From memory, wasn't it said (and rather obvious too) that the photo/video-still of the BG taken from Libby's phone, was taken from a longggg distance? And that photographic image of BG is confirmed then and now, to be 'THE suspect?
To my knowledge, that sketch they've been plastering everywhere for the past 2 years was a drawing *based* on that photographic image... as far as I know, it was NOT based on an eye witness description. But yet apparently they DID have an eye witness description all this time, created only 3 days after the murders, when a police sketch artist drew it based on the witness's memory.
For whatever reason, doesn't it seem that the eye witness description was discounted, in favor of one which *appeared* to more closely represent the man in the photographic image?
Would this not explain the mixup? It's possible that *because* that photo image was taken from SO far away, it is not really recognizable as far as the guy's true appearance - as someone mentioned, it seemed like perhaps 'frames' were put together, which made it seem that it was a 'hat'.. when maybe there was no hat at all (also remember police way back, said not to focus on the hat?). Facial features are a heckuva lot smaller than a hat/head-of-hair, so.. how they ever figured they could get a reasonable likeness based on a photo from that far away taken on a phone of unknown quality, is beyond me.
Perhaps they JUST clued in (perhaps through a distance-photographic/and then sketch experiment?) that when a photo is taken from THAT far away, you can NOT sketch a reasonable likeness of the person, and put all of your eggs in that basket... it put people on the wrong track. Maybe that IS why all the emotion, and feeling that the family needs to be left alone to digest this.
(I am wondering if it couldn't be one of the victim's family members who may have even BEEN the witness, and actually SEEN the BG, which would just be a horrible thing, to think they saw him, and all this time, they knew he looked different than the drawing depiction?)
Imho, I think those 2 sketches are indeed 'different interpretations' of the same guy (BG), however the one was created from a distorted source, so cannot reasonably be expected to have any accuracy.... whereas the witness account is an eye witness account (which has also been proven to be often very inaccurate!).
When the 2 sketches were compared, even though they are vastly different, it did seem (at least to me) that key features may have been similar, just not anywhere near exact. They have to now say that the drawing in use for the past 2 years 'is not a suspect', because he was simply a rendering of what a degraded, long-range, poor-quality phone photo looked like, and doesn't even exist.
I also believe that the BG's gait in the video is not his natural gait. You can see how he is stepping over a railroad tie with a particularly large gap between, and it also seems that he may be changing his course of direction at that moment too. Perhaps by asking people to look at his mannerisms they are speaking more about the hands-in-the-pockets/beltloops/waistband/whatever, the way he holds his head when he walks, his stature (ie slumped-back/straight-back/whatever). LE did say the man was not showing his natural gait, due to the ties he was walking on. I wouldn't be looking for people with fake limbs, and such, jmo.
I could be all wrong and mistaken about the originally-published sketch being only a drawing based on the crappy photo.. but considering he looks a LOT like the guy IN the photo, it makes sense that that is what this guy was based on, no?
