[Freedom2specul8]

The first bug guy ADMITTED that he was not a pathologist, but offered his opinion wrt:to the body's condition. Why wouldn't the second bug guy be any different?

http://video.uniontrib.com/news/metro/danielle/transcripts/20020710-9999-pm1.html question of bug doc by dusek Q SO IF THE BODY HAD MUMMIFIED, THAT WOULD AGAIN PUSH BACK THE INITIAL TIME WHEN THE BUGS COULD HAVE GOTTEN ON THE BODY.

A IT COULD HAVE AFFECTED A BIT THE ABSOLUTE NUMBERS OF INSECTS ATTRACTED TO THE BODY. AND PARTICULARLY FLIES.

Q THE MUMMIFICATION, IF IN FACT THAT WAS A CONDITION OF A BODY, THAT WOULD EXTEND OR -- EXTEND THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME THE BODY WAS EXPOSED.

A YES.

Q WAS THIS BODY MUMMIFIED?

A I'M NOT A PATHOLOGIST. BUT IN MY EXPERIENCE, THE BODY WAS RATHER DRY, PARTICULARLY THE EXTERIOR SURFACE, THE SKIN

[rolling_stone]

He did go into detail and Dusek couldn't get anywhere with him. The body ws not mummified all over and not unusual. they talked about mummification & putrification forever. Dusek struck out again and again. I played a tape of it over and over again, stopping and repeating important parts and that is the conclusion I reached, that Haskell knew his stuff. Are you watching ctv now he is on.