And just how is the prosecution going to do that?
They don't have a time of death. They have dog handlers inferring from the behavior of dogs, days after the event, the she probably got into a car. The defense will tear that to shreds. Hell, I don't even believe it now.
Laci was known to walk the neighborhood with the dog. I think a jury would give a lot more credence to a human eyewitness who can tell exactly what he/she saw and at what time of day than to whether a bloodhound wagged its tail. Think about Westerfield--even though he was guilty, the dogs were wrong.
At trial. Strange rules there, they don't have to limit their case to what you and I think we know about the case.
I believe they have enough evidence to show that Laci was dead at the time these sightings occurred. How about if they show that she was dead (you do believe she's dead don't you?), that SP transported her to the Bay and that SP was spotted at the Marina at a certain time? Spotted at the marina at a certain time that would eliminate the free time necessary for Laci to walk her dog.
Forget about the dog handlers, they won't be important to the case. The eyewitnesses who claim to have spotted Laci are not reliable. The teacher is iffy and says the dog looks like MacKenzie from a distance in the park, the Mitchells have her in a different neighborhood all together while looking for a mystery football game and Maldonando puts her back on Covena going in the opposite direction than what the Mitchells have said. There is no coherent pattern to the so called sightings.