There were a lot of motions filed from the defense before the trial suggesting that RZ was actually buried in the clothes she was wearing. I understand this was to overcome the part of the complaint when it stated AS had undressed RZ.
My understanding then was that this aspect was modified in the plaintiffs updated complaint, and they removed the suggestion she was undressed by AS, as they then believed she was naked already, due to showering, when confronted.
Personally, I am at a loss as to why this aspect would be thought to be relevant to the jury, as I understand the clothes that were not returned to the family, that were suggested as her last worn garments, (that now appear in the photograph presented at court apparently) were never returned to the family either.
Because they were never returned, they assumed AS had taken them, which is understandable IMO...
Just my opinion....