I thought that's what you might have been getting at, but, as I said before, the "pizza gang (four, non resident adults)" were nearly the last visitor's to be in the VD home, prior to print dusting and there was not a trace of any of those four, anywhere in the house. Also, while DW's MH had many prints lifted from it, none of his own showed up in the area that was dusted. We know he was in his MH that weekend and because of all of the other prints lifted, we know he didn't wipe the surfaces clean of prints.
It just goes to show how many prints are smeared to the point of being unusable for identification purposes. It's certainly possible that there could have been other, smeared, prints of Danielle, that couldn't be identified.
Not to say it's not possible, but frankly, I find it easier to accept that she could have ventured into the MH on a previous occasion, than to imagine that, if DW had her held captive there, that he would have left her hands free to be touching anything. That's JMO though and it's apparent that you already have a well established opinion of your own.
Doesn't that boost your doubt that Danielle could have been in RV for a few minutes playing ? If four visiting adults left no prints how did one visiting girl leave any ?
Also, while DW's MH had many prints lifted from it, none of his own showed up in the area that was dusted. We know he was in his MH that weekend and because of all of the other prints lifted, we know he didn't wipe the surfaces clean of prints.
How do we know he didn't wipe some surfaces ?
Not to say it's not possible, but frankly, I find it easier to accept that she could have ventured into the MH on a previous occasion, than to imagine that, if DW had her held captive there, that he would have left her hands free to be touching anything.
I find it more likely that he didn't know she touched the cabinet in the bedroom than she happened to leave one and only one print while playing.
That's JMO though and it's apparent that you already have a well established opinion of your own.
My opinion is two days old and was based on the responses you and others have given me so far regarding the physical evidence. I cannot reconcile the probability that three (maybe four) remote things happened on a visit to play. The lack of fingerprints, the presence of a hair with a root in the trap and blood or blood like substances present. The chances of that occuring while she played is extremely remote. My guess less than 1% chance.
Add to that the defense has not presented one person/kid that can vouch than any child was ever in there and I cannot do anything but accept that she was in the RV right before she died.
If you can give me a reason that makes sense why these things would happen in a short visit then maybe I would change my mind about the physical evidence. Even if one person came forward to testify that yes, the kids did sneak into the RV ? I would have evidence that contradicts what this physical evidence indicates.