I know the picture you mean, and in looking for it, found these.
Front left quarter panel and wheel well - no mud
Right
Passenger side of truck, front right quarter panel and wheel well -
mud
Rear bumper - zoomed in, I can't see anything
Good observation.
View attachment 54453
View attachment 54452
View attachment 54454
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/missin...-emotional-plea-for-their-superhero-1.1895317
I just have a gut feeling this detail of the mud on the grandfather's truck is relevant. Was the mud already on the truck, when JO was still there before leaving Nathan overnight? Or was the truck used after JO left, and the mud on the truck was from that use? Did JO notice?
Could DG have been set up with someone else "borrowing" his truck, and/or driving a similar looking one in the neighbourhood? If so, who would benefit from diverting police with such a "wild goose chase"? This would mean, there was planning involved. What wasn't planned, was that Nathan would be there that night for a sleepover.
What concerns me:
The real reason the grandparents sold their home, and from what I've read in earlier posts, the timing of same. With the real estate market, I read in an earlier posting, that if they weren't in such a hurry, and waited longer they may have realized another $100K on the sale. Having said that, I'm leaning towards the fact that there was an urgency to sell their home sooner rather than later, but WHY?? Who wouldn't want to get an extra 100K? Can't see AL doing that without some reason. To get out-of-town? To liquefy because there was a need for lots of cash?
And then, there being different stories out there - one, that they were moving to Mexico; two, they were moving to Edmonton; three, they were "going" to Mexico, and then Edmonton, where they had already purchased a home. Hmm. Seems I read that AL said one thing, and KL another. Where does the truth lie? Were they on the same page all the time as to where they were going after the sale of the home and then its furnishings, etc.? And Mexico - really? It may be cheap to live there, but wouldn't be my first choice. What would be the difference between "escaping" and living in Edmonton versus Calgary - cost-wise? Moving there, the grandparents could still be located if somebody were after them for something.
Also, any grandparents I know, want to be as close as possible to their grandchildren, and that point has already been made by a previous poster - especially younger grandchildren. I do note that the distance between Calgary and Edmonton, is about 300 klm, or approximately a 3-hour drive. Still a long ways to travel to see family.
I do believe, unfortunately, that very few details are being released, and us sleuthers have really, very little to go on. There are too many unknowns here, and therefore too many theories. The more I focus on what is known, I find those facts in and of themselves, are not what I would call the "norm", which leaves me scratching my head that there indeed is something off about this whole idea of the grandparents moving.
I've asked myself - is this incident tied to someone that went through the estate sale, or to someone they know?
My guess is, it's someone they know - and well, or someone "one" of the grandparents knows well. And, whoever it was (one or more), is the reason that three bodies weren't left behind - there weren't three bodies to be removed, though it obviously does sounds like one was already in such severe medical distress, and possibly on the way to death if the injury sustained resulted in enormous blood loss. And, I don't think the blood loss at the scene was NO's. I think if that were true, it would be much harder to keep quiet and under wraps. So, who got injured? AL or KL? I would likely think it was AL for three reasons: He's the "man", and more likely to come to everyone's defence as their protector; he may very well be the subject of who was there and why, and finally, he would be the "strongest" one that may need to be taken out or down, to leverage the removal of the rest, who wouldn't want to be leaving on their own accord. Where if it was a robbery, I think we'd be more inclined to see the robbers take, and get what they want/could, and leave the victims behind in their home.
A lot of focus has been on AL rather than KL, yet the stress has been on that they are all victims here. If I buy into the theory that AL for whatever reason was involved in so many businesses and dealings, and that something, somewhere went wrong for him, maybe they indeed needed to liquefy as much as they could of their assets. So, going with that, whatever bad connection dealing with Al went sour, it may not have been with DG, but someone that knew of DG's prior involvement with AL. What better way to point the finger and suspicion elsewhere?
