Bringing my own post over from the other thread:
Where is the skull? IMO There's a reason skulls are generally found mostly intact and it's because they are not easily broken up. Even archaic discoveries generally include the skull, even a hundred thousand years later. An animal may fracture a bone to get at the marrow inside and in doing that digest some of it, but that seems less likely with a skull. The search team included archeologist and anthropologist who would know this also - would they have stopped searching "we found all we're going to find" without the skull?
Also, I don't believe teeth are easily digestible, so I would have thought that teeth and/or skull remains would be located.
I also wonder if they scouted for any large animal dens? Coyote, mountain lion, etc. Not as predators, but as scavengers.