"As for the camping thing, why don't you get the significance of that? YOU DO NOT TAKE TWO TODDLERS CAMPING IN SUB-ZERO TEMPS AFTER MIDNIGHT!!!! AND NO CONSCIENTIOUS MOTHER WOULD ALLOW THAT!!!"
So maybe SHE was a bad parent, the kind of parent that would run off with someone?
"Soooo, the logical conclusion is that she was either incapacitated OR already dead at that time."
OR, she was looking for a reason for him to be gone so she could run off? Or maybe have her lover come over, who then KILLED her? There are LOTS of reasonable conclusions.
Now, if there were BLOOD evidence, signs of a struggle, DNA in the van, etc etc, the fact that he took them camping MIGHT be a factor. But that ALONE indicates NOTHING.
"The child's statement was made during a session with a counselor."
That "statement" has been twisted SO many times, I don;t think ANYONE knows when or where it was said. First it was that the child drew a picture of Mommy in the trunk. Then it was that it was a picture of the car, without Mommy in it, and when ASKED where Mommy was, it was stated that she was in the trunk.
But what is UNDISPUTED is that the GRANDPARENTS were the ones to relate this news to the police. What that DOES indicate was that the PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED counselor did not think the statement was valid enough to report AS A MANDATORY REPORTER, to the police.
"You refuse to believe he's LIKELY a killer of his wife. That's your issue."
Three years ago, using PERCENTAGES< I would say that an intimate partner is almost ALWAYS the likely suspect. Three years later, with the police having searched every nook and cranny of HIS house, his FATHERS house and the location where they camped, and finding ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, no, I do not think he killed her.
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...