Yeah an "exact science" that all the "experts" who practice it disagree on it seems.
Yeah an "exact science" that all the "experts" who practice it disagree on it seems.
It would SEEM like that, when lawyers get involved. Remember in the OJ case, when the defense brought in that high-paid crackpot to cast doubt on DNA evidence. He may as well have been wearing a hat with a propellor on it.
In the case being discussed, the third entomologist (the one paid by the prosecution) never disagreed with the work or science of his colleagues. He simply stated that an obscure, freak condition might have occured that would make a one-and-a-million error in the calculations of the previous two entomologists. Even then, he could only stretch the date back to the very edge of doubt.
I'm telling you, the entomological evidence is hard to get around, and in my opinion the prosecution's entomologist did not do a good job at getting around it. I don't know his motives, of course, but I suspect that his conscience ought ot bother him for trying to haze the truth for money, when lives are at stake.
I concede that there is some serious evidence against Westerfield, and I'm not necessarily saying he's innocent. It's probably just as well for society that he is no longer a free man. But the timing of the dumping of the body is a big problem I can't get around. There is some other reasonable doubt in my own mind, but that one is the biggie for me.