Sometimes during the CA trial I would be momentarily swayed by Jose Baez's snake-oil-salesman ways. I know, I know, I am ashamed to admit it. But, during these times, I would almost immediately remember the duct tape, and I would realize I was being bamboozled.
In this case, the "duct tape" for me, is the Waterford text. The only connection Waterford has to this case is the statement given by DS that MP was going shopping. Michelle was not going shopping. She didn't have time, had no reason to, had other plans and places to go. Her credit cards and bank accounts show no purchases that we have been made aware of. She is on no store security footage shopping. And, most tellingly, her cell phone was not in Waterford when that text was sent. The text was sent by the person who took her, trying to buy time, in a panic, replying to a text from her brother. Then DS tells le that MP said she was going shopping, when we know she wasn't. This is a connection that is, IMO, undeniable, and if DS hadn't told le that there would be no connection. But, only the perpetrator would know about that text and only the perpetrator would have reason to validate it. To me, it is proof that not only did DS send the text (or have knowledge of it being sent prior to the police making this info known), but he lied to police regarding MP's plans, simply to give it credence.
Now, I, personally, believe the above to be true. Does that mean that DS disappeared MP? I am still searching for proof of that. But, I see no evidence that anyone else did.
