While I have to consider that the possibility is there, I have to agree with Nathan Milne on this. You really can't say, one way or the other. It's a bit of a long bow to draw.
Yes, there
may have been tissue damage there which attracted more insects, but that's pure conjecture.
And even if there WAS tissue damage, due to the decomposition it can't be determined if that tissue damage occurred pre-mortem or post-mortem. That too is pure conjecture, unfortunately.
So while it's tempting to propose facts that may fit a preconceived theory, that can't really be done based on the autopsy findings. I know it's very frustrating that Milne was so non-committal (I also found it frustrating), but that is his role - he can only report on evidence and facts - not conjecture.
Unfortunately.....