Beside the grandmothers retaining counsel, is there anything that points toward one or both of them knowing what happened to Gus? I might sound naive but I have a hard time imagining that they deliberately lied to police and set all the searches, investigations, media etc into motion. I think it’s far more likely that this hard working family, whose neighbors describe as lovely people, were minding their business when something happened to little Gus. I don’t interpret any of their interactions with media as being suspect. They cooperated with police who were doing what they could to help them. They owe nothing to the media or public at large. JMO and ramblings…
There really isn't in my mind. I'd even say, speaking 100% through attorneys after the initial 2-3 days of searching doesn't sound suspicious either. A motive doesn't prove anything, but it prompts theories, and I'm at a loss for a motive that makes sense. Some people have spent hours tracing family inheritance, but that is ridiculous in my opinion. The only person in the story with an inheritance motive is a 1 year old.
There are a few suspicious things.
1) Police have said there are inconsistencies in time lines.
2) By all appearances, NO trace of Gus was found, which just doesn't make sense if the day were normal up to a point, then he disappeared. Playing in a dirt pile, he would have removed boots. (Some children have intense sensory preferences, and would keep boots on, but one of the few recent pieces of information we have about him is he was willing to play outdoors barefoot.) If he broke skin in any injury he would have bled. If there was any struggle, he would have lost his hat and some hair.
3) LE and partners did many searches by air, drone, small vehicle and foot. LE said the foot search was in the area defined by a perimeter that a child his age who has gone missing is likely to be found in-95% likely. Searches went well beyond the 95% perimeter foot search in some way. For instance, bodies of water were searched with divers and one huge dam drained. Mines were searched with remote cameras. A tremendous area was photographed and analyzed with AI which mapped live animals by species, dead animals by species and one human. Nothing made public that was suspicious was found, but it remains suspicious that no trace of Gus was found since it is his home.
4) Police said they ruled out Gus wandering away. Police said they ruled out an abduction for reasons such as, no unknown cars reported, all persons working on that and nearby properties eliminated as suspects, and the difficulty in approaching the station undetected as vehicles kick up sand, make noise, and have to go through several gates, some of which are routinely locked, per LE.
5) LE first said that one person is a suspect after withdrawing cooperation. (Which might mean speaking through attorney only). Then said two people are not cooperating. And consistently emphasized that Gus' parents are not suspects in his disappearance. So, that makes a grandparent seem more suspicious. But I agree, that is not because of any behaviors by any grandparent known to the public. We don't know anything suspicious except that LE has said they have a suspect.
I find the time it took for parents to release a photo suspicious. I think, if I searched all over the homestead, and so did LE with infrared and other tools, I would be unable to logic out the gates and the remoteness, and would become convinced he was kidnapped and release the pic...maybe with face blurred, but definitely the pics that were released, and a pic of his distinctive hat. But...that behavior is not universally considered suspicious. If the parents knew LE was right, abduction was impossible, not releasing the photo is not suspicious. And, more importantly, LE keeps emphasizing that the parents, who would have control of publication of Gus' image, are not suspects.
I don't think an accident followed by hiding the body makes sense on the part of either of the grandparents.
MOO
