Well, we disagree about drycleaning trip #1, certainly. Why would he readily remember trip #2 later and the police were able to confirm trip #2 and retrieve the clothes, but he never revealed trip #1. BTW, trip #2 seems to be his clothes from Friday night. He wanted them back Monday (same day service) but the cleaners said it was too late. He ran them over pretty much as soon as police left his house early afternoon of 2/4. Maybe he thought the police would find out what he was seen wearing Friday night and wanted to be able to present them to them, freshly cleaned?
What are your thoughts as to why he didn't tell police about calling his son about checking the house and subsequently telling them he found a door unlocked because *he* forgot to lock it?
It's a reach for anybody in any situation to answer after the fact why they did NOT do something. It would be more of a reach to speculate why someeone else did not do something.
If however your intellectual framework is to look at the situation from a presumption of innocence -- like a juror should and which I am trying to do -- then that is not even a question to be asked. Some such speculations might be considered in investigations and in general fact-findings, but even then be wary of them.
"The truth will out." Means to me that a concerted, conscientious and ethical search for the truth will have it in time, allowing Providence proper due. Generally I dislike negative specualtions such as this would be regarding Westerfield, but would -- I've obviously already employed them -- allow such negative speculations against actors who have demonstrated prior patterns of vile deception, wanton immorality, repeated theft or egregious violence.
It goes to learning how to swim with sharks. How do you id sharks in the first place -- by baiting them and see if they rise to it. IMO, the Van Dams are sharks. Contrast the Van Dams and the Smarts. (What a combination of names!)