I don't know if it follows that Gail returned on the 30th because she had agreed to it or was required to. Even if she agreed to return on the 30th, that doesn't mean there weren't other issues. In fact, we know there definitely was one issue: She was so scared she was calling DN and asking LE to meet her at the house. A lot of people have been asking why she left so early in the morning, as well. So personally, I don't think this is an issue that has been "cleared up" to use believe09's phrase. I'm not trying to argue. I agree the document gives us insight, but I do not believe it has fully explained anything.
While I know some people think what happened to Gail is neither unusual or sinister, I personally cannot think of any way that everything we have learned could be reasonably explained away to make the situation usual rather than unusual. Just my two cents on this.
BBM:
I actually think it does matter. At least from an accurate info-gathering standpoint. I don't know what to believe at this point, kwim? :waitasec:
Poor reporting perhaps?
It seems to me that there is no reason that Gail would have been obligated to either leave their SM residence and go to the lake house- OR- obligated to leave the lake house and return to SM.
All I can come up with is that she chose to do both- and there are many possibilities for that.
Do we have any usage of credit or debit cards on either route taken- both the trip to the lake house- and the return trip?