SAN DIEGO -- A forensic expert for the U.S. military took the stand for the prosecution Thursday in the David Westerfield trial.

WESTERFIELD TRIAL Judge William Mudd Issues Death Penalty Sentence Hear Jury's Death Penalty Recommendation Watch The Jury's Verdict Being Read Share Your Thoughts DANIELLE VAN DAM 1994-2002 Watch Danielle Video Montage E-mail: daniellevandam @yahoo.com Send mail to: P.O. Box 501515 San Diego, 92150

Doctor William Rodriguez, serving as a private consultant, is testifying about the process of body decomposition and how it relates to determining the time of death in an investigation.

Prosecutors in the trial of David Westerfield called Rodriguez to counter a defense expert on insects who testified that Danielle's body couldn't have been dumped along a rural road before Feb. 12.

That date is significant because Westerfield had been under police surveillance since Feb 5., just days after Danielle was reported missing.

The defense expert based his conclusion on an analysis of blow flies and larva collected during the autopsy.

Video

Analysis Of Today's Testimony

Rodriguez (pictured, right) is countering that testimony. He said the climate in February along Dehesa road in El Cajon and the positioning of Danielle's body would have allowed partial mummification to set in, preventing or delaying the flies from from laying eggs and "colonizing" the body.

Rodriguez is the chief deputy for special investigations with the U.S. Armed Forces Medical Examiner and has studied times and causes in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and various locations in the United States.

His testimony comes as part of the prosecution rebuttal, which is expected to last through the day. The defense will then have its chance to offer counter-rebuttal.

Westerfield is charged with kidnapping, murder and possession of child pornography. He could get the death penalty if convicted.

Today's testimony was delayed by a closed door hearing with attorneys for both sides and Superior Court Judge William Mudd.

Deputy District Attorney Paul Cooper went inside the courtroom to discuss "newly discovered material," as it was termed by Mudd earlier this week.

Also, a juror and two alternates were brought into the courtroom individually before the entire jury was called in as a group. The subject of those discussions is unknown at this time.

A police computer expert who examined the computers in Westerfield's home resumed his testimony Thursday after the delay about pornographic sites accessed from the residence.

James Watkins testified Wednesday that card files found on Westerfield's two office computers had a list of links to about 200 pornographic Web sites.

Watkins, who has already testified twice in the trial, said most of the cards in what was termed a computerized "Rolodex" were for vendors for Westerfield's business.

But 29 cards listed 200 pornographic Web sites with names like "tooyoung2," "youngvirgins.nu" and "lolita.com," Watkins testified.

The prosecution's theory is that child pornography provided the motive in the murder of Danielle, who lived down the street from the defendant.

Video

Summary Of Day 21 Analysis Of Wednesday's Testimony

Watkins (pictured, right) was presented with an Internet Explorer history file by Deputy District Attorney George Clarke to see if pornography was viewed over the Internet on Feb. 4 -- at a time when the defendant was at a police station -- in an attempt to see if his teenage son was responsible for the content.

Watkins said no pornographic sites were visited during that time, but he conceded later that an X-rated e-mail was received.

Westerfield's son, Neal, testified Wednesday that he never downloaded pornography onto his father's computer and disputed previous testimony concerning trips to the desert.

Neal Westerfield, 19, a San Diego State University student, said that he viewed pornography once or twice each month on a computer in the office of his father's Sabre Springs house in recent years.

He was called as a prosecution rebuttal witness after the defense rested its case, having called up one witness in the morning. Superior Court Judge William Mudd ordered that the young man's face not be photographed.

Following the lunch break, Mudd lashed out at the media after Neal Westerfield's photograph was taken. Click here for full story.

The younger Westerfield said he generally viewed Japanese-drawn, cartoon-like drawings and photographs of big-breasted women on the World Wide Web.

"Would you ever download such material?" prosecutor Jeff Dusek asked.

"No," he answered.

"Do you know if your father had pornography in the house?" Dusek asked.

"I found some on his computer and I found it on disks in his office," he replied.

The defense had argued there was no proof of who actually downloaded the material and had displayed screen shots that pornography was viewed Feb. 4, when the defendant was at a police station.