Instead, the van Dams think Danielle's kidnapper climbed the steps to her second-floor bedroom – decorated in pink and purple – after everyone was asleep. (source)
All this time I was under the impression that the child had a bedroom that was easily accessible to the outside, on the main floor perhaps, or with a door leading directly out of her bedroom. Reading this, I realize that if she was taken, it most likely was someone who (a) had access to the rest of the house, and (b) someone who might know where to find the child's room.
Who had access to the house, if, as it's claimed, the garage door was locked? Which begs the question, was the garage door locked for the duration of the "party", or did someone perhaps need to use an indoor restroom? If so, it would of course depend on the "activities" going on in the garage as to whether or not anyone would even notice the absence of one person. The child could have been carried to a nearby vehicle and stashed there until the person said his/her goodbyes and calmly drove away.
The article is also full of the misdirection and untruths by the van Dams early on, like the "we were just sleeping" story. But mulling over it, I did find some information there that I hadn't seen elsewhere.
Now that we have settled the fact that the neighbor was never in the house (at least by invitation), I would like to see your source for the information about any sort of a party going on in the garage that night, or that anyone was in the garage at all.
I also saw something in the article that you posted that confirms one of my main fears:
"Danielle van Dam is still missing, but by yesterday the public's attention was shifting to the girl's parents, as accusations and talk-radio diatribes threatened to drown out news of the investigation."
Danielle is being forgotten by averyone caught up in the romours and allegations.
Sick.