[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Freeper wonders remembers this being mentioned in testimony.

I was trying to think like a juror. IMHO, every anamoly ought to have a simple, natural and straightforward explanation. Something like this would scream to me if I were on the jury, i.e. there must be an explanation.

If I were sitting there, I would assume that the body had to have released fluids and since there were none where she was found, the body had to have been moved.

If I were leaning to a "guilty" verdict, I would have assumed that the body was moved by a predator, perhaps drug out of a garbage bag or something.

If I were leaning to a "not guilty" verdict, I would have figured she was killed, decayed elsewhere and then moved by the perp.

I might also figure the absence of fluids would indicate that the body wasn't "there" opened-up for very long - thus explaining the shortage of flies.

I wish the jurors could chat on a forum with the witnesses to get their questions answered... sigh

[Jrabbit]

It would be so interesting to know what questions the jury has! I know we've had thousands. At least, I have!

[John Jamieson]

Remember Damon's wild trip through the desert beginning before sunrise and passing by Dehesa on Feb 16th? On Feb 18th he told searchers to please look closer to San Diego. The body was dumped around the 16th in a place that was not really a good hiding place near a golf course and casino. Like it was supposed to found pretty soon .... need the insurance money? Why did he get rid of that van? Needed a new BMW to help ease he's pain?

[wonders]

Actually, there was no shortage of flies.

IIRC, the possible explanation offerred about the lack of fluids was, I believe, evaporation. I'm not sure who offerred that possible explanation (Haskell?), though.

I do recall that either Faulkner or Haskell or both went back to verify with the ME and/or LE that there was no indication the body had been moved, as in "are you sure the body wasn't moved?"

It's good to try to think like a juror! If I were a juror, I'd be going nuts with questions which were not addressed in the trial. One being "Where are the PJ fibres? Did you even find them in her bed? You sure didn't find them on her body!"

[bvw]

1. If I were leaning to a "guilty" verdict, I would have assumed that the body was moved by a predator, perhaps drug out of a garbage bag or something.
2. If I were leaning to a "not guilty" verdict, I would have figured she was killed, decayed elsewhere and then moved by the perp.

Excellent example of the difference between presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt. You, as a juror, have sworn an oath to apply presumption of innocence. In honor of that oath -- even if it disagrees with your gut feeling, your intuition, however strong those may be -- you must apply the second, the one that best supports a presumption of not guilty.

[Dave_in_Upland]

I wish the jurors could chat on a forum with the witnesses to get their questions answered... sigh

With no lawyers around to muddle the facts, and interested parties are allowed to lurk.