[mommya]

You guys really aren't putting any stock in this witness' testimony are you?

[It's me]

He does sound bad, doesn't he?

[Jaded]

It's an entertainment value.

[Freedom2specul8]

I got confused between what opinions witness considered..and the ones he actually used and feldi glossed over and ignored the answer. He did emphasize that bugology wasn't an exact exact science.. I take stock in what he said about mummification..and ants. But the ants hasn't been 'connected' to danielle yet. I have a phone call be back in a sec

[cyncooper]

You guys really aren't putting any stock in this witness' testimony are you?

?

[truth_seeker]

You guys really aren't putting any stock in this witness' testimony are you?

Why shouldn't he be considered credible?

Can you cite for me why one type of science, concerning criminal evidence, is more "credible" than another?

For example, is blood evidence more "scientifically" sound, than, say bug time of death evidence?

What is (only) important, is the credibility and weight determined, by the JURY.