Replies

All discussion of this was about 1. to show that bugs didn't eat from the inside out from an early date and 2. to explain why the moisture content was a factor in why the bugs didn't attack the head... and 3. Prosecution forced the defense witness to admit that this wasn't a normal case and that he'd never seens a body like danielle's before..especially before the body had been removed from the crime scene. and 4. the aneorbic and aerobic bacteria, while not mentioned today did play a factor in her decay..you'll have to read past discussion with regard to the bacteria.

The witness had early replied he had never seen/heard of evidence that mummification like this would impact access to body. Only when Dusek narrowed him down with selective questioning to personal observations did he then have to admit he had not (to personal observation). An expert would be familiar with many other cases and research in the field and rely on personal observation. Those fiber and DNA experts are in trouble if they have to personally observe a similar case before to make they can state there expert opinion.