Remember I first and foremost concluded that the evidence found is not consistant with Danielle playing there at all. This is key.
I feel that even if she did play there before the evidence left is not from that visit. Second, even though the RV may have been opened there must be at least one child who was in there besides Danielle. The fact that the defense hasn't gotten at least one child who played there or one parent who saw kids enter there is telling to me that the defense is blowing smoke.
Once again, you are acting from a presumption of guilt. You are requiring the defense to disprove an assumption of guilt that you have made based on evidence in the RV. That is you
presume that the only way the evidence got into the RV was by some act undeniably and directly associated with murder.
In order to do that you must ignore the common sense explanation that Danielle played in the RV at some time or times unknown.
Unfair, and a violation of oath if you were a juror.