Another OUCH!
The expert conceded that a well-trained, well-maintained K9 trained to detect human decomp would not mistake those items in the trunk for human decomp.
Does Baez at all think through things before placing these experts on the stand? Are these experts at all trying to look at the evidence from different points of view? If they were, it seems to me they'd be ready with answers to refute what JA says and back what they say or at least not totally undo their claims. These experts aren't stupid but they sure aren't appearing to be well-thought out.
Shouldn't a scientist, much less someone who is going to be on a witness stand of a murder trial, be able to refute and/pr explain varying points of view? If I know why something is true, I need to also know why it isn't.
To me, all of the DT's experts seem to react as if there was only one to view the evidence in this case, the way the DT wanted them to. It HAD to occur to them "hey, the state is going to look at this differently, how do I plan to counter their questions?" Did no one prep the DT experts?