If so, how do you explain the physical evidence in the RV and on Danielle ?
DW certainly did NOT dispose of the body, so perhaps it would be best to start at Feb 16 with the body disposal, and work BACK!
Why so certain the expert is correct ?
If, in fact, DW didn't dispose of the body, that would mean someone else did (unless you believe she wandered off into the desert and died). Now, one theory would be that the person who dumped the body was DW's confederate in crime. But, I think a simpler and more likely assumption would be that the someone is the real killer, and the physical evidence has other explanations (e.g., an attempted frameup).
By the way, I seem to recall one of the victim's parents' circle of decadent friends is a retired detective and thus wise in the ways of murder investigations (not to suggest anything, of course).
"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left -- no matter how improbable -- must be the truth!" -- Sherlock Holmes
Since DW couldn't have dumped the body, DW didn't do it. Which means, like it or not, LE falsified evidence!
It's not so improbable, really. It is certainly consistent with the motivation LE displayed when deciding which evidence to look at and which to ignore. They wanted him found guilty, and they made sure he would be convicted!
A Sprinkle and a smear, and a promise not to tell. They probably thought they were being secret heroes.
Why so certain the expert is correct ?
Why do you think they call it expert testimony? Why are you so sure the DNA testimony is correct?