I suppose anything is possible, but I'm not the type of person who is comfortable trying to create theories. My preference is to work with facts and only facts whenever possible.
If a person thinks anything about how the case went down, they have a theory. Even one based on facts. I like to rule things out as possibilities if they can be, given the facts.
How well could TM made HE disappear all by herself by throwing her in the river, to the point where no body would ever be found?
Easily. Heather was barely over 5 ft and weighed well under what TM weighed. Add in anger and a shoving match could easily end up in the water. The fact that the body was never found might never have been considered. Bodies that end up in water don't get found a lot of the time.
If all the calls went to TM, who had SM's phone, why would Heather (who by all accounts was afraid of TM) talk to TM for 4+ minutes, twice, and then put herself in TM's path by going to PTL?
SM called Heather from the pay phone. If he asked her to meet him at PTL at that time, and Heather called the cell phone and got TM, she would have known that TM had taken SM's phone and likely believed that SM was tired of being controlled and was leaving TM. Heather is not putting herself in TM's path, to her knowledge. I do see a problem here where there is no actual way for TM to know Heather is going to PTL. I may be able to rule this one out based on that.
How did SM at the payphone, seen on CCTV making the call at the exact time Heather received a 4+ min call, morph into TM?
I don't understand your question. I said that SM called from the payphone. No morphing needed.
And why would Heather lie when she called her roommate in FL several minutes after hanging up the phone with SM and tell her roommate that it was SM who called, if it was really TM instead of SM who called? What purpose would Heather have to make up such a lie?
Again, no lie here. SM called from the payphone. Heather just never talked to him on the cell phone in this scenario.
If SM is really an accessory after the fact, what evidence does the state have to prove he was involved legally as much as his wife (or visa versa) and how were they able to obtain a true bill from the grand jury to indict him for first degree murder?
Just because the Grand Jury returned a true bill, it does not mean the evidence to convict is there. It just means the Grand Jury found probable cause to go forward with a murder trial. Probable cause can be only what we have seen, if they think that is enough. I am, however, assuming they saw more than we have.
How would SM saying nothing at all, then lying overAndover when he did speak, and then sitting in jail for nearly a year "save his own skin?" He's charged with first degree murder, heading to trial, and could end up spending life in prison. That doesn't seem like saving oneself at all, or anyone else for that matter.
If neither of them speak, both are safe in absence of any other evidence. The second a person opens their mouth, anything they say can be construed in a way they did not mean, or they can accidentally say something incriminating. There are countless cases out there where one of the perps says " I was told that if I didn't do what *the other perp* said, they would just say I did and I would still go to jail". So they said nothing. I don't think for a moment that SM could say "I didn't have anything to do with her disappearance" and have anyone believe him after there was video evidence of him making the phone call from the pay phone. Logic says just say nothing, especially if you are incapable of not telling a lie.
The only reasons I have for the scenario to be a no-go are "How would TM know to go to PTL, if she were the person on the cell phone?", and "Would a Grand Jury return a true bill for first degree murder, even if there wasn't enough evidence to convict for murder?"-to which I know the answer is yes, because people who are accused of murder get acquitted on a regular basis.
Thank you for the thought process.
