When I first heard that the defense wanted the lesser charge thrown into the mix - I thought it was a no brainer - she was kidnapped as part of her killing - that a little kid could not consent - but I just saw this - and have reconsidered..........
MR. BOYCE: AND SHE COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE ROOM, TOO, IN HER BEDROOM. THERE'S BLOOD IN THE BEDROOM. I MEAN THOSE ARE -- I'M NOT SAYING WE ARE RELYING ON THOSE THEORIES, BUT THOSE ARE CERTAINLY THEORIES THAT ARE OUT THERE. AND THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE AS TO WHERE, WHEN, OR HOW SHE WAS MURDERED.
If you think DW did it - he could have killed her in her room - and the prints/hair/fiber in the MH could have been from another time as well. They really have not shown where she was killed. So if he killed her first - in her room - then just took her dead body to dispose of - there really was no kidnapping - was there? Just thinkin.
Expanding on my thoughts from above.....Maybe there are jurors who think that he did do it - but that the stuff in the MH is old - like the defense suggests - since the dogs did not hit there - maybe they don't buy an innocent explanation - but maybe they even think he had her in there on some prior occasion to try to get close to her - just let her look around or maybe something more sinister - like molest her - anyway - since the dogs did not hit - they could believe that she was in there sometime in the past - AND - they could still think he killed her - the two are not mutually exclusive - are they. That's why I am thinking they should offer the lesser charge.