Additional investigation reveals Aaron Solomon likely killed son Grant

Anglican Watch has spent the last several days investigating evidence in the death of Grsnt Solomon. For those just visiting the site for the first time, Grant died at age 18 in Gallatin, Tennessee, after allegedly being dragged by his truck. The circumstances are highly questionable, and his father, Aaron, was the only witness. Thus, many believe that Aaron killed his son.

Our conclusion: Aaron killed Grant.

In our investigation, we reviewed the forensic examination of Grant’s truck, photos, statements from witnesses, and more. In doing so, we drew on the expertise of several coroners, accident reconstruction experts, insurance adjusters, trauma physicians, and police officers.

There were four universal conclusions, with none of our experts expressing any doubt as to the accuracy of these conclusions:

• Grant was not dragged by his truck.
• The fatal head injury Grant sustained did not occur in the parking lot.
• The most likely perpetrator was Aaron; another person may have assisted him.
• While it is impossible to assess Aaron’s mental health without an in-person examination, the record shows that his behavior is consistent over time, suggesting an individual with narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

We’ll go through these conclusions in order.

Allegations that Grant was dragged by his truck

On this issue, none of the evidence supports this conclusion. That includes the medical records, which reveal no injuries consistent with this outcome. Similarly, an examination of the truck does not support this conclusion. And the black box (electric control unit) in the truck reveals that the truck was driven to its resting point above Grant, with the black box recording steering, braking, and the truck in drive, versus park or neutral.

Here is the printout from the black box, with highlighted parts in red. It records everything in the final five seconds before the so-called accident.

 

The data above reveals that the truck was in drive the entire time, and someone was steering it. The truck came to rest when someone applied the brakes.

Examiners also noted that Grant’s cell phone and glasses were found near him; the cellphone was undamaged at the time, but damaged after Aaron returned it. Strangely, Aaron knew the whereabouts of Grant’s phone following the latter’s death.

While these may seem like minor reference points, they have immense significance in this situation. Why? Because loose objects in a dragging accident quickly separate from the victim, even when in pockets. Moreover, glasses are usually found at the point of impact, not 60 feet away, where Grant was when EMS technicians found him.

Moreover, as noted previously, photos of the parking lot and grassy area above the ditch reveal no evidence supporting Aaron’s claim of a dragging accident.

Nor do the medical records reveal the bruises seen when a vehicle drags someone.

In that scenario, there should be two sets of bruises: one at the height of the bumper or other point where the vehicle struck the victim; the other at the multiple points where the victim struck the pavement.

These are usually extensive, given the force of even a slow-moving vehicle. Thus, the absence of these bruises on Grant makes it impossible that he was dragged by his truck.

Head injury

We’ve covered this topic extensively. So we won’t rehash all the data.

Suffice it to say, the cause of death was almost certainly Grant’s head injury and the resulting blood loss.

Based on the medical records, we identified Grant’s head injury as the only significant injury. In this context, bruises on Grant’s face, hip, and waist are consistent with being struck from behind in the head with a blunt object, possibly while bending over a low object, like the front of a vehicle. The bruises indicate initial impact after being struck, followed by a second set of bruises when Grant fell to the pavement or another hard surface. But these bruises are not consistent with dragging, as they are too limited and not in the correct locations.

Again, none of this data is consistent with Aaron’s depiction of events.

The likely perpetrator was Aaron

Next, we come to the issue of who likely killed Grant. On this score, we concluded that Aaron is the most likely subject.

In addition to being the only person on the scene, several secondary issues support the notion that Aaron is the culprit. These issues include:

• Alleged variations in Aaron’s depiction of events over time.
• His refusal to go to Grant while remaining at the top of the hill.
• His claims that several people were on the scene. There is no evidence to support this claim, and to the extent anyone else was on the scene, that person would likely have been a participant in the attack on Grant versus a bystander.
• His retention of Grant’s truck, followed by a seemingly fraudulent effort to offload it.
• Grant’s baseball bat, the weapon likely used, has never been recovered.
• Aaron’s claim that Grant went to the rear of his vehicle before it started to roll is entirely unsupported by the evidence.
• Aaron’s alleged statement against interest in which, in front of witnesses, he stated that he killed his son.

Also, because there was no blood in the parking lot, Grant was assaulted elsewhere on the property or at a remote location. Both of these scenarios make it likely that a second person was involved, for Grant would not have been able to drive his truck to the scene following the attack.

Also, as we discuss in a moment, Aaron’s behavior over time, as described by his family and third parties, is consistent and evinces someone likely both a narcissist and a sociopath.

Aaron’s mental health

On this issue, it’s important to note that diagnosing someone absent in-person meetings and specialized training is impossible. And domestic relations is an ugly area of the law, where in the best of circumstances, parties are too close to the matter at hand to be impartial and things get spectacularly ugly.

But we reviewed various reports from Aaron’s family, social workers, and third parties, and a consistent portrait emerged. This portrait includes:

• Multiple indicia of narcissistic personality disorder, including:
  • An uncanny ability to tell people what they want to hear.
  • Tremendous charm when seeking narcissistic supply.
  • Seeing children as extensions of himself, there to meet his needs, with little other interest. In Gracie’s case, this extends to sexual gratification. In Grant’s case, it was the vicarious recognition Aaron received from Grant’s athletic success and expectations that Grant would play professional baseball—something Grant did not want to do.
  • Focus on appearance.
  • Sense of entitlement.
  • Narcissistic rages.
  • An utter lack of empathy manifesting as indifference to the welfare of others.
  • An inability to maintain close, lasting relationships.
  • Utter contempt of those in the narcissist’s discard phase, when the narcissist no longer has any use for the person.
• Similarly, we identified multiple indicia of antisocial personality disorder (h/t to the late Danni Moss), the preferred term versus sociopathy. These factors include:
  • An ability to seem innocent and guileless.
  • An ability to lie readily, on the spur of the moment, to suit the person’s needs at that time.
  • A history of violence and intimidation to control others.
  • Machiavellianism.
  • An utter lack of an underlying moral or ethical reference point.
  • Careful concealment of deeply held biases against others based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or other factors.
  • Ability to manipulate perceptions of third parties.
  • Lack of adherence to social norms and laws, including allegations by Grant that Aaron accessed both adult and child porn while on his home computer, which Grant described as “vile.”

Given Aaron’s track record of violence towards his wife, son, and daughter, including his attempt to kill his wife, we conclude that his behavior and likely multiple personality disorders increase the likelihood that Aaron murdered his son.

Note that we are not posting specifics from various reports by child protective services and others to afford Angie and Gracie privacy. But we are confident that the information supports our conclusions. We also note that child protective services concluded that Aaron was sexually abusing Gracie and the details we have seen support that conclusion.

We therefore stand with Angie and Gracie and call on Tennessee officials to open an investigation into Grant Solomon’s death, as well as the reasons Gallatin police department and attorneys for the state are sandbagging the issue. Any inquiry should include the following:

• A review of Aaron’s conduct towards family members.
• An evaluation of Aaron’s veracity, including:
  • A review of his shifting explanations as to the circumstances of Grant’s death.
  • A request for a polygraph examination by Aaron.
  • A review of his conduct towards his family, including past allegations of physical violence.
• An evaluation of black box data from Grant’s truck.
• A forensic examination of Grant’s remains.
• A warranted search of Aaron’s home, email, computers, and Internet activity.
• Interviews with Aaron’s coworkers and colleagues.
• An interview of former Grace Chapel pastor Steven Berger.
• Interviews with hospital and EMS personnel who cared for Grant in his final moments.
• A forensic psychological exam of Aaron.

In closing, our standard disclaimer to the inevitable lawyers: These are all allegations, and our conclusions are based on a limited set of data. But we believe Angie and Gracie and see no reason to doubt them. And we welcome any evidence — not unsupported conclusions, but evidence — to the contrary.

Finally, we say this: without any doubt or reservation, we believe that Aaron murdered Grant, sexually abused his daughter, and engaged in emotional, verbal, and physical violence toward Angie, Grant, and Gracie.

It’s time to act.