JUST a theory..MOO..
The Snapchat pic has stuck in my head as more than a casual photo op. In the beginning, someone posted that they thought the girls looked like they were "waiting." Put that on the back burner..
I think the perp is familiar w the area on purpose. Not necessarily local to Delphi, but close enough to drive there pretty quick. He could have scouted the area out on foot, as well as via photos just like we have. I don't think he'd want to go there more than a time or two..wouldn't want to be noticed. To go to the spot where the girls were found without knowing about it ahead of time, well that could have landed him in someone's backyard.
I agree with the ideas about him parking in the cemetery, since it's been reported that a vehicle could be somewhat hidden.
Now, going back to Snapchat..Libby took pics and posted them from 2 views of the bridge..what was in front of them & what was behind. If this was a catfish case in any possible way, the perp could have gotten word that they'd be there at 1..and given Libby instructions to post pics that no one was around when they got to the bridge. So they do that. I'd assume he's already close by in a vehicle. He gets the snapchat and parks at the cemetery and does the walk in to the bridge, probably passing by the place he plans to take them. Maybe even leaving a "kill kit" on site. He arrives and perhaps upon seeing him enter the tracks from the woods, Libby knows it's him..but it's not who she's expecting. As he approaches, she starts video. Her frame of mind may have been "We are out of here, but I'm reporting THIS guy," before he had even spoken a word to them..and thought they were just going to get outta Dodge.
Now in the other hand, the Snapchat pic could be as ominous as the video. If Libby WAS able to post that snap from the bridge, then ideally she could send a text or dial 911. Did they maybe see the perp lurking and wanted to document to tell someone later? But weren't scared enough to call or text anyone. And when he came close by she started up the video for the same purpose? My guess is he assumed or knew one of them would have a phone and regardless of if they'd gotten a pic, he'd toss it in the river..end of evidence. Or so he thought.
I feel like the cemetery would be a good escape route, especially if he knew the girls had a pick up time in a short while. I believe the crime was over or nearly over when family began looking and calling out for them. I believe it was sexual and I believe it was very violent. I do not subscribe to the theories of "not intending it to happen" and I don't believe it was a simple strangulation. IMO, he used the girls as leverage against on another and a taser wouldn't be out of the question to incapacitate them both while zip tying them to keep them from running. If Libby's phone was still w her, it surely would have been going off if the sound was on. Perhaps that prompted a toss in the river. Anyway, IMO, he made haste in getting out to the cemetery and out of the area. From the time the girls were supposed to be picked up until midnight that night, I believe the presence of people would have been enough that SOMEONE would remember seeing him leaving. And hey, maybe I'm all wrong and they DID see someone walk off..hence the quest for tips about hitchhikers, etc. sorry for the ramble. Just my thoughts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I essentially agree with your theory. And since we're talking about theories and speculation, here's mine:
I think that social media is a definite aspect in this case. To me, it makes the most sense in regards to how the assailant were to have "found them" so to speak. (*Of course there are other theories that are valid like the ones I posted re: Victimology and Criminology of Child Abduction/Murder cases, like the assailant is most likely a stranger if the victims are aged 13-17; according to the literature. If the child victims are younger in age, the assailant is usually a family member or an acquaintance of some sort.)
He didn't necessarily have to had "friended" or even officially "followed" either of the girls to get information. Nor he didn't technically have to make any direct contact with them; he could have passively followed and or "stalked" them or people close to them. It's possible to glean information from innocent information. In fact, as demonstrated here daily, it's rather simple and anonymous. We can find out about a lot and look at many things and glean a lot of information and it can be anonymous (guests).
It's a fact that Liberty had a "Kik" Messaging App and this app has been directly linked to child exploitation because of the high level of anonymity it offers. Her Kik acct was linked to her Twitter. Anyone could say they're anybody on that app and no one is the wiser. Here is some useful information I got about Kik:
"A main attraction of Kik that differentiates it from other messaging apps is its anonymity. To register for the Kik service, a user must enter a first and last name, e-mail address, and birth date (which, as of February 2016, must show that the user is at least 13 years old[20]), and select a username.[4] Users' names and birth dates are not verified, allowing users to misrepresent their identity and/or age if they so choose.[21] The Kik registration process does not request or require the entry of a phone number (although the user has the option to enter one[20]), unlike some other messaging services that require a user to provide a functioning mobile phone number.[3]
The New York Times has reported that according to law enforcement, Kik's anonymity features go beyond those of most widely used apps.[8] As of February 2016, Kik's guide for law enforcement said that the company cannot locate user accounts based on first and last name, e-mail address and/or birth date; the exact username is required to locate a particular account. The guide further said that the company does not have access to content or "historical user data" such as photographs, videos, and the text of conversations, and that photographs and videos are automatically deleted shortly after they are sent. A limited amount of data from a particular account (identified by exact username), including first and last name, birthdate, e-mail address, link to a current profile picture, device-related information, and user location information such as the most recently used IP address, can be preserved for a period of 90 days pending receipt of a valid order from law enforcement.[4]"
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kik_Messenger
I'm not sure why this social media angle wouldn't be more heavily weighted as a possibility vs. some rando waiting in the woods for maybe someone to come along... I would think that if someone was bound and determined to do what he did and take the risks he was taking, it makes sense to me that he would in theory give himself the best chance of "success" and ensure what he wanted to do would actually happen...
What other way could he have done so (guaranteed himself the best chance to do what he did) other than social media?
IMO, he somehow knew and prepared for them that day. I think Liberty dropped her phone on purpose at some point so he wouldn't take it (or something to that effect).
He's a bad man who wanted to do and did very bad things. I don't think he's a bumbling fool who got lucky, I think he was well prepared for and planned what happened. IMO.
I also don't think he's a local but with technology, he could have familiarized himself with the area, he could have scoped it out prior, etc... I don't think he's local because of the nation wide billboards, but I don't think he's a drifter.
I think when Liberty was filming him, he was also looking down as to not arouse their suspicions. Kinda like a kid who doesn't want to be called on in class; they avoid eye contact and make themselves smaller.
By looking at the two stills, he seems to be making himself as less menacing as possible by lowering his head, hands in pockets, shoulders forward, etc... We also don't know if Liberty was filming as he arrived on scene. She could have been. Or she could have started filming him because he did creep her out, we don't know that. But I'd bet that what ever else she recorded answers those questions.
I do think he was a stranger to them.
Of course, this is all MOO.
