Wouldn’t LE have been obliged to check into any/all men who had been in the area at the times of these crimes? One would hope so.
IMO that would be impossible. How could LE even know every single solitary person in either one of these Apt towers for that specific time period, this was a complex of buildings, not just one building, they shared the pool.
And it would not be the first time a woman took a child to supply for her male partner.
If no resident or other person interviewed did not see any "service/maintenance/cablers" onsite who would tell the detectives so they would have reason to investigate him?
My curiosity on this case is still high, The article in post #580 is a wealth of new info but confuses me because I once took private investigator training in YYZ, our instructor was a retired undercover Toronto police officer from the division investigating her disappearance and he used this case as an example of undercover work done by LE.
They had a suspect, they heavily investigated him, and used undercover (UC) policing for months on him, which costs a lot of money, and to get undercover work approved by a judge, they had to have hard evidence on this suspect.
How this person became a suspect I have no information on, from what the retired UC/LE said they could not prove anything without finding Nicole first and the suspect was watched from afar for years that followed when the UC work was no longer funded, but privacy laws forbid LE to do much more than that.
This suspect/person had a graphic's type of company in the GTA and a "cabin" north of the city. That does not sound like C.Hoover but would not be the first time in this era that LE was taken off the true path of facts and truth and ignored details that did not fit the facts because they truly believed they knew the culprit.
I believed the instructor when he said his conversations with this suspect while he was undercover were chilling. In the last conversation he had with him, he brought up the disappearance and said LE thought he might know more, his reply to the UC/LE was "they cannot prove anything if they do not have a body". The UC/LE felt that was an admission, it was an odd response to the conversation.
I wonder what happened to this suspect? have they been totally exonerated now? was this C.Hoover or someone that knew C.Hoover?