Big surprise !!!!! He was honest and told them the truth; not what they wanted to hear.
So much for your paid expert theory. Using your formula, Faulkner is about as honest as you're going to find.
I assume he told them his OPINION. It seems like in the field of forensic entomology the "truth" about certain conclusions is a little shaky. Interesting article I just read....
>>>But more than other forensic sciences like DNA analysis, forensic entomology eschews straightforward analysis. For analysis concerning time of death — by far the most common task for entomologists in criminal cases — there are no mathematical formulas, no easy calculations. Accuracy depends on the scientist's ability to determine how a host of variables at the crime scene, including temperature, precipitation, time of day, humidity and geography, affected insect life. "If you are not a very imaginative person as a scientist, you won't go far," said K.C. Kim, a Penn State professor and certified forensic entomologist. The subjectivity of the field makes for what another forensic entomologist, Jason Byrd of Virginia Commonwealth University, calls "showdowns" — professional disputes over results. According to Byrd, haggling over conclusions has become increasingly common in the last three or four years as lawyers have become more familiar with the evidence and how to attack its credibility.<<<
Also from the same article...Could be the ticket right here.
>>>Dusek quizzed Faulkner about the impact of some sort of shroud in the Westerfield case. There is no evidence Danielle's body was wrapped in a blanket, but the prosecutor got Faulkner to admit that a covering, perhaps later dragged away by animals, might have skewed his results. <<<
I have a feeling that the jury will decide this case on other things other than bug experts battling each other over easily "skewed" results.