Nothing happened the night before. Evidence suggests that whatever happened, happened the evening HD dissappeared. The preponderance of evidence also suggests that neither BD or SA had anything to do with it. They are not nice people, but then neither is anyone else associated with this case. That doesn't make them guilty. At the end of the day if we are sleuthing this, we need to go on the evidence that is presented, not how we feel about the character of the people involved. You can't simply ignore evidence because it doesn't conform to your stereotype of the characters involved. A sleuther needs to go where the evidence leads them, not collect evidence to support a preconcieved scenario.
People are getting to caught up with what SA was doing that morning, when whatever he was doing appears to be irrelevant. He could have been clubbing baby seals for all we know, but whatever he was doing does not appear to be related to HD.
Pretty much all of the suspicion about SA comes from two sources:
1) The LE affidavits which are clearly constructed in order to get a warrant, not to demonstrate guilt. They selectively included evidence that suggested incrimination while ignoring evidence to the contary, the "deer in headlights" part is an example of this. LE are allowed to do this for an affidavit, as long as they don't actually lie. Which is why you need to take whatever is in them with a pinch of salt.
2) BD's rambling. Right from the start it has been obvious that BD is one of those people who takes a little bit of information and "fills in the blanks" with conviction. So much of what she has said has turned out to be not quite so, you can't take anything she says as actual fact - mostly it seems to be half a fact and the rest fiction, based on what she expects rather than what she knows. Her version of whatever needs to be taken with that same pinch of salt. You can't select some of what she says as fact and other things as fiction depending on whether or not whatever she says agrees or disagrees with your theory.
