What really bugs me (ha-ha) about this is that entomology experts are primarily prosecution witnesses. So......it stands to reason that they want jurors to believe that it is a reliable science.
Yet in this case, prosecutors want to do a 180 degree shift even after 3.99 out of 4 forensic entomologists say nothing indicates the body could have been there as early as the first few days of February.
If the State assumes the truth of the science in convicting its citizens, it is very wrong to now disregard what the same "truth" tells them.
It is either good science or it isn't. If it is not, it should never be used by a prosecutor again, IMO.
Above all, it is extremely significant that Dusek brought Faulkner into the case to calculate and testify to PMI. If Faulkner had given him the dates he wanted, Dusek would have held him up as an impeccable expert. It is, in essence, a blatant misrepresentation or lie to now paint Faulkner, et al, as unreliable.
A point Feldman will hammer home to the jury during closing arguments. I am confident tha Feldman will tell the jury exactly how many times Faulkner has testified in other murder trials and helped win convictions.
Dusek made a distinction between the ability of the science to establish minimum times as opposed to actual times. I beleive that wil be the crux of his closing argument.
It is simply a single element, from among the several types of evidence.
Blood, DNA, Hair, Fiber, etc. could similarly be questioned, as to the "goodness" of the science.That issue has not yet been strongly argued, by either side.
After all of the wrangling over bug science, I'm not ready to put full weight on it, alone.