I find today's witness perfectly credible. There were two minor discrepancies between her original statement to LE and her testimony: At first she said she couldn't remember the colour of the woman's pants. She later said they were dark. She seemed fixated on the white jacket (thought it was inappropriate for the weather), so she obviously was paying less attention to the pants. I don't think this is a big deal.
The second discrepancy involved the distance the witness saw the woman from. She estimated about two bus lengths in her LE statement. She now says one, or less than two. Were these short buses or long ones? We don't know. Even if they were the longer vehicles, it's not a long distance when one is sitting in a car with nothing else to look at - just a few meters.
This was a reluctant witness for the defence who applied for and received a publication ban on her name, for obvious reasons. The fact that she's a grandmother has no bearing on anything. I know some very young, vibrant grandmothers. Regardless, her eyesight or age was not questioned. I see no reason to disbelieve her testimony.
Had there been any other mother fitting this description (especially the white jacket) picking up a child on April 8th at OSPS, I am positive LE would have found and questioned them within the past three years. The Crown would have put them on the stand during their turn in order to discredit today's witness's testimony.
As for Tori's teacher's testimony, I do not think she was lying. I think she and the other teachers were very busy at that time getting the children ready to leave and putting them on buses. As someone else posted, she could have meant the classroom door, not the outside door. TLM could have been lurking in an empty classroom without being noticed.
I DO believe that this proves that Tori was targeted and the reasons have been stated many times. The implications of TLM entering the school are huge and have also been explained, so there's no need for me to repeat them.
JMO