My personal opinion is this water report doesn't hurt the SA in any way. It does show that the area was MOST likely full of water during the time period in question which made it inaccesible for appropriate and thorough searching for the BONES of a small child.
In addition, MOO, just because the bag with some of the remains ended up in the high area (Area A) that is not submerged during the time period in Question - from June to December - it does not mean that they started there and stayed there! Items in water do float and they do tend to come to rest on the highest point. We have reliable reports (again MOO) the bones were dispersed over a wide area perhaps from animal activity. The same could hold true for the bag - it, too could have been dragged before being 'opened' . We simply do not know and will never know. We can only surmise with the information given through natural clues:
plant growth through bones
soil dispersion from flooding
leaf and fauna detrious from natural seasons on top of the bones
lack of tissue left on the skeletal remains
I am sure there is more I have forgotten - but I am sure you get my point. I simply do not see how any of the above are 'junk' science. I realize they do not place KC at the scene but nor can anyone place little Caylee in anyone else's care for 31 DAYS so some things must be inferred from common sense and evidence......
I do see, however, WHY JB wants to discredit RK and came out with all these addl searchers that searched the area thoroughly on their own. This report only serves to make those folks look foolish in my eyes - MOO.
In addition, MOO, just because the bag with some of the remains ended up in the high area (Area A) that is not submerged during the time period in Question - from June to December - it does not mean that they started there and stayed there! Items in water do float and they do tend to come to rest on the highest point. We have reliable reports (again MOO) the bones were dispersed over a wide area perhaps from animal activity. The same could hold true for the bag - it, too could have been dragged before being 'opened' . We simply do not know and will never know. We can only surmise with the information given through natural clues:
plant growth through bones
soil dispersion from flooding
leaf and fauna detrious from natural seasons on top of the bones
lack of tissue left on the skeletal remains
I am sure there is more I have forgotten - but I am sure you get my point. I simply do not see how any of the above are 'junk' science. I realize they do not place KC at the scene but nor can anyone place little Caylee in anyone else's care for 31 DAYS so some things must be inferred from common sense and evidence......
I do see, however, WHY JB wants to discredit RK and came out with all these addl searchers that searched the area thoroughly on their own. This report only serves to make those folks look foolish in my eyes - MOO.