[clearvision]

John,
I know you were pretty cynical of Goff's testimony I just finished rereading and was suprised at how little he really said.
It seems to me that he never really narrows down a TOD. He says he calculated 2nd, 9th and 12th using different sets of data and temperature locations. He picks on Faulkner's and Haskell's testimony. He slams his own field by saying they can't calculate TOD, only insect lifespan. At the end of direct Dusek does not even ask him for his estimated time of death, he just asks:

BY MR. DUSEK:
Q BASED UPON YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THE INSECTS AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIELD, ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY THAT OUR VICTIM DANIELLE VAN DAM WAS NOT DEAD FROM FEBRUARY 1ST THROUGH FEBRUARY 12TH?
A NO. I WOULD DEFER THAT TO A PATHOLOGIST OR FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST. MR. DUSEK: THANK YOU, SIR.

So basically all Dusek gets is he cannot say she was alive, not a statement that she was dead on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th or even before before any particular date. I was sort of amazed after the press coverage and such that this is all he got....

[John Jamieson]

I was critical of Goff during the testimony, but I forgave him when I reread his testimony carefully. His method was probably more complete and more inclusive than the first guy's. His math errors were trivial. It was fun watching Feldman kill him, but in reality Goff ending up basically reaffirming the first two bug guys, that DW couldn't have done it (atleast alone). Feldman should have concentrated on that point more. Dusek wasted his money.