I believe this will be one of the key pieces of circumstantial evidence for the prosecution. It shows that the accused recognized that there was a smell of decay in the car that needed to be explained away. It refutes GA's comment that "the person in the trunk of my granddaughter's (sic) car was NOT MY GRANDDAUGHTER!" If there were a dead body in KC's car and she found it, I can only assume she'd freak out and call police. If the SOD body was gone and only the stench remained, I assume she'd react the same way. Her reaction can only mean one thing - the smell could now be smelled outside of the car and she needed a plausible excuse for Amy since she needed Amy get gas cans and gas for her and drive her to her car. Since the prosecution can show that there were no remains of any animal plastered to the frame of her car, what can the defense say to counter? I think this tidbit is especially damning.