Replies

If the jury took into consideration the mummification testimony, it could have outweighed the bug testimony. I'm 100% convinced that the bugologists did not have any experience with mummification. The guy from columbia missouri admitted it. The mummification hurt their testimony because they assume the skin isn't dried out when the bugs attack. (maybe the jury didn't consider the testimony about the mummification so I could be completely wrong)

I really don't know.

I've read a few things about Haskell, he really gets into his work. We has a farm where he leaves out pigs and other animals just to watch the bugs grow. He travels the US to do the same in different climates. Then there's the Body Farm in Tennessee that does the same, but with people.

It was becoming a fairly mature science. I find myself stuck in the trap: "But you'd think they'd have done that already.." Not a reliable place to be.

I've read about the wild crap that blood spatter analysts have done just to be able to say "Yes, we tried that". With all the weight that their testimony carries, you'd think (there I go again) that they'd already have tried somethign similar. And you just know that every single time they testify from here on out the defense will throw this back in their face.

On the up side, I'm almost sure that this February Haskell will be in San Diego with a few dead pigs.

If the jury took into consideration the mummification testimony, it could have outweighed the bug testimony. I'm 100% convinced that the bugologists did not have any experience with mummification.

Try this: kill a critter and put it out in the back yard.
Squeamish or no animals ? try a defrosted chicken.

Start your watch ...

What comes first ? Blo-flies or "mummification" ?