[bvw]

There it is: that a presumer of guilt speculates that Westerfield once, by abnormal circumstance, has left the door open and is exceedingly unlikely to have ever left the door unlocked on any other occassion. A presumer of innocence would say that the prosecution has not established that Westerfield always left the door locked, that there were other occassions that the door was unlocked and that the testimony supports that supposition.

[cyncooper]

So my memory of the neighbor's testimony is correct? It was stated that DW left the door to his RV unlocked, implication being that is how he always left it. I was just pointing out that has not been established.