I should have been more clear. I meant gloves that are made specifically for use on smart phones (the finger tips have a different material allowing the users to swipe on the screen). Keep in mind he wouldn't know if she had told anybody when she had arrived at the house . So basically you feel this is a premeditated murder. I'm not so sure unless the time was setup by WP for her to come by. He would need time to line up all his ducks in a row (the act of murder (clean up), the disposal (clean up), establish alibi, RP's friends house). The autopsy hopefully will reveal info as how she died.
ETA: I was typing this on my tablet at the shoe store while my daughter looked for shoes for her new job. I posted it accidentally and could not figure out how to edit my post.
I never meant to suggest he'd wear the "phone gloves", just that if he had rubbed off any prints he might have left on the screen (if he used it), I don't think you could tell that it had been wiped rather than the phone having last been used (by Robin) wearing that type of glove. It was farfetched, and I still may not be explaining it clearly. On my phone, two taps will take you to the list of recent calls. You wouldn't even need to wipe the whole screen, just two tiny areas, and I just tested my touch screen and my fingernail will also work to press "buttons", leaving no prints. It is all speculation and what-if. Just throwing things out to see what sticks.
I absolutely do NOT "feel this was a premeditated murder", I did not mean to suggest murder above other possibilities, and have offered as many accidental death scenarios as I have foul-play scenarios, and have further stated that, if it is found to be homicide, someone besides WP might be responsible.
The glove thing started after the discussion turned to the odd story he allegedly told about them falling asleep (which is just SO odd that I have to wonder if this part of the story is NOT exactly what he says happened, but rather information repeated by someone else who mis-stated the facts) and why he would need an "alibi" for the 15 minute block of time.
I suppose he might have been told by LE that both phones pinged there for that block of time and he needed to have an explanation for why he did not leave when she arrived, as reportedly advised to do by his attorney.
The suggestion had been made that he could not know who she might have called during the missing time* and had to cover himself "in case". I had suggested that IF he had 'done something' to her, he could have checked her phone to SEE who she had called (if anyone) prior to constructing this elaborate and seemingly unlikely scenario/alibi.
This raised the question of whether it would be clear to LE if he had accessed information in her phone, by virtue of his fingerprints on the phone, or after doing this, eliminating HER prints as well (by wiping the phone), which would raise suspicion. I have since simplified this to: if he had checked her phone to see who, if anyone, she had called or texted, he could simply have said he did so when he came home (why did he come home if she never called to say she had left?) and she was missing, in the hope of finding some indication of where she might have gone and who she might have gone with, explaining any fingerprints found.
*If he was, in fact, asleep, this is true. But if it is NOT true that he was asleep, and there was any sort of interaction between them during the time both phones pinged there, he'd have known if she had called anyone because he was right there with her.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
ETA: I was typing this on my tablet at the shoe store while my daughter looked for shoes for her new job. I posted it accidentally and could not figure out how to edit my post.