We need to reread the transcript. As much as My impulsiveness is wanting me to..I don't want to. Would you?
The two of you asked the same question. I don't want to bother looking for it in the trial transcript, but I believe I can convince you using logic that I am correct. Keep in mind that I did preface my remark with an assumption. If that assumption is not true, there is no point for me to make; but assuming the assumption is true, here goes.
1. If mid-Feb was the latest date that the body was deposited, should have been additional insect evidence present if the body was disposited at a time much closer to the date when DW was being trailed. None of the bug guys (except for the last prosecution expert, who Feldman shot down) could explain why there was only a single generation of the one fly or the absence of the particular beetle if DW had actually deposited the body in early February. In fact, they were all puzzled.
2. If the mid-February date was the latest time the body could have been deposited, that means it could have been deposited earlier than that. If this was the case, all Dusek would have had to do was simply say all it proved was she was deposited at the site prior to mid-February. Early Feb is before mid-Feb, so why did Dusek have to work so hard to try and convince the jury to ignore the bugs. This, by itself, would have been no help to the defense.
3. Prior to trial, Haskell was quoted in a SD paper that his evaluation and findings related to the bug evidence would be more helpful to the defense than the prosecution. Clearly this can only mean that his testimony would be that mid-February would be the earliest time at which the body was deposited. Haskell was also quite clear that he determined the body was deposited sometime between Feb. 14 and 16. One could not reasonable conclude this to mean that mid-February was the latest date. One could only conclude that Haskell's testimony was that Feb 14 was the earliest date; not the latest.
4. Don't you remember all the discussion about Dusek being in a bind of having to narrow the date of the body's exposure to the bugs to a time much closer to Feb 4 or 5? Why would he have such a problem if mid-Feb was merely the latest date?
5. It was also the absence of beetle larvae that most puzzled the bug guys; that and no second generation fly larvae. If the body had been deposited with a time consistent with DW's guilt, beetle larvae would have to be present at the time the body was discovered. It wasn't.
6. If the bug testimony could only establish the latest date, there would have been no reason to even have the testimony. Dusek did all he could to create confusion about the bug evidence. He had to, because if the bug testimony as given by the bug guys was accepted as fact, which it should have been since it was uncontroverted, the jury would have been certainly acquitted DW. If the jury actually ignored or greatly discounted the bug evidence because of a simple, but tragic misunderstanding of whether the mid-Feb date was the latest rather than the earliest date the body could have been deposited, DW has possibly been a victim of a grave miscarriage of justice. The jury may possibly have confused 'length of time' with 'latest date'. Please note my inclusion of the words 'if' and 'possibly'.