[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.

[mommya]

dunno bout comparing bug evidence to blood evidence - but it seems that pathologists typically look to entemologists to help narrow thier times frames and more difinitively give a PMI.

[John Jamieson]

Not even Lisa Bloom puts any creditability in this guy, she said he's toast (and she's very antiWesterfield).

[the Deejay]

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


I don't know, but do you think the JURY will place much credibility in a witness that suggests she was dead about the middle of JANUARY?

Also, that the ants carried off the eggs of the flies/maggots and on that they will send a man to his death?

[ernie pantuso]

You are correct that the jury will determine the credibility. But, you are forgetting two things: 1. the STATE hired Faulkner specifically to establish TOD as 2/2-2/4. When he could not do that, they chose not to call him as a witness, and 2. the State is in REBUTTAL phase of case. This is not their case-in-chief. Obviously, they are worried about defense's bug experts or else they would not be trying to rebut(actually, confuse the jury)regarding time that Danielle's body was placed at Dehesa. If the State had such powerful witnesses/evidence to establish TOD in the 2/2-2/4 range, they certainly would have presented such during their case-in-chief.

I have been predominantly a lurker on these threads since the trial began(I have not formed an opinion re: guilty/not guilty), but it has been my observation that an overwhelming number of "DW is guilty" posters have never questioned the plausibility of any State hypothesis/theory/witness regardless of the weakness of same.