There's something else that's not sitting right, or maybe it's just the late hour. Her clothing ...
The husband provided quite specific detail of what she'd been wearing when allegedly he saw her last. It's been much discussed already in the threads, with many saying their husbands wouldn't have a clue what they were wearing, even five minutes later
No judgement calls here at all, but would ABC have worn trackie-type pants and work-out top to the hairdresser (these were items in which ABC's remains were discovered and which tally with the description provided police by the husband)? Maybe she did. The hairdresser was just down the road, basically. But then we have her best friend reportedly describing ABC as beautiful, always looking beautiful, always striving to look her best.
Pride. And discipline. Consideration for others, very often
So maybe ABC went home from the hairdressing appointment and changed into the trackies and top (although as others have already said, it seems more likely she would have returned home, showered and changed into PJs, ready for an early night pre the next day's conference)
Or, did she never make it home after the hairdressing appointment? Was she killed and did the killer change her into trackies and top to substantiate an already planned alibi involving her disappearing whilst walking? If the latter occurred - to substantiate the husband's claims/alibi - the clothes she wore to the hairdresser's would have had to be planted at her home to make it look as if she'd returned home, changed, watched tv and then gone for a walk sometime between 10 p.m. and approx. 7 - 7.30 the following morning
If she was killed in the clothing she'd worn to the hairdresser's (afterwards stripped and changed by the killer/s) there's always the chance forensics were able to lift the killer/s Dna from the clothes in which she was killed (although it's natural the husband's Dna would be present). If he had an accomplice however, their Dna would be much more difficult to explain (and may be one of the reasons police announced the possibility of two killers)
Almost certainly, ABC would have worn several different 'walking/exerise' outfits. They very likely consisted of simple tops and bottoms, tossed in the wash after each use -- not terribly distinctive and with little to differentiate them. Difficult to understand why what she was wearing (nondescript) whilst watching tv (dim light?) made such an impact upon the husband to the point he was able to accurately describe it, considering he must have had a great deal on his mind if reports of business worries are correct
Or, is it the case that ABC was wearing the same clothes she'd worn to the hairdresser's when he last saw her (more dress-up type outfit) and he just
happened to precisely guess and describe a particular exercise outfit for detectives (the same outfit in which her body was discovered) based on his claimed assumption that she must have gone for a walk because she was 'missing' when he awakened the following morning - even though almost certainly she had a
variety of knock-about and exercising outfits?
Very possibly, a killer would retain an indelible memory of how their victim appeared when last viewed. It's always astonishing when killers are able to describe victims' appearance in minute detail, even decades later
Then there's what might be called another coincidence - that of ABC being killed on the night the children were sleeping elsewhere. How many people knew the children would not be at the home that night? How many people who wanted to kill ABC could have known the children would not be at home? For that matter, how many people wanted to kill ABC at any time at all?
She was killed though. Not by an opportunist rapist. Not by a robber. No apparent cause of death, it's been reported. So it would seem she was not killed by a hit and run. Not killed by a psychopath or maniac on the loose, or at least the police have issued no warnings about same. If, as is said, there are only five motivating factors for murder, that doesn't leave many
Generally, murder/homicide occurs due to one of two basic motivations:
the reaction murder: as an outcome of an event: a quarrel, rage, reaction to an insult, or jealousy, and
the "for gain" type of murder: for monetary gains, revenge, protection of ones self, or even power
Police seek to learn motivation and opportunity
The opportunity was possibly the child-free night ('night off' as ABC is reported to have described it)
Motivation is yet to be established
