Secondly, why should a juror believe that one entomologist that differs is better than two that concur?
Remember that it's very likely that not one juror knows anything of the science beyond what they are hearing in the courtroom.
Lastly, do not forget that Feldman doesn't make the big bucks for nothing. This is his thing. For all you know he may damage Goff pretty well and may highlight the prosecution's depseration in the process.
Do not forget that Faulkner was HIRED BY THE PROSECUTION.
It is reasonable to assume that all the jurors don't see all evidence and experts the same. You act as if each will see it through your eyes. That's an unwise assumption, to say the least.
All we need to do to be reminded of poor decisions on Dusek's part is to think back on 180-Frank. I'm putting my money on Feldman's experts (one of which reported first to Dusek & Co.) looking best in the end.
I heard a guy from Hawaii was called to testify yesteday on one of these threads. I was searching for bug info and ran into a bug guy from Hawaii. I posted a question to posters what the bug guys name was and was told it was Goff. The name matched. Maybe I got something wrong.
Unless he give a logical reason its a waste of time. He will need to point out something both missed and show that had they knew it they would have made same conclusion he is.
Remember that it's very likely that not one juror knows anything of the scienc beyond what they are hearing in the courtroom.
Goff appears to be able to put stuff in lay terms, his book is proof of that.
Lastly, do not forget that Feldman doesn't make the big bucks for nothing. This is his thing. For all you know he may damage Goff pretty well and may highlight the prosecution's depseration in the process.
I don't see how the prosecution can avoid explaining the date of death stuff. If it were not explained to me I would see to it I were in a hung jury.
Do not forget that Faulkner was HIRED BY THE PROSECUTION.
OK.
It is reasonable to assume that all the jurors don't see all evidence and experts the same. You act as if each will see it through your eyes. That's an unwise assumption, to say the least.
I don;t know that the evidence will be. I'm speculating. My guess so far is that he will show why the process was slower in this case based on the weather conditions.
All we need to do to be reminded of poor decisions on Dusek's part is to think back on 180-Frank. I'm putting my money on Feldman's experts (one of which reported first to Dusek & Co.) looking best in the end.
Don't know what your refering to.