The term "shortage of flies" was incorrect. I should have said, the anamoly of the dating of the fly infestation v. the date when she went missing.
Thinking like a juror, the "official" evaporation explanation would strike me as very weak because I suspect the fluid would be more gooey and ought to leave some residue. Plus, if the fluid should be under the body and the cavity was still moist, it seems there ought to be some moisture there as well.
IOW, if I were a juror I would dismiss that explanation and assume that either a predator did move the body without leaving any obvious tracks or that the real perp took the already decaying body and planted it there.
I would like to see answers to your questions also!!! It is so very troubling that the jury can't ask their own questions at trial.
Well, if a scavenging animal moved the body, it couldn't have moved it THAT far. And if the animal moved the body AFTER the fluids had drained from it... well, there would be a trail of hair and some of that viscous fluid... and the body would have fallen apart, much more than just a missing foot. So I don't think it was moved by an animal. A juror might think so, though.