I'm going to throw out some questions to think about. Not directed at you, Golem...just using your post to kickstart brainstorming.
I think it's obvious to most everyone that WH "appears" to be responsible. Is he solely responsible? Indirectly responsible? Partially responsible? Or, not responsible at all.
I'm going to tread lightly here. The family either thinks that someone else is also responsible or wants us to think that there is someone else out there, and they are in danger. That would explain the new security system, new lighting, and extra men in the house. They want us to feel they are still in danger. Maybe they are; we have no idea just yet. Maybe it's all a ruse to support WH.
However, if they are in danger, it would be by someone who does not have access to the children; otherwise we would see / have seen a motion in court for an emergency restraining order or similar means of protecting them. (Problem is and please correct me if I'm wrong, my understanding is that restraining orders are not made public in Norfolk, as they are in most other areas.)
So, we have to use our own eyes. ***Who does not have access to the children right now?***That is key in determining who else the family is pointing at, whether it's truth or not.
As a caveat, I'm not advocating sleuthing minors in any way at all. I think if we look at who the family wants us to think is responsible, it may explain what's really going on.
I hope I didn't tread TOO lightly, and confuse the hell out of you all.