Actually, I don't consider myself enough of a 'bug expert' to judge the actual validity of one expert vs. another.
I think you can have 1 guy testify PRO and one CON and it means nothing. Experts can be found in every field to say what ONE SIDE wants.
The only way I can 'judge' the information/expert opinion of the forensic entomologists, is by OBSERVATION of CIRCUMSTANCE.
By this I mean that the Prosecution hired the 1st BUGMAN to investigate. When his conclusions did not support the prosecution's contentions the prosecution refused to put him on the stand, even though the 1st BUGMAN has been repeatedly used and trusted by the PROSECUTION.
It's like a BIG NEON SIGN over FAULKNER'S HEAD saying THIS GUY IS TELLING THE TRUTH!
Now the prosecution is trying to bring in a guy from Hawaii (sir, do you speak English / No......Well, that will work!)in an attempt to find someone unfamiliar with the environment so he can come to a different conclusion that will support the "STORY" the prosecution has been trying to SELL. How much more obvious does it have to get ?
Would the prosecution have to hire a bug expert from PLUTO to get people to see the TRUTH?
Tell me, if you would, what the statistical probabilities that a bug expert from an ISLAND with a TROPICAL environment and different species and varieties of insects would give a more ACCURATE rending of the investigation than a LOCALLY BASED EXPERT that was ON SCENE with the BODY and did his investigation?
BTW, You seem to be doing a good job sticking to your guns and defending yourself, and making others think and prove what they say. I always admire that, no matter what 'side' you think you are on. :)
I disagree. If there is a certain science that says the stages of fly development takes a certain time and this has been verfied over and over again I wouldn't think experts will opine a different outcome.
My questions are not that the experts are wrong. My questions are did they base it on an unsupported assumption. An assumption that fly's are as active in the desert as they are elswhere.
I believe the reported testimony on the issue was there feeling is that because the flies actually got to the body there is no reason to believe that they took a vacation from flying around. That assumption presupposes that the fly's got to the body on their own accord. I am wondering that in the case of a desert do the fly's get there via their own or do they get there via birds and other animals.
It isn't completely unreasonable to assume that fly's avoid the desert unless they are carried there by animals. A much more efficient means of coverage.
I am guessing where the prosecution is going by the reference to the activity of the animals at the scene and the questions of the bug guy about how the fly's got there (his answer was they were there).
Hawaii is an interesting place. Within each valley formed by the volcano there are places that have no outside access to other areas. Each area is like a little island.
A scientist familiar with Hawaii is not going to to assume that what takes place in one environment is true for another environment. I believe the prosecutor is going to provide two angles. First, he will make the case that the larva got there much later by animal activity (flies following the animals). Second, he will provide other evidence of the time of death (ie the amount of damage done by the animals, the condition of the body etc.)
He will give the juror's at least some basis to discount the bug guys and at the same time keep their other conclusions consistant.
My best guess.