we're running in circles.
originally the associated press (and many, if not all, local news sites) quoted law enforcement as saying there was 'evidence' of 'forced entry'. we've all seen the front door (without the ring/nest camera) and IMO there was no forced entry, at least at the front door. we'll never see the back door because LE wants to keep it that way (JMO).
it's obvious that NG left via the front door as blood was present, identified by DNA.
on thursday, the sherriff stated quite plainly that he didn't know where the rumors came from but 'forced entry' wasn't going to be discussed by them.
so...originally forced entry was a pseudo-fact according to the ap and many, if not all, local outlets. two days later pima county redacted that as "who said that? not us!"
1 - if the 'daily' caregivers are just that, they have a key. no need for forced entry, if some place the blame on he/she/them.
2 - if the 'daily' caregivers have keys, and wished ill intent, 'he/she/them' would intentially stage a 'break-in' otherwise all culpability would fall on 'he/she/them'
3 - if this was a random crime, why the heck would someone break into the back door (proof of forced entry) and risk exiting through the front door? why place risk of two sets of prints/entry-re-entry at both?
it makes no sense.