This is where I think they hurt their own case. They said she was murdered at PTL, without any direct evidence to support their claim, and it appeared when the charges were publicized that there was also no physical evidence (at PTL). Based on the LE documents and statements, it has seemed to me that they believe/claim that because there was contact between SM and HE in the early hours, and because her car ended up at PTL, and because the M's vehicle was (allegedly) seen going toward and coming back from PTL shortly after HE's car arrived there, she was killed there.
I just don't think that's going to be tenable in court, particularly once the defense commences its counter-arguments. LE has said there's no reason to believe she didn't drive herself there. They never said they have proof she did. I'm not saying she didn't, although I've wondered many times if she was the one that took the car there, but the issue for the state seems to be that while there may be compelling circumstantial evidence in some aspects of the case, nothing proves the M's and Heather encountered one another at PTL. Certainly nothing direct or physical (it appears) proves Heather was killed at that location. Yet the probable cause documents reflect she was killed there.
I just think this is extremely problematic.
