Actually, I'd say you just described a lot of incompetence - if they allowed the DNA evidence to become contaminated, or misinterpreted evidence, or miscommunication. Competent cops don't allow those things to happen, IMO.
I think it would be helpful to walk through a scenario involving faked or planted evidence. This is the way my mind works, I can't just say "anything's possible!" without thinking it though. Can we explore the logistics of the hypothetical staged death scene? Because I believe that, when we think it through, it's a very implausible theory, at least based on how I would imagine a staged death scene.
The problem with a theory that involves the staging of evidence to make it only *look* like the Ls and NO are dead, as I see it, is that we would have to assume the evidence staged would be blood. AL and KL withdraw and store their own blood over many weeks or months, until they have a sufficient volume that, when spilled at the crime scene, would cause LE to conclude they had died. I'm sure we've all seen a movie or tv show where someone faked their own death in this way.
Problem: Why would they allow NO to spend the night, on the very night they plan to disappear/stage their murder? How did LE come to the conclusion the NO was dead? Did LE say "well we have lots of blood from 2 out of 3 of them. That's enough for us to conclude NO is dead too"? Did the grandparents wound their grandson and cause him to bleed so profusely that LE would also conclude that he was dead? And then kidnapped their grandson? It doesn't ring true.
Is there another way to stage a death besides through a vast volume of blood evidence?
And then, how did DG come into the equation? What are the chances that he, a relative who also had business dealings with AL, was seen in their neighborhood on the very night they staged their disappearance? It's too coincidental, IMO.
Do you have a plausible staging scenario? Anyone?
I've been on the fence with two scenarios (alive vs. dead).
I feel extremely guilty thinking this could be staged, as it feels very disrespectful to the victims and their families. But it's also one hard to shake only because of the past histories/events I mentioned earlier in a post (aliases/false ID, fraud, inventions, shell companies, living on the lam, etc. These all sound like things out of some spy movie and like 'illusions').
Personally, my 'movie theory' (the probably unlikely, unrealistic) is not a nice one. Not sure I want to post.
I'll say it in a round about way - if a man wanted to flee from huge financial troubles who would he ask for help to live off the grid? Maybe someone he knows who has done this before. Now, if this person was extremely desperate this plan might not include their spouse, but maybe another relative to take with them (maybe even a last minute decision).
So a plan is made and carried out with one true victim at Parkhill. One of the partners in this plan is suspected and arrested while the other partner is long gone across the border with relative. Declarations are made, insurances get paid out. LE know what's happening and figure if one party wants to take the fall, maybe they can scare him into giving up the other by charging him with heinous crimes (technically and legally, this works because evidence does say this).
As Tinker said, this could be strategic of LE. And they may have only figured all this out after the search on the acreage was done, so they would not have purposefully used manpower and resources. This way, it looks to one partner that the other is taking the fall and LE can surveil
with intelligence the other party involved who may think they got away with it, might relax and make mistakes. That's what could make this case
complex. That would explain the wording in the AA.
Of course, this sounds too much like a movie and I tell myself this constantly. But it nags me for some reason
I feel terrible even thinking this stuff as it feels disrespectful, some days I want my imagination to not get the best of me.
