I've been thinking about my first reply which said "no way" could Dusek bring in this type of testimony. I'd like to modify that he maybe could, but I don't see how he could ever represent to a jury the missing item was for sure the source.
It's a good question, but clearly something left those fibers (both orange and blue) on and near Danielle, and in DW's environment.
On cross-examination, defense lawyer Steven Feldman grilled him about the way he calculated the day-to-day temperatures which dictate how fast an insect grows. Goff explained the process, but then Feldman handed him a pocket calculator and asked him to review his findings. With the courtroom completely silent, Goff added rows of figures and discovered his errors. Feldman asked him if the mistakes effected the accuracy of his estimates and Goff said they did. Several jurors picked up their notebooks and began writing rapidly.
A few minutes later, under questioning by Dusek, Goff said the slip ups made little difference in the ultimate conclusions. And as he had earlier in his testimony, he emphasized to jurors that his was an extremely narrow study of bugs, not a "stopwatch" for determining time of death.
"We're establishing a minimum period of time the insects have been feeding on the body," said Goff.
"Are you establishing a time of death?" asked prosecutor Jeff Dusek. "No, that's outside our area of expertise," said Goff.
I agree with you Cyn. IF the police had found what it was, either we would all be on the same side of this case, or DW wouldn't even be on trial.
Many of us suspect they did find what it was, but since they already had committed to DW, didn't want to have it in evidence as it would clear him.
Ask yourself some other questions
Where is the BACKPACK found by Danielle's school?
Why did police never let anyone know if it was or was not Danielle's?