I was watching the ID Discovery thing on this case; I followed it loosely so don't know what would be wrong with my theories since I have not followed it that closely. But could it be that the girls were going there to meet a boy that they met on the internet or a boy they knew? Why would the girls go there on a school day? If it was someone they met on the internet that would explain why perhaps the video was taken -they realized that the person approaching was not a 14 year old boy.
However, I would think if there was internet chat they would have figured that out by now. If it was not someone from internet (I have also been watching "Web of Lies" and there are lots of stories with the internet and young girls), I don't think the video would have been deliberate. No adult - let alone a child - would, in a moment of danger be thinking to kick their shoes off to leave evidence or leave a video for someone to find them; it happens in a split second and no one would think through this chain of events.
I also think he had to have a weapon, a gun most likely, especially if it was a stranger. Otherwise how would he have been able to restrain two girls? He would have had to tie them up if no gun because otherwise one could have gotten away.
How deserted is the area? would anyone have heard them? It had to have taken some time to do the murders and clean up- would no one else have gone by? The bodies were not found in the same area- he would have had to march them somewhere since I doubt he could have carried 2 girls though the woods so he had to have some measure of control over them (through a weapon or really knowing them well, or have been in a position of authority over them like clergy or a teacher, otherwise I don't think then girls would have marched through the woods for an aquaintance); it looks like it was quite a distance, they would have run. He could have caught one but he could not catch two running girls. Wouldn't the video/audio have captured the murders?
This incident calls to mind something I saw on Oprah. they said never ever go to the second location. Nothing good ever comes from that second location.
I also think it had to have been planned; it would not be a random person that came across them right then. He either knew they would be there that day or else saw them earlier and planned on the spur of the moment. If it was not a populated location, why would someone go there with a gun or rope-if he wanted to do something that day, he would have went to a place where there would be more people around. It was just random chance if he was a predator that he would encounter the girls there on a school day in middle of winter no less.
And BG has to be the killer. What are the chances that there's a photo taken right at time of the murder in a deserted location? And if that person was there innocently, I would have thought they would have come forward, submitted DNA, etc. and cleared themselves.
The tone of the talking is odd. Would a random predator call the girls "guys"? It's a somewhat casual term.
And why isn't DNA solving this case? If it is someone close like LE imply couldn't they test many of the people in the town of 3,000 (so what maybe 500 age-appropriate males?) and at least through familial DNA find the perp?