Honestly, I don't think anyone doubts that LE has worked this case. For my own part, I'm taking what LE itself has said and reasoning that we are not likely to hear of brain matter and blood or spatter or other physical indications of murder at PTL or anywhere else. LE said the evidence at the house/property was what led to the murder charges. Not what was found at PTL, the murder scene. I think we will discover that this is entirely a circumstantial case with little physical evidence of a killing, and a lot of events and crossing paths and TM trails of rage and obsession, a meeting at that landing, an abandoned car, all joined with the fact that Heather has not been heard from for three months.
This may well be enough and then some to get them convicted. But we don't know how the defense will respond and if they can get some reasonable doubt into the heads of jurors, it might not be enough.
I also think, FWIW, that because we care about Heather as a victim and we are pro-LE and prosecution when it comes to these horrible crimes, and because we can see into the circumstances that led to a victim's ending, we err on the side of a guilty verdict. The M's are clearly guilty and there's a trail to support that, right? I think so. But I also try to think like the attys and the jury and even the perps, and I ask myself, if I was presented with this case as we know it right now, and the defense planted reasonable doubt, would it make logical and legal sense to convict?
Right now, there is too much we don't know, and I still have a lot of questions about how this could have gone down, and in particular, where did they put Heather and why is she so hard to find? And does her absence pose as many problems for the prosecution as it does evidence that she's likely dead?
Trials are double-edged swords. JMO
