Well, just call me confused.....
ITA^^^ WHY EVEN MENTION IT??? If she is trying to explain away the possibility of blood being found in multiple locations, that implies there may be a substantial amount of Gannon's blood/droplets found. IF this is true, the potential for a fairly significant cut exists. Why wouldn't Gannon be taken for medical care to determine if sutures may be needed? If the cut only needed a bandage, why would it continue to bleed enough to leave a trail? Especially if he had shoes on. What kind of woodworking tool could cut through a shoe and wound his foot like this? Has LE found only one bloody shoe?
EXACTLY!!!!! Doesn't make much sense, does it? I'm sorry, but for me, her statement (unfortunately

), causes a great deal of suspicion that Gannon was indeed injured by her. Again, why would she even publicly mention Gannon cut his foot on Saturday night, then take him hiking on Sunday? That would imply the cut only needed a bandage ("he was good to go"), and there would not be any reason for blood to be found in the garage, or on the back of the vehicle(s).