Making the corrections for Goff's minor math errors, makes little difference in his conclusions. Each man tried to do a better job of widening the interval to see if the prosecution's theory of the crime could work, and yet all concluded that it COULD NOT. John, I agree with you.
Forensic Entomology deserves a standing alongside fibre and finger-print evidence.
All three are statistically-bound, ready for re-testing, and repeatable.
I only hope this bad case doesn't make good science un-acceptable in court.
It may do just the opposite, many people may see that it cleared an innocent man, but just as easily could have convicted a guilty one. It's a very valuable tool.