Maybe the thing someone "saw and felt they needed to report" (reported after the murders became known to public) was a car driving over grassy strip between old CPS bldg to quickly pull onto the highway? A way to "get around quickly" ? I think this could be it!
That could well be the explanation. CME took bridge pics at 2.49 so for her to not have heard or seen anything it had to have been over by then. So between the video time and 2.45 could be likely for FSG to see him later at 2.52. Very tight timeline. MOO.
You know, even if the 2:07 SC photo time is accurate, I still think it's feasible to have them at the CS by 2:30. It really does make sense.
Yes, that is about where I thought it was in reference to the CPS. I still think he violates 2 things he has to do after the killing. One, is to leave the area as quickly - but not so he attracts attention. Why would he be in the area of the bridge if his vehicle is at the CPS building. If he crosses over the bridge he either has to go over the bridge and then double back crossing over the Hoosier Hwy or turn around on or before the bridge to double back to his vehicle. Extra distance means greater chance of being seen by more witnesses. Second, go where you will be seen by as few witnesses as possible - if you cannot eliminate being seen altogether. The Freedom Bridge would seem to be the last place in the trail complex where you could expect to accomplish that part.
Or, if he'd had a problem with his car, or lost his keys, and didn't have a phone on him, he had to walk to the nearest public phone? Wouldn't that be convenient? I don't really think this happened, but still...
I took it to mean he was on the CPS side of Freedom Bridge, not necessarily on the Bridge itself. He could have been walking on either side of the bridge, in a car at the Freedom Bridge parking area to meet someone in the car that was earlier seen at the CPS building. The timing for the car at CPS was 12 till 5 p.m. IIRC. That car may not have been there for that whole 5 hour period but could have dropped someone off, then returned to either parking area or the trail head parking area.
Also, even if BG had avoided the trails to get back to his car, if he was parked in the CPS lot, at the point around the main trail entrance, he'd have had no choice but to walk near the Freedom Bridge to get back to the lot.
And, of course, I am using the assumption that the person parked at the CPS building is the killer not just an unaccounted for witness. The killer could very well have parked at Freedom Bridge. (Although, if he planned to commit the crime, i.e., stalking for prey, I think the CPS building would fit his needs better.)
) This person may not be a suspect, but someone on a day trip from Chicago IL, Louisville KY or St. Louis MO and they have not followed this case. After all, I believe at the first CrimeCon the family attended didn't they state there were attendees who were not familiar with this case?I don't believe that scenario has a high probability, but at the same time I can't throw it out. That scenario brings up the possibility that another party knows or should at least suspect who the killer is.
And, of course, I am using the assumption that the person parked at the CPS building is the killer not just an unaccounted for witness. The killer could very well have parked at Freedom Bridge. (Although, if he planned to commit the crime, i.e., stalking for prey, I think the CPS building would fit his needs better.)
My mistake is that I frequently forget that LE has said they want to talk to this person and have not labeled them a suspect like they did with the guy on the bridge. For all I know this person may have been seen taking numerous photos, maybe even seen with a camera model (Canon, Nikon, etc.), and LE wants to know what they have. (For the record that is a scenario that I created for an example....I'm not saying someone was actually there taking photos.
I saw that, but they stop short of saying to what extent the driver is involved. Do they believe this person is an unaccounted for witness? In which case, they won't likely publicize what they learn on the chance that the public (folks like me) are going to consider him the killer. There has been nothing stated about anyone seeing who the driver was - male? Or female? Or if anyone actually saw a person exit or enter the vehicle at all. I believe it is a possibility that if this is who LE suspects is the killer they either have not learned anything - or enough details to ID make/model of vehicle. I tend to believe that if LE knows, for example, if they are looking particular color make (e.g., Chevy, Ford, Toyoto) and year range that vehicle was made and they believe it to be the suspect they would release that as info someone could use to ID a person and call in a tip. I get that LE would not release more audio or the method of murder as these are things that not only the killer would know, but probably not help the public ID a killer. But if they got a better description of a vehicle and LE had a STRONG suspicion this was the killer why not release it. If witnesses saw the vehicle this is not information ONLY the killer would know.
Yes it does. But I think LE have alluded to this in the past. Several witnesses saw BG but noone knows who he is, yet he is supposedly local to Delphi. Now "local to Delphi" could be what 10-15 miles radius perhaps?
Do you think that was what BH saw that day? Maybe he's the witness to the vehicle leaving, maybe quite awhile after murders and LE needed a witness to it being parked there at the time of the murders? Wish we knew just where BH was situated that day when he saw whatever it was that he saw.
