PROCESS, BASED ON THE WEATHER, BASED ON THE RAINFALL, BASED UPON THE MUMMIFICATION, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: THAT’S INCORRECT.
Q.: SO YOU DISAGREE WITH DRS. BLACKBOURNE, FAULKNER — I’M SORRY. YOU DISAGREE WITH DRS. BLACKBOURNE, WECHT, HASKELL, AND MR. FAULKNER, IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE. MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
THE COURT: IT’S ARGUMENTATIVE, AND IT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. SUSTAINED ON BOTH GROUNDS.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU WERE AWARE THAT WECHT GAVE THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL AS UP TO THE 1ST OF FEBRUARY, CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: SO HE SAID TEN DAYS TO — I THINK HE SAID TEN DAYS TO FOUR WEEKS. THAT’S ACTUALLY WHAT HE SAID, ISN’T IT?
A.: I BELIEVE LOOKING AND REFERRING TO MY NOTES HE NOTED A POST-MORTEM INTERVAL TO FOUR WEEKS. I HAVE 28 DAYS. I BELIEVE HE DID SAY TEN DAYS LIKE DR. BLACKBOURNE.
Q.: AND YOU’RE ALSO AWARE THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ASCERTAINING WHAT THE TIME OF DEATH WAS DR. WECHT RECOMMENDED THE USE OF A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST WHO COULD RENDER A MORE PRECISE ESTIMATE REGARDING THE TIME OF DEATH.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU TOLD US YOU TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION DR. WECHT’S REPORT, CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: YOU, THEREFORE, TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION DR. WECHT’S OPINION IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST COULD RENDER A MORE PRECISE ESTIMATE REGARDING THE TIME OF DEATH THAN A PATHOLOGIST.
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. FOUNDATION.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ARGUMENTATIVE AND FOUNDATION.
MR. FELDMAN: WHICH GROUND?
THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION DR. WECHT’S STATEMENT THAT IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST CAN RENDER A MORE PRECISE ESTIMATE REGARDING THE TIME OF DEATH?
A.: USING THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST. I DON’T AGREE THAT IT’S GOING TO GIVE US THE MOST PRECISE. WE WANT TO UTILIZE ALL DATA.
Q.: DO YOU AGREE WITH — DID YOU CONSIDER DR. WECHT’S STATEMENT THAT THE BIOLOGICAL DATA UTILIZED BY THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST ENABLES SUCH A SPECIALIST TO ARRIVE AT A MORE SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED OPINION?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION.
THE COURT: ASK HIM WHETHER HE UTILIZED IT, COUNSEL, AND I WILL ALLOW THE AREA OF INQUIRY.
MR. FELDMAN: THANK YOU.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: DID YOU UTILIZE IN YOUR OPINIONS AND IN YOUR OPINION STATEMENTS ALL OF DR. WECHT’S REPORT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND INCLUDED WITHIN DR. WECHT’S REPORT DID YOU CONSIDER HIS STATEMENT THAT THE BIOLOGICAL DATA UTILIZED BY THE FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST ENABLES SUCH A SPECIALIST TO ARRIVE AT A MORE SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED OPINION REGARDING THE TIME OF DEATH THAN THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST IS ABLE TO DETERMINE?
A.: I DID READ THAT STATEMENT. THAT HE SAID A FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGIST SHOULD BE EMPLOYED TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE. HOWEVER, AGAIN, THE ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY THE ENTOMOLOGIST AS WE HAVE TO USE IN ALL THINGS ONLY TELLS US WHEN THE INSECTS INHABIT THE BODY AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN THERE. THAT’S ALL THEY TELL US.
Q.: BUT THE PATHOLOGIST TOLD YOU THAT THERE WAS A RANGE. WE AGREED A WINDOW OF TIME THAT AT LEAST FROM DR. WECHT WAS TEN TO TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS, I BELIEVE. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: I BELIEVE SO.
Q.: AND DR. BLACKBOURNE TOLD US TEN DAYS. I THINK HE SAID TO SIX WEEKS. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: AND SIX WEEKS IS 42 DAYS, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND 28 DAYS WAS DR. WECHT’S OPINION, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: YOUR OPINION WAS THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL COULD HAVE BEEN BETWEEN 28 AND 42 DAYS, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: SO WHAT YOU DID IN FACT WAS TO TAKE THE MAXIMUM ESTIMATES OF THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS AND USE THEIR MAXIMUM ESTIMATES —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: — FOR YOUR OPINION, IS THAT TRUE?
THE COURT: THE WAY IT’S FORMED, SUSTAINED. REPHRASE IT, AND I WILL ALLOW THE AREA OF INQUIRY.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL WAS 28 TO 42 DAYS, YOU CONSIDERED THE OUTER RANGES OF DR. WECHT’S OPINION THAT THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL COULD HAVE BEEN 10 DAYS TO 28 DAYS, THAT’S CORRECT, ISN’T IT?
A.: INCORRECT.
Q.: YOU DID NOT CONSIDER DR. WECHT’S OPINION THAT 28 DAYS WAS THE OUTSIDE RANGE?
A.: I CONSIDERED IT. THAT DIDN’T MEAN I USED IT.
Q.: UNDERSTOOD.
FURTHERMORE, YOU CONSIDERED DR. BLACKBOURNE’S OPINION THAT THE 10 DAYS TO 42 DAYS WAS A REASONABLE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL ESTIMATE FROM THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST, RIGHT?
A.: I CONSIDERED IT.
Q.: AND IN POINT OF FACT, YOU ARRIVED AT A POST-MORTEM INTERVAL OF 28 TO 42 DAYS, CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: AND YOU’RE TELLING US NOW THAT’S NOT BASED UPON THE MAXIMUM ESTIMATES OF DRS. WECHT AND BLACKBOURNE?
A.: I MAKE MY OWN OPINION.
Q.: OKAY.
BUT YOU UTILIZED THE OTHER DISCIPLINES, IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: ANY GOOD SCIENTIST WOULD.
Q.: AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT YOUR OWN OPINION, IT WAS JUST COINCIDENCE —
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED AS TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WAS IT COINCIDENTAL THAT WHEN YOU UTILIZED YOUR OWN OPINION YOU ARRIVED AT THE MAXIMUM WINDOWS OFFERED BY DRS. WECHT AND BLACKBOURNE?
A.: THIS IS MY ESTIMATE BASED ON MY OWN OPINION OF A REVIEW OF ALL THE SCIENTIFIC DATA HANDED TO ME.
Q.: IS THERE ANY — YOU MENTIONED VITREOUS HUMOR EARLIER TODAY. YOU DIDN’T MENTION VITREOUS HUMOR ACTUALLY; I’M USING THOSE TERMS. YOU TALKED ABOUT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION STUDIES THAT RELIED UPON USING EYEBALL FLUID FOR PURPOSES OF RENDERING OPINIONS CONCERNING TIME OF DEATH, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: IT HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST.
Q.: THAT WOULD BE VITREOUS HUMOR STUDIES, IS THAT RIGHT?
A.: THAT’S CORRECT.
Q.: YOU KNOW THAT THE VITREOUS HUMOR STUDIES EMANATED SOMEWHERE IN THE LATE SIXTIES.
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
Q.: OUT OF GREECE.
A.: ONE OF THE MAIN RESEARCHERS IS A DR. COE IN THE U. S. WHO IS —
Q.: COE’S IN MINNESOTA, ISN’T HE?
A.: I’M NOT SURE IF HE IS STILL THERE. WE’VE LECTURED TOGETHER, BUT IT’S BEEN A LONG TIME. HE’S CERTAINLY MUCH MORE SENIOR TO ME.
Q.: YOU MEAN HE’S OLDER?
A.: FAIR EVALUATION.
Q.: OKAY.
WITH REGARD TO THE STUDIES I’M TALKING ABOUT OUT OF GREECE, THOUGH, THIS IS A-D-J-U-N-T-A-N-T-I-S AND COUTSILINOUS, ADJUNTANTIS AND COUTSILINOUS, C-O-U-T-S-I-L-I-N-O-U-S.
A.: I HAVE PROBABLY — I CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN REVIEWED, I’VE REVIEWED, I TRY TO PUT MY HANDS ON ALL LITERATURE DEALING WITH TIME SINCE DEATH. AND THE USE OF VITREOUS HUMOR HAS BEEN USED IN THE PAST. IT IS NOT REALLY RELIED UPON TODAY BECAUSE IT’S SHOWED THAT THERE’S GREAT VARIATION IN IT DUE TO THE BREAKDOWN PROCESS ITSELF AS WELL AS MEDICATIONS OR A PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE DECEASED.
Q.: BUT IN THE ARTICLES AND IN THE STUDIES THERE’S A FORMULA, THERE’S LITERALLY A SCIENTIFIC FORMULA THAT THE SCIENTISTS USE, THE RESEARCHERS USE, TO CALCULATE THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL. IS THAT CORRECT?
A.: THAT IS CORRECT.
MR. DUSEK: RELEVANCY. 352.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED. BOTH GROUNDS.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC FORMULA THAT YOU HAVE UTILIZED THAT’S PUBLISHED THAT OTHER SCIENTISTS OR MATHEMATICIANS CAN UTILIZE THAT’S LIKE A PLUS B EQUALS POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, ISN’T THAT CORRECT?
A.: UNFORTUNATELY, NO.
Q.: IN THE AREA OF — ALSO IN THE AREA OF ASCERTAINING TIME OF DEATH IS A BODY OF LITERATURE THAT IDENTIFIES CORE TEMPERATURE, BODY COOLING, AS A MEANS IN WHICH TO MORE PRECISELY IDENTIFY THE TIME OF DEATH, IS THAT CORRECT?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. RELEVANCE. 352.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU WERE TOLD, WERE YOU, WHEN YOU WENT TO THE GOLF COURSE THAT IT FROSTED? DO YOU RECALL THAT?
A.: YES.
Q.: WERE YOU TOLD?
DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT TEMPERATURE IT WAS THAT FROSTED?
A.: I DID SEE IT ON THE COMPUTER. I DON’T RECALL. HE USED IN — THE GREENSKEEPER CALLED UP THE DATA FROM HIS COMPUTER STATION. WE LOOKED IN A VARIETY OF DATA.
Q.: OKAY.
DID — AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT BLOW FLIES, THEY GROW, THEY MOVE AROUND, GROW, LAY EGGS AT ABOUT FIFTY DEGREES FAHRENHEIT, RIGHT?
A.: THAT OR A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, YES.
Q.: AND YOU WERE AWARE, THEN, THAT IN THE TIME WINDOW 13 FEBRUARY TO 28 FEBRUARY OR 12 FEBRUARY TO 28 FEBRUARY THAT THE CONDITIONS WERE RIPE FOR THE GROWTH OF BLOW FLIES, GIVEN THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURES?
A.: YES.
Q.: WHEN YOU WERE PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION CONCERNING MR. FAULKNER’S VIEWS ON THE ENTOMOLOGY, WERE YOU ALSO ADVISED THAT MR. FAULKNER SPOKE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT REPRESENTATIVES AND SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE BODY HAD BEEN COVERED?
A.: YES, I DO BELIEVE READING THAT.
Q.: AND DO YOU RECALL THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED TO FAULKNER?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY. NOT A BASIS FOR AN OPINION.
THE COURT: THE FORM OF THE QUESTION, SUSTAINED.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: WITH REGARD TO YOUR OPINION, YOU CONSIDERED THE FACT, DID YOU, THAT FAULKNER WAS TOLD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING COVERING THE BODY?
A.: I BELIEVE THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE BODY BEING COVERED OR I DO NOT RECALL SEEING ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT FACT.
Q.: WELL, DO YOU RECALL — DID YOU READ MR. FAULKNER’S TESTIMONY, SIR?
A.: YES, I DID.
Q.: DO YOU RECALL MR. FAULKNER TESTIFYING THAT HE ASKED LAW ENFORCEMENT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF THE BODY BEING COVERED?
A.: I BELIEVE HE DID ASK THAT QUESTION.
Q.: AND DO YOU ALSO RECALL HIM SAYING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSURED HIM THERE WAS NO SUCH EVIDENCE?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. HEARSAY.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED AS TO WHAT HE WAS TOLD.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: AS TO RENDERING YOUR OPINION AS TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FAULKNER’S TESTIMONY THAT AFTER HE CHECKED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS COVERING THE BODY?
A.: YES, I DID TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
Q.: YOU ALSO I THINK TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER IS WHETHER OR NOT THE BODY HAD BEEN MOVED IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
A.: COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC, PLEASE?
Q.: I’M ASKING YOU — OKAY. LET ME PUT IT TO YOU A DIFFERENT WAY.
IS ONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU CONSIDER IN RENDERING YOUR OPINION AS TO THE POST-MORTEM INTERVAL THE FACT OR THE LACK OF FACT THAT A BODY WAS MOVED FROM A LOCATION TO ANOTHER LOCATION?
A.: IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF THAT THAT COULD SHOW ME IT HAD BEEN IN ANOTHER LOCATION THAT HAD DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS THAT WOULD HAVE PRODUCED CHANGES IN THE DECOMPOSITION, I WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY TAKEN THAT INTO EFFECT.
Q.: I’M SORRY. YOU’VE JUST USED A TERM DIFFERENTIAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS. I DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN BY DIFFERENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
A.: GROSSLY DIFFERENT THAT — CAUSING DIFFERENT CHANGES THAN ONE WOULD SEE FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. IN OTHER WORDS, AS I GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF AN INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD BEEN PLACED IN STORAGE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A FREEZER AND HELD FOR HOURS, DAYS, MONTHS, AND THEN LATER PLACED SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Q.: THAT BODY WOULD BREAK DOWN SOME AS A RESULT OF IT BEING DEAD IN A FREEZER, CORRECT?
A.: IT — TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE IS THAT WHEN BODIES THAT HAVE BEEN FROZEN FOR VERY EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TIME, THAT THE DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS IN SOMEWHAT OF A MICRO CONDITION CONTINUES. I MEAN IF YOU TAKE A BODY THAT’S UNDERGOING DECOMPOSITION AND PUT IT IN A FREEZER, EVEN THOUGH IT — YOU DON’T — LIKE PARTICULARLY IN A MORGUE FREEZER, MEDICAL EXAMINER’S, CORONER’S OFFICE TYPICALLY DO NOT SET THEIR MORTUARY FREEZERS TO FREEZING BECAUSE IT IN A WAY WILL DAMAGE THE BODY, AND IT WILL MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE TO DISSECT TISSUES OR EXAMINE IT MUCH HARDER TO WORK WITH.
BUT THE BODY WILL CONTINUE TO — YOU’LL SEE DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES. AND WE SEE THAT BODIES THAT HAVE BEEN STORED FOR VERY LENGTHY PERIODS OF TIME, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A FROZEN CONDITION OR NEAR FROZEN, THEN PLACED OUT, TEND TO UNDERGO AN ABNORMAL DECOMPOSITIONAL PROCESS. AND MANY TIMES IT STARTS VERY RAPIDLY ONCE EXPOSED.
Q.: BUT ONE OF MR. DUSEK’S QUESTIONS POSED THE HYPOTHETICAL THAT HYPOTHETICALLY ON THE 2ND OF FEBRUARY DANIELLE VAN DAM WAS PLACED IN A STORAGE TRUNK. AND, I’M SORRY, I CAN’T REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS THE 3RD OR 4TH OF FEBRUARY THE BODY WAS LEFT IN DEHESA.
UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD YOU EXPECT THE BODY TO SHOW DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES OF ANY KIND?
A.: THE BODY WILL SHOW DECOMPOSITIONAL, I CANNOT SAY WHAT, BECAUSE I DIDN’T KNOW THE ENVIRONMENT PRIOR OR HAVE EVIDENCE TO A PRIOR ENVIRONMENT.
Q.: BUT YOU AGREE, THOUGH, THAT BLOW FLIES GO TO FRESH BODIES AS OPPOSED TO BODIES THAT HAVE BEEN AGED FOR A WHILE.
A.: NO. THEY WILL GO TO AGED.
Q.: SO YOU DISAGREE WITH DR. HASKELL’S TESTIMONY THAT BLOW FLIES ARE ATTRACTED TO FRESH AS OPPOSED TO NOT MORE AGED BODIES?
MR. DUSEK: OBJECTION. ARGUMENTATIVE.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
YOU CAN ANSWER THAT.
THE WITNESS: BLOW FLIES TYPICALLY WILL GO TO A FRESH BODY. BUT IF YOU HAVE AGED REMAINS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED, YOU OPEN THEM UP, THEY BEGIN TO DECOMPOSE AT A RAPID RATE, FLIES WILL COME IN. IT MAY NOT BE CERTAIN OR A PARTICULAR SPECIES, BUT THE FLIES WILL STILL COME IN. I’VE SEEN IT MANY TIMES, HUNDREDS OF TIMES.
BY MR. FELDMAN:
Q.: YOU MENTIONED ALSO ON YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION I THINK THE ISSUE OF MUMMIFICATION. HYPOTHETICALLY, — I’M SORRY. LET ME BACK UP JUST FOR A SECOND.
HYPOTHETICALLY ASSUME, PLEASE, THAT AN INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN STABBED AND MUMMIFIED. THE MUMMIFICATION WILL PRESERVE THE STAB WOUND, WON’T IT?
A.: YES. IN MANY CASES IT DOES. I’VE HAD SOME VERY UNIQUE CASES WHERE WE’VE HAD VERY NICE INCISED AND STAB WOUND PATTERNS THAT HAVE MUMMIFIED. AND WE CAN UTILIZE THAT IN DETERMINING THE POSSIBLE CAUSE OR MANNER OF DEATH.
Q.: NOW, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ASSUME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL IS KILLED AND THEN STABBED, THAT THERE’S A POST-MORTEM INCISION OF SOME KIND OR HYPOTHETICALLY AN INDIVIDUAL IS DECEASED AND COYOTES COME AND EAT OUT ENTRAILS. IT’S CORRECT THAT BLOW FLIES ARE MUCH LESS ATTRACTED TO SUCH POST-MORTEM INCISIONS, ISN’T THAT TRUE?
A.: DEPENDING ON THE FLUIDS THAT ARE THERE. IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT FLUIDS AND ORGAN MATERIAL, THEY WILL BE ATTRACTED. WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME WHERE THERE’S VERY LITTLE INFESTATION OF THE BODY BECAUSE THERE’S DECOMPOSITIONAL CHANGES, WHETHER THE SAPONIFICATION OR MUMMIFICATION; AND AS SOON AS THAT BODY IS EXPOSED EITHER BY ANIMALS OR EVEN SOMEONE MAKES AN INCISION OR THE BODY IS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON SOME CASES WHERE THEY’RE MOVING THE BODY AND THEY HAPPEN TO ACCIDENTALLY TEAR INTO IT, EXPOSING THE BLOOD AND UNDERLYING TISSUES, THE BLOW FLIES WILL COME IN AND INHABIT THAT AREA.
THE COURT: WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE AFTERNOON BREAK.
BEFORE WE DO IT, HOWEVER, I NEED TO TALK TO YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ABOUT THE MATTER WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING. AS A RESULT, I’M GOING TO CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS, INCLUDING THE MEDIA. WE WILL BE BACK IN COURT AT 2:45 WHEN I ANTICIPATE MAKING A STATEMENT TO THE PROPER FOLKS. SO WE’LL BE IN RECESS FOR THE PUBLIC UNTIL 2:45.
(THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA WERE EXCUSED AT 2:28 O’CLOCK, P.M.)
(PAGES 8754 THROUGH 8763 WERE ORDERED SEALED BY THE
COURT AND APPEAR IN SEPARATE SEALED VOLUME NUMBER 36D.
UNSEALED PROCEEDINGS CONTINUE ON PAGE 8764. NOTHING IS OMITTED.)

25073 - July 25th 2002 -Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 23 - afternoon 2
25071 - July 25th 2002 -Transcript of David Westerfield Trial Day 23 - morning 1