Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by Tricia, Apr 22, 2019.
Yep it is the case in my signature I think you are referring to. That is a possibility IMO.
If I think back to somebody I passed a day or two ago, with whom I exchanged a slight acknowledgment or glance, I might be able to recall a few details. Would I rely on my memory enough to come up with an accurate description? No. Even if I spoke with that person briefly I wouldn't. Though I'd possibly remember more if they creeped me out.
As far as eye color, I, personally, would likely notice and remember blue better than any other shade. Especially if I saw them in the sunlight. I can totally buy the witness's recollection as stated, but again, witnesses can be wholly inaccurate.
The new description says eye color is unknown, which is probably best. JMO
Yeah, I can understand that- recognizing or remembering blue eyes easier than other colors. But it’s the opposite here. The witness was sure they were NOT blue. Which means they had full confidence that since they didn’t outright remember them being blue, they therefore were not blue. Yet.... they don’t remember what color they were.
It’s like a math word problem.
Not trying to get us too caught up on this eye color thing. I just can’t make logical sense out of the witness telling LE the eyes definitely weren’t blue. Only reason it matters to me is that it was one of the very few original descriptors of BG, and yet it’s now changed as well as the sketch. And the original description was based on a witness account. So, why did it change? Witness was SO sure.
Anyway, just something that will continue to niggle at me.
It niggles at me, too.
Eye color is hard. I would have trouble differentiating brown/hazel/green/yellow by memory unless their eyes had really struck me. I agree with you, though, the person seemed sure they weren't blue, and that same person's description mattered enough to LE for it to be the suspect's face for almost two years.
I know LE says to ignore OBG now, but being the broken record that I am, I can't get past the fact that only the age (and to an extent the eye color) changed, but the hair color did not.
Maybe they now have a POI who has blue eyes!
It is a safer bet to say eye colour unknown. IIRC they did say with the original sketch eye colour unknown but not blue, so they have just taken out the "but not blue" words.
Yes, many thoughts on eye color. LE stated when Sketch #1 came out that they knew his eyes were not blue. Has LE said that about Sketch #2? I don't recall anything about the eyes regarding Sketch #2.
Of course, this all follows my lack of comprehension about the way LE has treated the two sketches. At the April PC, LE states that #1 is primary and #2 is secondary. Sometime after that a correction is given and LE states we should focus on #2. (They may have even stated that Sketch #1 was no longer relevant to the case, but I don't remember.) Then 2-3 weeks later the ISP Superintendent states in an interview the person might 'in between' the two sketches - IOW a combination of the two sketches.
Truly puzzling, I agree. I’ve convinced myself (for the time being until another theory is more compelling to me!) that the new sketch- young BG- reflects an online persona. In my mind, if that’s the case, all of what you said- what LE has communicated cryptically- lines up. I can’t make it fit otherwise
(eta Witness description of eye color still a mystery to me however)
It's insane! They say the two sketches are not the same person. So did the witness of OBG sketch see somebody different than the witness of YBG? Yet they both were the same height, weight, and hair color? But if it's likely a combination of the two, than that makes it sound like two witnesses describing the same person, but just remembering them differently. Or the suspect's appearance changed dramatically between the two sightings. All aboard the crazy train.
I'll try to shut up about the hair color now, but I am very hopeful they have a reddish brown hair sample. Either BG's, or someone's they can tie him to.
While I've never really felt there was an online connection in this case, what you say here does make sense if the witness who "saw something they felt needed to be reported" was actually reporting on online activity, and the description was given based on an online photo.
My question in this scenario, though, is why would LE not have a better sketch, or even simply release the online photo? Surely they could track that down? And if it was only an online persona, would LE have that as the suspect's description if they weren't sure it's truly what he looked like?
They said sketch 1 is no longer a POI so he must have been a real person for LE to say that right?
IMO, referring to that assertion as a fact is a bit generous.
That is one of the most polite ways of calling baloney that I have ever seen!!
Yes, very good questions.
Only thing I can come with is that the young sketch is in fact a likeness to BG- who a witness saw and described as younger, as well as the old sketch is in fact a likeness to BG- who we see in the video stills and who was a composite of other witness opinions.
Both are essentially the same person, but something has made LE recently decide the younger-looking version is closer to the image(s)/ persona put forth online.
So BG “may appear younger”. Could simply be that BG age is just hard to distinguish to the average passerby witness and there were conflicting opinions on age. Or could be LE doesn’t have a specific online picture to put forth, but they believe there to be some sort of online connection now (change in strategy/new direction), and for whatever reason they think he skewed younger online than the old BG sketch.
My thoughts obviously clear as mud on this. Ha.
OK I’m going to throw this out there and see what y’all think because this has really been bugging me.
1) Four days after the murders someone comes to the police and says, “ I saw someone doing something and think that should be reported.” LE thinks the info is important enough to have a sketch artist sit down with this person and come up with a sketch. The sketch is of a young man with curly-ish hair on the thin side. For reason we don’t know, the public never sees this sketch until over two years later.
2) LE recovers Libby’s phone and finds that this bright young girl has videoed a man walking across the bridge toward the girls. The video is blurry and a bit out of focus but after observing only a few seconds of the video LE can presumably see easily (as can the public when they are allowed to see it over two years later) that this man on the bridge is a youngish rather thin man.
3) Just a few days later LE has a press conference where they release a picture of the BG and the audio clip. The guy is first a POI and then quickly becomes the suspect. The picture appears to show an older guy(50 give or take), a little overweight with a beer gut. LE’s description of BG reinforces what we see.
4) For the next two years tons of people on WS and the internet dissect this picture and info. The photo is distributed across the country by the media and flyers and posters are sent far and wide by the families. A sketch follows from witnesses. The guy looks a little younger but we get basically the same description from LE. We’re all looking for this older overweight guy with the beer gut, now with reddish blonde hair.
5) Remember, while we are all looking for the older beer gut guy, LE has the early sketch of the young thin guy and the video that appears to show a young thin guy. I feel sure they looked often at that video trying to discern clues.
6) In April LE has a press conference where they release the early sketch and state forcefully that that is the sketch of the killer. LE advises us all to forget about that first sketch they released two years prior. They also release a few seconds of video from the bridge that shows BG is thinner and younger.
My problem: I cannot understand how, for over two years, LE looking at that video showing a younger thinner BG, allowed and encouraged the public to think BG was this older overweight guy. Add to that the sketch they had from days after the murders and....I really don’t get it. When and if they catch this guy and Carter can explain to us why they did certain things, like he claims he can’t wait to do, this is the first thing I want answered.
Because that first sketch was was identified and cleared.
What blows it all to heck is ISP Carter saying later that the killer will be a combination of the two sketches.
THAT's what I can't understand and I wish LE would address!
I think although, for us, the video is amazing and could possibly be helpful to someone who knows the murderer well, it is so short on detail, that for other intents and purposes it's pretty much useless. Especially two years later.
From what I've seen this is not at all what LE would focus on in the investigation. Either someone is going to recognise this guy and they can then rule them in or out, or old-fashioned detective work is what's needed, unless DNA comes up trumps.
Many people see an older, stockier man in that bridge video. Maybe so did LE, and that didn't match the YBG witness's description?
It's also crossed my mind that the witness who made the YBG sketch maybe wasn't considered that great of a witness by LE. Maybe he/she is a known druggie, or of otherwise compromised reputation. Or he/she saw him from a distance, or what they saw seemed innocuous at the time. Maybe the witness was a child. The possibilities are endless.
Yeah, it actually keeps me from putting much credit into either sketch.