I disagree. If there is a certain science that says the stages of fly development takes a certain time and this has been verfied over and over again I wouldn't think experts will opine a different outcome.
My questions are not that the experts are wrong. My questions are did they base it on an unsupported assumption. An assumption that fly's are as active in the desert as they are elswhere.
I believe the reported testimony on the issue was there feeling is that because the flies actually got to the body there is no reason to believe that they took a vacation from flying around. That assumption presupposes that the fly's got to the body on their own accord. I am wondering that in the case of a desert do the fly's get there via their own or do they get there via birds and other animals.
It isn't completely unreasonable to assume that fly's avoid the desert unless they are carried there by animals. A much more efficient means of coverage.
For someone who believes that a negative proves nothing (now you made me do it), you sure use a lot of double negatives in your sentences.
I am wondering that in the case of a desert do the fly's get there via their own or do they get there via birds and other animals.
Well, they could get there on their own. However, there is probably a shuttle service from the nearest oasis to the birds. Flies, of course, ride 2nd class, and larvae are definitely in the cargo hold.
Those that have more time can take the greyhound or other large animal at significantly reduced rates.
All departures daily, call early for reservations. :)
An assumption that fly's are as active in the desert as they are elswhere.
This also was asked of the various bug experts and answered.
That completely overwhelms the theoretical argument. Flies were definitely there ready to infest, as shown by the fact that they DID do so.
Therefore, the fact they did so only after Feb. 16 era (even the 14th or 12th dates were pushing it back till it screamed)...argues very strongly that the body was not there until the 13th-17th era.
In the teeth of all extreme posts by others, I simply say that it has not been SHOWN that DW is guilty of a crime, nor has it been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the death (as opposed to later mutilation and disposal) of Danielle was due to crime or foul play.
It is very likely that the person(s) doing the 2/16 disposal were working with, or identical to, the original actors and therefore NOT DW, but some stranger perp and/or Damon and someone working with him.
The twisted VD case probably results from one or more totally panicked people including Damon, who had the corpse of a young girl on their hands in very embarrassing circumstances, even if those did not add to murder.
If you note carefully, the Van Dams did not act hostile toward DW until many weeks after the supposed crime; only in the actual trial courtroom (not PH) did they look at him or act toward him as if they thought he had harmed Danielle.