One thing I learned from this trial is that forensic entymology is not the exact science we have been led to believe it is, for instance in movies ("Silence of the Lambs") or TV (CSI). All it can provide regarding time of death is a range of possibilities.
The DNA evidence, OTOH, was overwhelming.
Leaving arguments about this case aside, how have you learned that forensic entomology is not an "exact science?" Do you say that because the third entomologist appeared on the scene and disputed the timing? Dig into his testimony and that of the other entomologists more deeply. Study outside this case to see what you can make of all their testimony. Just as the jury in the OJ case did not understand genetics and DNA, this jury did not understand entomology, in this entomologist's opinion. The OJ case even had the defense calling their own "expert witness" (the Chinese fella who also whored for the Clintons in the Foster case) to confuse the jurors about the DNA evidence.
The third entomologist in this case was paid to create smoke and mirrors, and he did his own profession and Justice a great disservice in the process. Find other entomologists with knowledge of forensic entomology, and ask them what they think of the evidence presented in this case. You may be surprised with the opinion you find.