Actually, it was the Solicitor who defined kidnapping in a statement he made and he referred to the part of the statute where it means not letting someone leave.
And yes, in the phone log that was released in the media (which came from LE/state), Longbeard's was eliminated from the timeline (because, in my opinion, it interferes with the PTL narrative).
I haven't seen any evidence of why she drove to Longbeard's or PTL, but I think it's reasonable that it was to meet up with SM in both cases.
Other than the testimony of the cell guy, I haven't seen anything at all about Longbeard's (aside from the state's claim that she went there to decide if she should meet SM/drive to PTL) so I don't think we know what the career professionals did with the Longbeard's part of the timeline. But my guess is, they couldn't link it to PTL so they left it out. Because the state needs all three parties, or at least two of them, to be at that boat landing at the same time to have a case. So, even if this crime began at Longbeard's, the crime still has to have occurred at PTL from the state's perspective.
I don't know that a theory of them using her phone has to be in the equation for Longbeard's to be relevant. And no matter how many people are/were on trial, Longbeard's is still part of the timeline. I also don't think the number of questions posed makes Longbeard's relevant or irrelevant. And, I don't think we'll ever know why the state didn't know whose DNA it had, nor will we likely discover why authorities said there was evidence that gave them probable cause for a murder warrant, but it seems it wasn't sufficient or relevant at trial.
I do find it interesting that the lure happened during the pay phone call, but the victim had to find the perpetrator before the purpose of the lure could come to pass.