Only the first one of your links work, so I haven't been able to check them out.LE states suspicious, but stated in professional brief article "nothing suspicious". The Globe article stated Anita may have been going to property on Vandorf side road, but professional brief article stated " she may have been seen there
Professional real estate article
YRP news
Globe article
Journalistic errors?
Mr Chow stated his relationship with her was a colleague, but strange he would know what time she leaves each day, when other info stated last family saw her was 0930. Maybe Mr Chow cohabitates with her therefore he would know when she left each day.
Another article (not reputable IMHO so not included) stated "they had confirmed with Anita that morning of a lunch meeting on Aug 19. She confirmed she would attend." But in hindsight who answered that text? Her or another person in possession of her phone? (Assuming this info is legit.)
If Mr Chow is a work colleague, couldn't both he and YAM be out showing properties at the end of the work day, and not see eachother after, and thus him not knowing when she left for the day?
At what time was the text confirming the meeting sent? If it was before 9,30 in the morning, then she would have still been at home.