Hiding evidence after a crime is not evidence that the crime included a "lure". It's just evidence that something is being hidden. This is common behavior of persons who commit crimes.
And yes, exactly, it wasn't until someone decided to harm Heather that things became criminal, as far as we know. The "trap" part is just a theory on which the state built a case. It's what I call a "what if".
And let me be clear about that statement:
I am not confused about what "circumstantial" means, or to what extent its compelling. I am not making a claim that unless one has direct or physical evidence such as DNA, that one has no evidence. What I've always said is that the state has a problem with proving that a crime occurred based on phone contact and a car and a truck heading into or toward a boat landing, and a person subsequently disappearing. The state itself said this case is made harder because of its lack of physical evidence and because there's no body. So the state trotted out IE charges and a kidnapping charge, and a luring type kidnapping charge. And now, we have an NP and a mistrial. Is all that really the fault of one judge and two jurors?
The truth is, we have no idea if Heather was lured. Certainly, the witness testimony does not indicate, much less, prove that. That is a theory that is currently failing if this mistrial is the example.
They had a better shot at a murder charge, although my view is that clinging to PTL as the crime scene was not going to fly. And didn't, if the NP is the example.
It seems to me that when there's a rejection of, or at least a failure to embrace the luring claim, a subsequent claim is made that "some" aren't grasping the evidence. I would argue that it's because the evidence is grasped and there's none proving that a lure was used that some of us feel the actual crime here is simply murder. No luring bells and whistles are needed to overcome the standard of reasonable doubt on that one, IMO.
We have no idea if Heather was not free to leave any location. We only know that she is gone, presumably because she is dead, and her likely death can be reasonably tied to contact with SM. If she was where she wanted to be and then was run over, stabbed, burned, bombed, gassed, or machine-gunned, the crime was not kidnapping and preventing her from leaving, it was murder. Period. Why she was where she was is, at this time, simply unknown, and it's troubling to see that a POV that she may well have wanted to be there is being characterized as disparaging of the victim or blaming her for own death.
Heather is dead because she was killed and her killer is responsible for that.
