I could not find a single reviewer who accepted the claims of the papers. They were harshly critical of claims of intentional burial of the skeletons.
Berger et al.’s claims about the species have been disputed and their idea that it lived 2-3 million years ago was exaggerated by a factor of 10.
In the hard sciences such explanations that can explain everything and rule out no possible observations are usually considered empirically empty and worthless.
Such simple forgeries are commonly sold to tourists in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Eastern Europe, and Eastern Asia.
Nature appears to be deceptive. Are Darwinists bothered by such problems? Not at all.