Which “investigators” are we speaking of? They are supposed to stick to facts, not insert conjecture.
If Kaarma’s open garage door at 1 am is “bait” for a criminal, then all garages with doors left open are also “bait”. The absurdity only grows from there. No investigator can determine that any open garage door constitutes “bait”.
Again, come up with a wholesome reason for Dede to enter that garage at 1 am, please.
“Which “investigators” are we speaking of?”
The detectives and the investigators employed by the prosecution.
“They are supposed to stick to facts, not insert conjecture.”
Nonsense, all investigations involve conjecture. It is for the courts to determine fact.
“If Kaarma’s open garage door at 1 am is “bait” for a criminal, then all garages with doors left open are also “bait”.”
Non sequitur. You are selectively narrowing the evidence you present to support your contention, rather than citing all the evidence that jurors and investigators used to come to their conclusions. This demonstrates you are not making an impartial argument, but already have a foreordained conclusion, and are cherry picking to support it.