A 44 acre camp in Escanaba with two cabins that is owned by Tara's family was searched by local law enforcement, with the property appearing to be undisturbed, except for the deer tracks. The property is featured in the video linked on my last post.
Details are emerging from the arrest of Stephen Grant the night he reported his wife missing. He was pulled over for failure to signal and told the officer, " I know why you're pulling me over, because of my wife." Grant also had almost $4000 in cash inventoried during his arrest. His explanation was that he had just cashed his paycheck and was making a payment to his attorney.
I have thus far refrained from much editorializing. I realize that some of the Grants friends and family have stumbled across my blog, and I do not want to offend them nor am I being morbid. I truly do hope Tara comes strolling in, tan and well rested from her island getaway and wonders what all the fuss is about.
The longer she remains missing, the less I think that is possible and indeed, statistics will reinforce that.
I don't consider myself some sort of expert on this. I have, however, followed many cases of missing women and sadly, many of them have the same outcome I fear for Tara.
Questions I would like to have answered:
What time did Tara did return home from her flight?
Was it normal for the children to be in bed on a Friday night going into spring break, after not having seen their mom for a period of days?
Why would an attorney not be paid by check or cashier's check versus cash?
The other times Tara "went dark" did she contact friends or family? Did she miss work at that time without raising alarm as well?
Of course, the most compelling question remains: Where is Tara Grant?
" I know why you're pulling me over, because of my wife."
Wow. And why would he need an attorney that soon? Don't most shady deals get paid in cash? That's quite a chunk of change to have in your pocket.
I'm sorry, but to not look at him with a little suspicion at this point would just be plain stupid.
Posted by: Nadine | March 01, 2007 at 06:43 PM
I'm with Nadine on that one. $4K. I'm wondering if someone from the under belly of society will ultimately be a connected to this case?!?
Posted by: Monica | March 01, 2007 at 07:35 PM
4k? Yep, that's a problem. One article I just read said they money was in two different envelopes. Things that make you go hmmm.
Posted by: Charlie | March 01, 2007 at 08:20 PM
4K. Was he so rich as to call that "pocket change?" "Running money?"
What kind of attorney gets paid in cash?
Posted by: vero | March 02, 2007 at 01:10 AM
Could be money from a joint banking account.
Don't want all that money being "frozen" when you are suddenly arrested, now, do you?
Oh, how I wish I could believe that Tara is safe. That she has run off with some wonderful guy who would never dream of fitting spy-ware to her computer.
Posted by: Mgt | March 02, 2007 at 05:35 AM
You have certainly helped bring attention to this case, Lisa.
I'm sure the family will not be offended by anything you have done.
I, on the other hand, may have been a bit insensitive,for which I apologise, but, this family will also have delved into some pretty dark thoughts about Stephen. I'm certain of that.
Posted by: Mgt | March 02, 2007 at 05:40 AM
Aren't her kids 4 and 6?
Oh yes I always pay my attorney $4,000 is cash so that he can break the law by not reporting that money on his income tax!
Even if Tara took off before, she was known to call her kids. Isn't that what everyone says???
"I know why you're pulling me over, because of my wife." OMG and anyone thinks he's NOT guilty??
I am sickened by the rash of married men who think that the only way you can get out of a marriage is to kill their wives? Is there something in the water they are drinking?
The minute I heard that yet another wife was missing, I thought of Scott Peterson, and concluded the obvious---the husband did it.
Posted by: Beth | March 02, 2007 at 06:50 AM
I agree with you, Beth.
He is a cowardly bast*rd and it's all about 'him'. Me, me, I.
Where are the vigilantes when you need them?!
Posted by: Mgt | March 02, 2007 at 10:50 AM
They always look at the spouse as a suspect first until he/she can be ruled out---ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. While this has always been the case, you can probably thank high profile suspects like OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson and Jason Young for the public's skepticism of a spouse's activities.
I truly hope Stephen Grant had nothing to do with Tara's disappearance, but the way he has proceeded thus far, makes me wary. If he is 100% innocent, why not take a polygraph or cooperate with police more fully? I know he thinks that law enforcement is not dealing with him very objectively, but there are a lot of loose ends here that needed to be tied up, and his behavior makes me suspicious that he is trying to impede that process, instead of trying to be helpful.
My thoughts go out to both of their families--may they find the strength to deal with this very difficult situation.
And Lisa, I echo Mgt's sentiments---thanks for covering this case so well,for your candor, and keeping it in the forefront for all of us. I know we all appreciate it.
Posted by: Michelle | March 02, 2007 at 11:17 AM
They always look at the spouse as a suspect first until he/she can be ruled out---ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS. While this has always been the case, you can probably thank high profile suspects like OJ Simpson, Scott Peterson and Jason Young for the public's skepticism of a spouse's activities.
I truly hope Stephen Grant had nothing to do with Tara's disappearance, but the way he has proceeded thus far, makes me wary. If he is 100% innocent, why not take a polygraph or cooperate with police more fully? I know he thinks that law enforcement is not dealing with him very objectively, but there are a lot of loose ends here that needed to be tied up, and his behavior makes me suspicious that he is trying to impede that process, instead of trying to be helpful.
My thoughts go out to both of their families--may they find the strength to deal with this very difficult situation.
And Lisa, I echo Mgt's sentiments---thanks for covering this case so well,for your candor, and keeping it in the forefront for all of us. I know we all appreciate it.
Posted by: Michelle | March 02, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I continue to be crushed by this pattern of women who give so much being destroyed by men they love. As a teenager growing up in Detroit, my mother taught me about the dangers men can pose when a woman becomes intimately involved with them. Now, as a 52 year old psychiatrist who has practiced psychiatry for over 20 years, I am asking women to please educate their daughters
about these potential dangers. Living in Manhattan and othe cities, I learned how unprepared women are in detecting when they are in danger due to their relationship. The signs are there, but so often are ignored by the desire to fall in love, marry, mate and reproduce. Even Lacy's mom felt Scott was "too good to be true" when she met him. Teach your daughters to listen to their inner voices.
Posted by: Dr April Roberts (psychiatrist) | March 04, 2007 at 10:30 AM
very interesting.
i'm adding in RSS Reader
Posted by: music | January 08, 2008 at 10:32 AM