Replies

I been studying the bugmen's calculations, comparing one with another. As we progressed from one to another each took into consideration MORE possible temperature sets, MORE experimental tests results from MORE researches and became MORE conservative in using the magot mass corrections. Each time the range of possible egg deposition became a little wider.

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.

I think ALL were intellicually honest and each felt a serious need to do the job right. My hat's off to them for their hard work and clear thinking. Anyone of them that could have made Dusek's case would have a job testifing for the prosecution for the rest of their lives. They applied the science as best it could be done and all came to the same conclusion. DW couldn't have done it alone.

JJ..This is a silly little example..but...stay with it for a moment..

Last night, our cat was out front...playing with a really large moth...about the size of a Hummingbird...this morning...I went to get the paper...and the moth was on the porch...mostly intact, but deceased...(if moths do that!)

Anyway....this evening, 12 hours later, when we were coming in from Dinner...I observed that a lot of ants were all over the moth..and when I kicked the moth off the porch with my shoe..there were many more ants under the moth...

Point being...the BUG GUY commented that only 1 ant was on little Danielle...just 1...but this scenario I gave on the moth...it goes the opposite way...the ants were increasing...as more and more arrived to engage the moth...

Since there was a significant portion of the body left at the Dehasa Road...with only the hands and face mummified...then many ants would have been present...

If temperature mattered, then there would have been NO ants, correct?

Or...if the body was refrigerated...and it dehydrated from the dehumidification which occurs in a refrigerated environ...then perhaps there was a very dried out corpse, which the insect population found little interest in?

Unscientific..yes...but based upon the moth observation described above...a few more thoughts to ponder

FDA

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.