I think the Baseball Bat will be one of the key pieces of evidence when this all comes to trial. TM said he brought this with him as a gift for the little boy but did not have a chance to give it to him yet.
This bat, as one of the weapons, is described in the evidence as being black & red with black grips however this is identical to the description of the bat given by JC during grief counselling, a bat that was given to him the previous summer by TM. If JC did not have such a bat he could not have described it and if there was a second bat, then why did they not find this during the search of the property. In addition, they did not even find the black sports bag that it was kept in, even though the warrant specified they were looking for the bag as one of the items.
It is also a bit coincidental that MM posted up pictures of the children's clothes and carefully placed a baseball bat cover over the clothes. This confirms that he had a bat, in general you would expect that said cover should be on such a bat.
The search warrant was issued on 4th December 2015 and was executed less than an hour & a half later. The search of the entire house & the garage was carried out at 14.30pm on 4th December. I am sure she got a proper old shock when she got home to find that the house had been searched.
The items on the search warrant which they wanted to seize or were looking for are as follows....
1) A black cloth sports equipment bag & its contents
2) Aluminium baseball bat(s)
3) Any actual photographs related to Jack Corbett's baseball equipment
4) Any computer, computer devices, digital files or storage devices utilised for the storage of digital files where images of Jack Corbett's baseball equipment might be located
However, what was actually seized during the search was
1) 2 Photographs
2) 2 Digital SD cards
3) 1 Digital Photoframe
So they seized photographs showing baseball equipment but did not get any bag or bat. So where are they, where is the bag? MM seems to have kept the cover of a bat. Why would she even put a picture of this up on the internet? She posted that picture up on 18th December.
Now, the father, given all his previous experience in law enforcement, why would he put up such a story that he brought this bat with him as a gift and this is why it was so close to hand. Surely he would know that this could and would be easily disproved. I am sure that the bat has been dusted for finger prints and even one print from the child will disprove his story not to mention all the other evidence that has been gathered.
And then you have the landscaping stone, passing it off once in the papers as being in the bedroom because of a school project is so far-fetched.
My own gut feeling on this is that she attacked JC with the baseball bat, realising that she could not fully subdue him went back downstairs to get a heavier weapon, one that she might have spotted earlier when she was out on the lawn socialising with the neighbours. I don't think the father did any of it, none of his story fits. And where was SM during all this, she has been kept well out of it so far.
The fact that TM story has so many holes I suspect that he came on the event after most of the actions had been carried out. He knew that there was no choice but to report the matter, he however did not have enough time to consider all the holes. The time of travel will be also be key.
In case anyone is looking for any links about this entire story, KateB has set up an excellent non-discussion thread with links to autopsy, warrants, articles, etc. Fair play to you KateB, that was some work
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...2015-Media-Links-Documents-Only-No-Discussion