Sounds like fraudster Scott Forbes
SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts, who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy 9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"
So, all was packed away, "done with it" all. To the discussion on the case with this new mate, and the book was brought up. This is 2016 and by 2017 it is in for it's first edit. Give over? One had obviously been working hard at that book until that point, had they not? Not left and "done with it", at all!
So these fall outs, getting that proverbial boot not once but twice. Tells us also that although one is not being critical of CM, that unlike herself, she did not have a grasp and understanding of "legal technicalities" Perhaps the truth is more closer to one getting too big for ones boots, taking that hold of POA a step too far? That paralegal elective and qualification, that allowance to be granted access to sensitive case material, was being overstepped in some way? Certainly and without doubt, there was a fall out online at the time of the WAP, was someone not impersonating CM?
But regardless, and ultimately, any stripping and removing access came as a direct request from LM himself. I made an error around MOJO, (perhaps), the book in for it's first edit by that point. But without doubt, permission must have been requested/granted, from LM for contents belonging to him, not in the public domain to be used. Was his mother playing the role of "piggy in the middle" here? These three people came together once more, to suit the others purpose, that purpose is done and they are separate once more, for the time being. And as stated, the side of his mother appears to be adhering to keeping quiet, whilst the other not? Book still to be promoted and sold, (again an error), obviously suiting purpose still for Mitchell to get the word out there, to have that much craved attention, (narcistic, as you rightly state)
Reflect briefly once more to 2003, that undivided attention, replaying that night over and over to his captive audience that was SL? Feeding his nature, given him the attention he craved and needed? Much like that interview on the day of this girls funeral? Those interviews and that "flat affect" voice, handing the police more and more information that only the killer could know. In much the same fashion as "Peter Manual" ---------
("---" IB, chapter, SCCRC. )
