"I would seem that way, but no. Blood pressure drops to zero upon death, so no bleeding. (Except in the case of post-mortem wounds made underneath the body, in which case there may be some blood leaking out due to gravity.)"
But there would be something under the body had she indeed been dumped at the site after death. During Putrification, the body fluids mass in the lowest portions of the body, as this state progresses - these same body fluids eat their way through the tissues onto the ground beneath the body, leaving alomst a brown/black oil subtance beneath the body. It would have been detected by the forensics specialists.
I think there was some mention of residue around the body.
The $64,000 question is why didn't the killer bury the body or dispose of it some other way (dumpster).
Yes, I agree, there should have been such. We called them "body slicks" but now I've learned in this trial that the correct term is "body silhouette".
Two forensic witnesses testified that there was none in this case: the ground was dry beneath the body. I think (but I'm not positive) that those two witnesses were the ME and Faulkner (the first forensic entomologist who testified). Both went to the site where the body was recovered.
Really strange. I don't recall what the explanation(s) for this was/were, but seem to remember something about the dry Santa Ana winds may have pulled any moisture into the air -- I have no experience with such an odd occurence. I think it's weird.
The ME testified there were no signs the body had been moved. I suppose if it had been moved after rigor mortis was set, and left in appoximately the same position in the new location, there would be no indication of it having been moved. (Any slight inconsistencies could be put down to animals pulling the body.)
The ME testified the body was in good enough shape to determine there were no bruises, so I presume it was also in good enough shape to determine via livor mortis that it had not been moved. If so, that sure whacks Dusek's theory that DW had the body rolling around in the storage compartment of his RV.
Also, Dusek's theory that the body mummified in the storage compartment sends me batty. You don't get mummification in an enclosed space like that!
Anyway, according the ME's testimony (and other forensic specialists, one being Haskell, I think), the face, neck and extremities were mummified (pretty typical), but the interior of the thorax and abdomen were not (also pretty typical).
I don't get why there was no "body silhouette" at all. Mighty strange. Unless, of course the body was moved after leakage of the fluids formed in the first stages of putrefaction. Or the body had been frozen soon after death (killing off the endogenous bacteria which account for much of the process of putrefaction, particularly in the abdominal area). Both possibilities seem really "out there" though.
One thing which struck me as REALLY odd: there was testimony (from LE I believe) that there were drag marks through the dry leaves, indicating the body had been dragged into position from the north. Well, if there was so much Santa Ana wind, why were the leaves still arranged so as to indicate the body had been dragged there? After either a month (according to Dusek) or after about two weeks (according to the forensic entomologists)? Hello?
It is my understanding that this drag mark is different from the small trail which was some feet from the body, which had some traces of the "brown/black oily substance" you described: that trail was determined to be too small to have been the body being dragged, and believed to be from an animal carrying away some entrails. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, and it's all the same drag mark with different interpretations by different witnesses! Well, back to bed for me.