I am noticing that the back deck area which LoisLane is referring to, looks like it is the garage (as determined by seeing the vehicles parked in front side of this portion of the building). It looks like the deck on the back of that part of that portion of the building could be at a different level than the main back deck, and is accessible by the back door of the presumed garage. That would explain why this section of the building has no windows, and no apparent basement. The main part of the house does look like it has a basement, considering it has windows at ground level.
When I showed the gridding pictures to my husband, without him knowing much about what I was showing him... the first thing he thought, was that this land has been gridded off and that 'sonar' has already been done. He said sonar can tell a bunch of things, such as where the land is more soft, and may have been dug up more recently than other parts, where things might be seen to exist underground, etc. (But yet police don't seem to be digging anywhere).
When I saw police down on their hands and knees and lying down to go through the land with such precision at eye level like that, it made me wonder if they are looking for things that may be spread out all over the land, like say perhaps tiny things, like teeth, or pieces of gold, or tiny bone fragments.. is there a wood chipper on the property? I don't recall seeing one or talking about that possibility (but that might be a common thing to have on a farm, but perhaps not on this 'farm' which doesn't have a forested area?)... but when I think about it, although I am definitely not a fan of the 'dissolving people' theory, it would make more sense to me if first the bodies were put through a wood chipper... and then *maybe* put in some kind of liquid to 'dissolve' what was left, but I really struggle with that theory.
In any case.. I could see the wood chipper thing.. except.. just say.. bodies were put through a chipper, and then scattered all over land to act as fertilizer or some crazy *ssed thing. There may be little bone fragments, where are the peoples' jewellery(?), teeth, etc... but.. wouldn't little bone pieces have been tracked down by both men and dogs in the summer? That doesn't really make sense to me either. Although.. if the bodies were 'dissolved', I imagine there would still be pieces that would not dissolve, and those may be what is being looked for with fine-toothed comb? And after being in a 'solution', I suppose dogs would no longer be able to get a scent of human?
I also have wondered if the property's septic has been investigated, which is a much simpler theory than 'dissolving people'.. so I'm sure LE has looked well into that months ago. (And for the size of home and number of occupants, I'm assuming this home would have a relatively tiny septic tank, much too small to place 2 adults and 1 child into). Husband said the septic would likely be more or less straight out from the small window at the back of the house, since that is likely the home's bathroom, with probably the eating area, and then the kitchen next to it. And interestingly, that is where it looks like the land may have been dug up, although the pic is blurred when it is blown up larger, so can't tell if it was dug up, or shadows, or rocks, or perhaps a garden, or what. (Although there was no garden there in the summer).
I notice LE are focussing all around the home, and I'm wondering.. if they think little pieces could be strewn all over the place.. they've got what.. hundreds of acres to comb, and would it make sense for a criminal to hide evidence all surrounding his own home, rather than in the vast fields which obviously he had access to, scattered far apart, not all condensed in one area? Doesn't make sense to me.
Quite frankly, I am wondering if LE and prosecution may be fretting a little more as this case comes closer to revealing their evidence via a preliminary hearing, .. fretting because perhaps their evidence isn't quite *there* yet, so they're being advised to find *some*thing more tangible to present to a jury. It sounds (from previous LE/prosecution statements) like the prosecution's theory is more of a scientific theory with circumstantial evidence, which may be prove difficult for a jury to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I also wonder about grandstanding, but it looks like they have put a lot of resources into this current search, so I'm thinking it's definitely more than grandstanding, and they need more tangible evidence to get a conviction.
MOO
PS When I thought about the potential sonar and potentially discovering some softer portions of the land if dug up more recently (as in more recent years too).. I wondered about more historical cases, in addition to this specific case.. it made me wonder if LE may be seeking some kind of evidence on a different, perhaps cold case(s?). It does seem hard for *me* to imagine that a man could jump from a historical petty criminal history to a mass murderer including the murder of a child, which child also happened to be his sister's own nephew. MOO
