Is it enough for LE to prove that the toy horse (or the sticker or duct tape, etc) came from the A home?
Well I think KC's fingerprints on the sticky side of the tape would be pretty damning... unless they are going with the imaginary nanny
forcing her to tape up her daughter. But we don't know about those yet.
I think a probable approach will be that "someone" with access to the house took her, her toys, her blanket, the duct tape, the garbage bag, and the sticker and whisked her away and then decided almost immediately to put her in KC's trunk, and then a few days later to get rid of her right near the home. I personally think that the Zanny Theory has been squashed by JB.
As to whether it can cause reasonable doubt because the perp might have worn gloves, well, yes, it could. Which is why, IMO, LE is trying to tie as many of the items back to the home as possible. LE has in their possession a person who had access to all of the above items, as well as access to the victim, a car with decomp in it, no alibi, a history of lying, and a possible motive. The defense would have to somehow float the premise that someone else could have had access to all these items even though there has been no evidence of anyone else. That is where doubt becomes less reasonable.
I was watching old episodes of NG on youtube today (yes, I apparently need to get a life like KC told me to
) and back when the gas can stealing was first noted, the "bombshell" NG was plugging was that perhaps a stranger stole the gas cans AND Caylee... then GA put that theory to bed with pointing the finger at KC. Too bad for JB, it was probably the only reasonable tie to stranger abduction that they had. :crazy: