ABSTRACT
Forensic entomologists debate the exact nature of what it is they provide to a death investigation by analyzing insect evidence. Null hypotheses entertain the possibility that nothing has happened, that a process has not occurred, or that change has not been produced by a cause of interest. Null hypotheses are reference points against which alternatives should be contrasted. A genetic example of a null hypothesis is the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. The statements forensic entomologists make about “what we do” follow the same phrasing structures and conditions as null hypotheses in biology. There are important ramifications of addressing “what we do” in forensic entomology as a null hypothesis instead of the hypothesis. Insect activity on and around the decedent inside the tent was extensive, with larvae and pupae observed throughout. Admitting uncertainty and limitations in a forensic entomology report or testimony is honest and it fulfils our obligations as scientists, as expert witnesses, and our legal obligations.
