D
Deleted member 155000
Guest
I am a fan of trying to keep the thread on topic too. I've read every single post since the beginning but have only commented a few times because the conversation often cycles back to debating things that have already been said repeatedly.
I feel pretty certain that LE would be trying to do the same thing as some of you and see which sex offenders might fit the build/look of BG. They would be eliminating some, who were locked up or on camera etc elsewhere, and looking for possible connections between the remaining individuals and the girls.
Because the girls had multiple SM accounts, and bc LE initially said "know what your kids are doing," it makes me think the person could've lived in the general region (maybe not the small town) and discovered them online. It would be important, too, in addition to looking at their SM interactions, to search their internet histories and see if they were participating in any online forums etc.
Just hypothetically, if the girls were expecting to meet a 16 year old boy, they may have known in the back of their head that people can lie on the internet and be someone else. They may have known they were taking a risk, but considered it a very slight risk, but when a man in his 30s or 40s approached them, they became suspicious and began videoing.
It's possible they photographed a passerby fairly innocently and he became angry that they were invading his privacy and there was some sort of confrontation too.
Or, what if some adult they knew from the community noticed they were under dressed (they may have been fine; just hypothesizing) and offered them sweatshirts from their car or home...and they willingly walked back toward RL's for what they thought was a legitimate reason.
Until LE confirms even generally what else is on that video, lots of possibilities still exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I feel pretty certain that LE would be trying to do the same thing as some of you and see which sex offenders might fit the build/look of BG. They would be eliminating some, who were locked up or on camera etc elsewhere, and looking for possible connections between the remaining individuals and the girls.
Because the girls had multiple SM accounts, and bc LE initially said "know what your kids are doing," it makes me think the person could've lived in the general region (maybe not the small town) and discovered them online. It would be important, too, in addition to looking at their SM interactions, to search their internet histories and see if they were participating in any online forums etc.
Just hypothetically, if the girls were expecting to meet a 16 year old boy, they may have known in the back of their head that people can lie on the internet and be someone else. They may have known they were taking a risk, but considered it a very slight risk, but when a man in his 30s or 40s approached them, they became suspicious and began videoing.
It's possible they photographed a passerby fairly innocently and he became angry that they were invading his privacy and there was some sort of confrontation too.
Or, what if some adult they knew from the community noticed they were under dressed (they may have been fine; just hypothesizing) and offered them sweatshirts from their car or home...and they willingly walked back toward RL's for what they thought was a legitimate reason.
Until LE confirms even generally what else is on that video, lots of possibilities still exist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As to not being able to not have the hearing - the article stated: "While in court, a 3 p.m. April 3 hearing was set to present evidence during a petition to revoke probation hearing, Carroll County Prosecutor Rob Ives confirmed Wednesday afternoon." RL's attorney filed a "petition to revoke the probation hearing" and that is what the judge will decide on April 3rd. He's trying to get it thrown out before the actual probation hearing is even heard. The petitioner (RL) will then have to prove that the State doesn't have sufficient evidence to go forward with their hearing. This could drag on for months which is why he also asked for RL to be let out on bond which the Judge took under advisement. He could rule as early as today on that or just wait until the April 3rd hearing.
