[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

This kind of changes things a bit - now I’m leaning toward this creepy perv being the killer and the son just being a patsy for Daddy.

[UCANSEE2]

I am wondering if the husband (due to trouble with their marriage/sex life/whatever) brought up the father's contention that he was in love with the wife, or thought that his wife was actually flirting with his father, and the wife said, "well, he's more a man than you" or "well, at least he likes women".

BOOM.

As a police officer once told me, "all it takes is one WRONG WORD and you will strike someone."

[UCANSEE2]

now I’m leaning toward this creepy perv being the killer and the son just being a patsy for Daddy.

I can't see a motive for the father-in-law to kill his son's wife.

I can see plenty of motives for the Son to do so.

I notice that the son moved back in with the father after the wife's 'disappearance'. I can't believe the son didn't know about his father's predilections. Is the son looking for the love his father didn't give him? Was the wife competition for that love, considering the Father-in-laws claims about his 'special' relationship with the daughter-in-law?

[reaganaut]

I thought that too, but apparently dear ol’ dad has a solid alibi for the time of the disappearance.

However, I can see it being used as a Jose Baez defense to bring in reasonable doubt.

I think hubby did it, and dad knows and is covering, hence the joint smear campaign.

I do remember reading that there were some issues with them because hubby went ‘inactive’ in the LDS church, but that usually doesn’t lead to death.