Apparently she went into the store to get something made or repaired, something of that nature. I suppose it could be a business relationship but she spent the night at his house. So that makes it a bit weird.
I might be wrong but I think she has a son and a daughter.
I just don't buy that they only met at the beginning of August and are already saying I love you 3 weeks later.
Why does the boyfriend keep changing the amount of time they've been dating? Either things moved way too fast, or they were dating before the divorce was final.
If the latter is true, why lie? She was still married on paper, but she wouldn't be the first person to date before the ink was dry. Is it a reputation thing? Like he thinks it would make her/them look bad for dating while she was still married? I don't get it. But, it seems much hinkier that he keeps changing their timeline rather than just saying they were involved while she was still legally married.
If they only did just start dating 3 weeks prior to her disappearance, it just makes their relationship weirder to me. Sure i guess people can be 'gaga' early on in a relationship, but they would hardly know each other, hardly have had time to spend together and get to know each other. Even if they spent 24/7 of the three weeks together. I don't think they did, cause they both work, plus she has kids.
The bf may not be guilty, but he seems to be talking a lot when, if they really were only dating 3 weeks, seems odd. I don't think he would know that much about her; certainly not enough to be the self-appointed spokesman.
I mean, if they were dating before the divorce was final, just say so. Because if he isn't involved in her disappearance, his constantly changing timeline sure raises suspicion, perhaps unfairly.
As far as the ex goes, I'm not seeing anything that makes me go 'he definitely did it'.
He's shying away from the media. I don't find that strange. He seems to be a private person. He has the kids to think of, and who knows if they have seen or heard anything about their mother with this story splashed across national news every day. At their ages, they might be too young to understand, but what if friends/classmates say something like 'your mom had a boyfriend' when they could be looking at themselves as a happy family all living under the same roof?
I don't know if the kids were told about the divorce. Somehow I dont think so. If they were, either Crystal or her ex should have moved out. But they may be hearing about this stuff secondhand.
I really don't get the idea either that they continued to appear married for her career. Why? Do people really care if their realtor is divorced?
I don't know if the husband did anything to her. Some people seem very convinced. I know when someone is killed or disappears, suspicion always falls on the spouse. But I'm just not seeing anything concrete.
The ex may not be speaking because they had a long, and possibly complicated, relationship. If the bf was already declaring his love at 3 weeks, think about the guy who was with her for 10 years and had two kids with her. I'm sure he's got extremely mixed feelings, especially if he's innocent.
He may have still loved her. He may have still hoped for a reconciliation. He may have been completely blindsided to find out she had a boyfriend with whom she was exchanging ' I love yous'.
At the beginning, I saw that the uncle said the the ex 'threatened' that she would never leave him. Did he? Was it those exact words? Did he say something more like 'you would never leave me and the kids'? Or just calling her bluff because she filed for divorce before then rescinded it? Or because she apparently asked him to present the happy family image to her clients? We really don't know.
We don't know if the ex was violent or threatening. We know from one comment that the uncle had an unfavorable view of the ex. That may have been founded or unfounded. Sometimes inlaws just don't like a person. Internet forums are full of people complaining that their inlaw (usually mother-in-law) straight up hates them because they don't think they are good enough for the inlaws' loved one. Does the uncle think the ex wasn't good enough for Crystal?
We know, according to the text friend, that Crystal complained about the ex 'using her'. Was it financially? Because she made more money? She seems very ambitious. Maybe she didn't think her ex was, or wasn't trying hard enough to be successful. Perhaps that's the uncle's view as well; that ex was sponging off his niece? Some people do still believe the man needs to be the breadwinner and needs to be more successful than his wife.
I just am really not ready to convict the ex based on two comments made about him, especially when they were attributed to a woman who seems to have had a complicated relationship with him. People say things in the heat of the moment, especially when they are arguing. It's just not enough for me to convict the ex.
As the investigation progresses, i could change my mind. But, we know very little about the ex and the totality of their relationship. We mostly just know about Crystal and her boyfriend, and that's all coming from a biased, involved party. Of course he would maximize the good and minimize any bad, or just not bring it to light.
The ex could have found out about the bf and the trip and killed her out of jealousy. But maybe he wasn't jealous and didn't kill her over that. Not everyone kills a partner/ex because they moved on with someone else; and that's the only motive I've seen suggested. We just don't know if he was a crazy, possessive lunatic.
Or the bf could have been jealous that she was 'going home' to the ex nearly every night. Or maybe he wasn't. Maybe he was gaga and she was too. Maybe he didn't do anything to her either. We just don't know.
My suspicion leans towards the boyfriend because he was the last to see her and the camera discrepancies. Not just the one home camera, but one from work too. The time stamp is a big issue for me because it doesn't make sense.
Outside of that, I wouldn't have much suspicion towards him either, even though he seems so overzealous. But being overzealous is not a crime.