"hypotetical" Yeah, well... At this hour I do make my share of typos. I make them at all hours.
But, hypothetical or not, it might explain why the dog didn't create a stir when she left the house.
That could be. That is a problem, and I have no better resolution to it. Still, that's guessing. I don't think DW should be convicted on guesswork.
The defense contends that because the dog didn't bark, Westerfield didn't enter the house. But, the dog was downstairs when the father found the open door, and he carried the dog back upstairs and closed the dog in the bedroom with him.
There's another thing. That whole thing about the open door doesn't sit well with me. It sounds like a lie.
Why does the open door bother you? Are you thinking it was the mom or dad (or one of the guests) and they just used the door as a way to divert attention from themselves, by indicating that someone else entered the house?
And ... I sense you are leaning toward a non guilty - hmmmm?
I'm leaning the other way. The reason I am is because of the blood on his jacket, and the girl's fingerprints all over his motorhome - especially in his bedroom; as well as her hair which was found in his drain - pulled out by the roots. That doesn't sound good to me because several people pointed out that the motorhome was kept locked - and it was also noted that Danielle was not tall enough to open the door; so, had it been unlocked, she still would not have been able to get in by herself.