Does this make any sense?
The prosecution is suggesting mummifaction took place prior to the disposal of the body, which inhibited the blowfly activity from beginning until the middle of February. Problem is, that the prosecutor's curren t theory depends on the body mummifying in the first 2-3 days Danielle was missing, because otherwise, Dw couldn't have disposed of the body since he was by then under constant watch by the cops. If blow flies are attracted to fresh 'meat', possibly even within 1/2 hour, why would they wait almost two weeks to start laying eggs in Danielle's body?
It would seem very logical to me that if the body was partially mummified prior to being exposed at Dehesa Road, someone other than DW disposed of the body around the middle of February, eliminating DW as a suspect (at least as a perp acting alone) in the murder of Danielle.
All in all, the anthropologist will end up being a big plus for the defense in this case. Don't be misled by the answers being given on direct examination because Dusek is being very care to elicit only the answers he wants. Feldman will tear Dusek apart in his cross-examination and the witness will not make much of an effort if any to defend Dusek with his answers. BTW, your comment makes sense, unlike the prosecutors theory when applied to the evidence.
That isn't what I heard. He seemed to indicate that the conditions of the nearby hot road, plus the small body, plus the other surroundings made "instant" (24hrs) mummifaction possible. I don't recall him saying anything about mummification beforehand but I did miss some of it.
Did I miss something?
I don't recall the prosecution suggesting that she had been placed there later. They seem to be sticking with the 2/1-2 time period. In fact, wasn't it one of their witnesses who brought out the fact that the drag marks were such that their was no way to be construed as a body being dragged. The drag marks were more in line and size with an animal having pulled out insides then dropping them and dragging them.