image

Neither of those seems unbelievable.  I don't think her age is problematic.

If among the ghostly retirees are some of the former owners, they might well have looked on her as a mere guest in their house from '77 to '99, particularly since she as good as stole it by murdering the owner and inheriting it.  George in particular has just cause to look at her this way (assuming he is the last husband and owner), and his ghost is definitely among the current residents at the retirement home.  Just because they haven't been openly haunting the house doesn't mean they haven't been around, watching.  One might speculate that until she died, there was the possibility that she might be caught and punished.  Only her death ensured that George (and her other husbands) would henceforth be genuinely unavenged murder victims, classic haunters, and it wouldn't be ridiculous to suggest that they only began to haunt the place openly at that point, preventing any further human occupation.  Whose idea was it to turn the place into a ghostly retreat, anyway?  The ghosts of former owners (or perhaps just George, the last of them) is one sensible answer.  Though he is not himself a former owner, the GH too has a special claim on the place in that he suicided there, and as yet we have no reason to suppose this happened after Connie's death rather than before.  He could be speaking for himself as well as the former owner(s) who turned it into a retirement home when he speaks of "our guests."  I don't see why they wouldn't include Connie in that category.

None of this is far-fetched, as far as I can see.

I agree that this is scrambling around after the facts, trying to make sense of it all, and make no mistake, I'd vote we go back to Beating Heart in a heartbeat, but at the end of the day I can't accuse the Connie Imagineers of creating logical problems.