Ok, Thanks.. I'll go looksee ..here's the PH.
http://members.cox.net/jeneal/PrelimTranscripts/PVW311.txt
12 Q WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE HOW LONG SHE'D
13 BEEN DEAD?
14 A WITHIN A BROAD RANGE, YES.
15 Q HOW DID YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?
16 A WELL, JUST EVALUATING THE DECOMPOSITION AND
17 THE OTHER -- THE ANIMAL ACTIVITY, REALLY. IT'S
18 CERTAINLY CONSISTENT WITH THE THREE-AND-A-HALF WEEKS
19 SHE'D BEEN MISSING.
"Consistent with" in the PH -- well, gee, three and a half weeks is within six weeks to ten days, so yes, it's "consistent with". In the trial he said six weeks to ten days.
Kim, I'm starting to think you don't want the truth, don't want justice for Danielle, aren't concerned with whether the real killer has been caught. You just want to pick whichever bits out of all the testimony fit your personal theory (which happens to be Dusek's espoused theory). So have at it. I'm done with you now. Talk to people who subscribe to Dusek's theories. Leave me alone. Guess I'm getting tired and testy, too.