My justification:
Prosecution proved (kinda) that Danielle had been in the MH. All defense needed was to have someone show that Danielle was in the MH prior to 02/01. PROSECUTION DID IT FOR THEM. The dogs not hitting on the MH was proof Danielle had not been in the MH for a long time. Therefore, SHE HAD BEEN IN IT, but not for a long time.
Others will say, What about the DNA on the jacket.
I think the jacket DNA had to be planted. The police saying the reciept was WRONG as an excuse for why the Jacket was actually at the Dry Cleaners on 01/26 (?) and the receipt showed that probably didn't fool the jury.