ON a serious note, this witness did an awesome job explaining mummification. I was afraid they were not going to even discuss it.
~THIS IS THE NO SPIN ZONE~ :)
The prosecutor, more than likely hooked the jury when they started discussing how the skin can dehyrdate quickly on small children, within 24 hrs...it would be unappetizing to bugs until the skin is broken by animals, such as a rodent. He did a great job explaining the bacteria's role in decomposition as well. He makes it understandable as to why there was no bodily fluids under the body or settled underneath her. It explains a LOT. Feldman might recover, if he has a rebuttal witness that's an expert mummyologist too.
You have zero clue as to what
presumption of innocence means, and you
constantly build your arguements off of a presumption of guilt. Because of that constancy, what amounts to incessant malice-founded hectoring, your contribution to these threads borders on evil.
You have been a unwavering teacher of malice, of how to hold any little bit of twisted evidence, testimony, or prosecutorial misconduct against the defendant, you have trained those who might have taken your arguments to heart in any sense, how to do great evil in a trial, should they sit n a jury.