[Freeda]

I wish I had heard the testimony of the crime scene investigators who first responded to the scene, to know what they said about the state the skull and other remains were in, insofar as whether they were stuck in the ground/muck or not, vs. lying loose and freely on the ground or in the bag; since Kronk's account (at least, his first one) was clearly stating that the skull was loose and rolled out of the bag.

So, I wonder if Jeff Ashton's questions to the defense's botanist (and perhaps to other witnesses?) describing the skull as being stuck in the ground when it was discovered were in error as to this point (the significance of which is to dispel the defense's theory that the remains had been moved; and, thus, that someone may have tampered with them, placed the duct tape etc - to add confusion and uncertainty about what actually had happened). If Ashton was in error in framing his questions with this description (ie, in stating that the skull was partially embedded in the muck when found), I'm surprised that the defense didn't catch this and object, if there was no evidence on which that question was based. My brains are getting exhausted from trying to digest all of the minutiae, and wondering whether there is just one small point that might clear up all of the confusion so we can know, for sure, exactly what happened. I suspect we will never know, for sure, which is part of what I think makes this case so intriguing, and also sad. Still keeping an open mind, but it still seems to me at this point that there are only two viable explanations, both bad for Casey.