I didn't say they need a new theory. They needed a theory that was plausible enough alongside the circumstantial evidence to lead to a prosecution for murder, not a nolle pros. They didn't even get into court. The truth is, if they had a murder case they wouldn't have asked for the NP.
The roommate said Heather told her that SM said he was leaving TM and wanted to see her and she decided to sleep on it. That's all we know. We have no idea what Heather was thinking and why, or why she was driving around, or who had control of phones and when.
Just because we can reason that they did it doesn't equal the state having a case that will stand in court. Obviously, even the state agreed on that and that's why they asked for the NP.
They've saddled themselves with a claim that she was both kidnapped and killed at PTL, and as you say, who's not going to notice that they changed their minds if they extend the crime beyond the landing? I don't know where this is going but it's been over a year and nobody is charged with murder.
Okay you said "I think the state needs to work on its theory." Above you also said they "saddled themselves with a theory." In my opinion, their theory was based on the circumstantial evidence they had. It is what it is. Whether she was harmed at PTL or Longbeards really isn't the issue. If a person or juror does not see the string of circumstantial evidence without every single piece filled in for them, then there won't be a conviction, no matter the charge. I'm just saying I don't know why the mention of Longbeards which seems to be an unknown evidentiary wise to the state comes to mind as the place something happened? It was a point on the timeline. That seems to be all they have on it. What is the difference PTL or Longbeards, if one believes and follows what was presented in court?