Replies

So on a forum, writing style isn't perfect! I'll be! You don't want me to start critiquing yours that way. I'm sure you are smart enough to know what I meant, even as poorly written as the sentence stands. I see you've really educated yourself on forensic entomology. It seems you don't want to know the truth, or to become better informed. You have it all figured out, and all that's left to do is to criticise writing style.

I do thank you for the correction, though, because it was a terribly written sentence. Let me try again. Did you realize that when answering questions concerning time of placement of bodies, forensic entomology is as reliable and exact as fingerprinting is for determining the presence of certain individuals at a location, or for determining what objects an individual has touched?

No, you didn't know that. I dare say all you know about forensic entomology (and I wonder if you even knew such a science existed prior to this trial) is the account given by the popular news media of an account given by a prosecutor of an account given by a careless, paid expert witness. That's pretty flimsy evidence on which to condemn the utility of a whole science.

An analogy to what happened in this case would be the following: A man robs a house, and the alarm system was tripped at 5PM, sharp. A man later arrested for robbing the house has a tight alibi for where he was from 4 to 5:30PM, and it was not at the house. His lawyers bring in two witnesses for the alarm company who state that the alarm was definitely tripped at 5PM. The prosecutor brings in an expert on electronic alarms who states that, although he knows of no actual cases, it is possible that there was a glitch in the clock, and that the alarm could have actually been tripped as early as 4PM, if the clock had some unprecedented glitch in it. That's not a very discriptive analogy, but that's roughly analogous to the "disagreement" among the three entomologists. Westerfield may well have killed the child, and maybe the other evidence proves that beyond a reasonable doubt, but it seems a stretch to say he put the body where it was found. I would more easily believe that the police screwed up in their surveillance of Westerfield long enough for him to have put the body there, than to believe the wild speculation for a buck of entomologist #3.

My defense here is not of David Westerfield, but against the ridiculous and uninformed attacks on the science of forensic entomology, all based on a shameless job taken by an entomolgist offered by a prosecution desperate to muddy certain troublesome facts.