I tend to think this is the case as well. She could only throw weak people under the bus--people who wouldn't cause further problems for her under the threat of arrest or association.
If anyone were involved, I think there are two reasons she wouldn't mention them:
1. She believed he/she/they are more dangerous than she is, so she would not want to be seen as a snitch and put herself at their mercy
2. She wanted to minimize everything she'd done to Lucas--if he's found and LE connects him to her, she plans to point at JO first, then a stranger abduction, then use the "accident" or "found him and panicked" story or combination of both. To identify an accomplice or accessory would be to give them permission to tell all they know--and if they expose the lies she's holding on to that's a problem. Plus, if they know the story was far more severe than the way she wants to paint it, she wouldn't want to give them up.
Case in point -- take with a grain of salt. I don't give weight or credence to NG interview with SE & SH, but they did mention something interesting about CR. They claim LE had CR talk to EG--and she pretended not to know him. Don't know if this is true or not, but if so -- why? She was still protecting herself and wanted her activities to stay hidden --she didn't need CR exposing that Lucas was already gone because it didn't fit her agenda.
Whether you believe any of that or not, it did make me think -- many of assumed EG would throw anyone under the bus if they were involved to get the heat off herself. I understand more clearly now that she had to pick what she wanted JH, LE, and the public to know about her, and she wasn't going to mention others unless it suited her agenda. So, there could be "others" out there that are involved peripherally at least, but she wouldn't have mentioned them because their presence supports her guilt, not innocence. MOO.
