I feel like no matter the subject, be it something you love or are very invested in, where broken down to go over some very specific (unrelated) facts at great length, some boredom is normal. Especially if it is an area you aren't usually interested in. I've gotten very invested it watching this but dry testimony about chemistry loses me. The science is VITAL to making a case but it's not something that makes a big emotional connection with the jury. The conclusions drawn do but how they got there can be tedious. The testimony about the decomposition was very important.
If I understood, the prosecution normally wouldn't have so much time to bolster an expert wit complete with 20 minute video but this was another mess up by Biaz?
Could the prosecution have said when they first called him that both dogs worked on the scene? Might have helped jurors understand why the history of both dogs was so extensive.