IMO.....JMO......MOO
This trial seems to have diverged onto two different paths.......from the point of abduction
The Crown assertions are that MR was not only a knowing participant, but he was directing TLM to enable his plans.
The defense (apparent) assertions are that TLM abducted VS without the knowledge of MR and their version of events happened from there.
So..............I believe that the abduction, and the reason for the abduction are absolutely crucial to supporting either side's assertions.
With that in mind, I am puzzled by several things.
The video of the abduction shows TLM leading VS away, allegedly without knowing who VS was. She is apparently unconcerned that she has to pass people standing on the sidewalk waiting for someone. We saw one person in the video, and there may have been others who were waiting in other locations or in their cars. TLM also would not know if VS was expecting someone to come for her but who had not arrived yet. If TLM didn't know who VS was.......she wouldn't know which person on the street or coming down the street would want to know why she was with their daughter.
I find TLM's statement that she introduced herself to VS by discussing her dog, exactly the same breed as owned by VS, as a pretty big coincidence. Of all the conversations in the world they could have had......it was about a dog of the breed that both of them had.
Even accepting that, I am not sure VS would walk away with her.........just because she had a similar dog. VS was expecting to walk with her brother and would have waited for his return, I would think.
I move forward to the pea coat, which TLM said covered VS for several hours. I expected there would be some DNA residue on a heavy material coat like that one.........and there was, but none of it was identified as VS DNA. Maybe it was there and is now gone. Maybe it was never there because the coat never covered VS. A question left unanswered.
Immediately and throughout the disappearance and trial, there have been rumors of a drug debt. The rumors were denied throughout, until TM confirmed that she did not have a drug debt.......but her boyfriend JG did rip someone off for $400 worth of pills. In the drug debt world, I doubt they make such fine distinctions.
I found it puzzling that the Crown did not pursue it, and ask who was owed the drug debt. If the drug debt was owed to someone totally uninvolved and not connected in any way to the trial.........it would have crushed all the rumors the debt was connected to the abduction.
Why didn't they ask? By not asking, they left the door open to the defense to introduce their theory about an abduction for a drug debt.
Moving ahead to recent testimony..........and someone can correct me if I am wrong.............
Prior to the abduction, MR knew one woman who knew TM, and to whose home VS had been to play with her kids.
TLM knew MR who knew AC who knew VS and TM.
I believe in her testimony the woman also said that she and MR were in the car and saw JG on the sidewalk. She said they began texting, although I was not clear on who was texting who by her testimony.
So now.......TLM knew MR who knew both AC and JG. AC and JG knew both TM and VS.
The circle becomes even smaller when one considers that TLM lived with her mother CM who sold drugs to TM and JG.
My own conclusion is that it is far more likely that TLM knew of VS, than she didn't.
I would be wondering if MR was the one texting JG...........or JG was texting MR......or neither were texting each other.
I was disappointed the Crown didn't ask that question.
Basically, I am wondering why the Crown has chosen not to probe more deeply than they have, because their case is not a slam dunk by a long shot.
If the Crown had settled the abduction and drug debt issues at the start, their case would look a lot stronger now.
JMO
What are your thoughts on the murder location? Do you think it was a coincidence that MR had worked so close? That information seems so telling, as he was the driver. JMO