CrimeSolver
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 521
- Reaction score
- 123
I don't see why not.
I don't why that would be particularly interesting. You're not suggesting they met their killer downtown? I mean, anything's possible, sure, but barring some extraordinary new info, the receipt just indicates that they bought something downtown. It does strain the tight timeline. They might thus not have had time to go to Yorkdale (or were they spotted there? I don't remember anymore).2. I do not see that the "new" info by LE about the bill from College and Yonge has been reabsorbed into any possible timeline.
I don't have the book at hand (it's at the cottage), but I don't recall being struck by a contradiction. I'm sure it's there if you say so, but there might be an innocent explanation for the discrepancy.3. We have an extraordinary relatively recent contradiction about drugs by sister of the victim in Hoshowsky and here on this thread if it is them.
Again, I'm failing to understand the gate's significance. First, which gate do you mean? The wooden one leading to a backyard, or the wire-mesh one that leads to the cement plant?4. The picture by SamIAm of the area of the crime scene area that shows the gate to me is mind-blowing. I encourage any new poster or viewer to compare with the Toronto Homicide site on the case.
True. Apparently it is now confirmed that the former "Sit 'n' Eat" is indeed the corner unit, not the one in the middle of the plaza, as indicated in the Star article. Sloppy reporting.5. Still useful to correct false info in media like the picture of DV diner in the Star video 2009.
I believe it was Linda who contributed to this thread, but maybe I'm too trusting.Aarrgh, yes strange I typed out the passage earlier and then "lost" it on my computer then came home to retype and yes those pages are missing now from the online sample. That is interesting in itself although they just cycle different sets of pages to sample I don't know. I don't own the book really should order it.
So to take my word for it for now basically Linda is saying one thing on WS another in Hoshowsky. The detail about the 20s family friend as having promoted the drug story is interesting. Yes there are any number of potential reasons and that is assuming we can trust Linda and Hoshowsky there. But it does go through my mind just to query who it is that came on WS - usually when someone says "I am an insider" they need to get verified by mods. And they departed quite a while ago as well.
It is something that could be significant though obviously even then maybe LE looked at it ages ago.
One thing "Linda" does say on this thread (again assuming it is her) is that friends of the girls split friendships afterwards and she thought it was because it was someone they knew. And she's implying that there are people that know what happened and they are afraid of someone that is her drift. Interesting for sure.