I'm wondering if they come across him earlier on the trails before going on the bridge and something about him - how he looked, mannerisms, how he looked at them - creeped them out.As I am thinking, what looked so creepy in him? After all, people cover their faces with scarves and masks, if they get sick during the winter.
I think it was the combination of the mask and intense, nervous, manic, even, gaze above the mask. It happens to meth users, or it could be his mental issues. Anyhow, this is how I imagine BG.
What’s ID? I assume in/depth something but don’t watch a lot of TV.Abby and Libby on ID right now!
What’s ID? I assume in/depth something but don’t watch a lot of TV.
Just being alone and a man like that coming towards me would be enough to scare my adult self tbh.
And this stuff about one girl watching whatever was happening to the other is horrifying as hell
I wondered about the audio released that said, "Guys, down the hill." Some criminal profilers have said they think the term "guys" denotes an association with children, someone like a teacher for example. Others think it denotes someone giving an order, like a police officer.
My opinion, based on what we do know, is that maybe the term "guys" is an actual association. This killer, while committing this crime, may actually have viewed himself as a young person.
We do not know the details behind what happened to Abigail Williams and Liberty German, but it is probably safe to say that unless they were killed at the exact same time by the killer, then one of them saw the other one being murdered. From a psychological perspective I wondered if maybe this killer was ridiculed when they were a child/young teenager themselves?
My opinion might be way out there because this killer maybe just chose two victims because they happened to be together that day, but it is something I thought about. I am not a criminal profiler either.
Idk. Im in CA and i refer to groups as "guys" all the time, so ive never placed any importance on his use of that phrase.
Oh absolutely discuss away!The subconscious theory I put forth is based on my speculation, but I cannot think about anything else to discuss concerning the case of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. Without any new information it is hard to theorize too.
Even though I think this case is quickly becoming a cold case, I still think because of Liberty German's audio/video it could be solved today. Or if everyone is looking for the someone based on the wrong sketch (description), it could be many years before it is solved. It really depends on whether the investigation is on the right path.
Even the most popular case discussions fade eventually.
What would make a couple of young girls judge a man to be suspicious or threatening enough to take a video of him?
That sounds good to me, and thank you"Forced to watch" was removed due to it being social media comment. There is a distinction between "forced to watch" (terminology sourced via rumor) vs "watching what is happening" (from an approved source). While it is a most likely scenario that one of the girls DID see/watch what was happening to the other, that does not necessarily translate into being forced by the perp to do so as an element of the crime.
Let's just stick with our approved sources without adding an interpretation by random social media commentators.
That is a different senario as the child is still alive. In that situation, with the guilty party in jail for the additional crimes, also effecting the child, then no purpose would be served.
I just feel that hiding or downplaying behaviors in our fellow humans because they are horrible and need not be examined only leads to those things they do being muted and soften, when they should be haunting us all and spurring us on to stop these crimes. We can't downplay what makes up horrified about eachother. That's all I'm trying to address. I personally think every crime scene photo should be banned from the internet but not the information that they can supply.
If they really do have the killer's DNA it would seem to me that withholding info from the public "to protect the investigation" is pointless. Any false confessions could be eliminated by the lack of a DNA match. (John Mark Karr in JonBenet Ramsey's case, for example.)
I think they have partial DNA. Enough to exclude someone but not enough to positively identified just one. JMOIf they really do have the killer's DNA it would seem to me that withholding info from the public "to protect the investigation" is pointless. Any false confessions could be eliminated by the lack of a DNA match. (John Mark Karr in JonBenet Ramsey's case, for example.)
If they really do have the killer's DNA it would seem to me that withholding info from the public "to protect the investigation" is pointless. Any false confessions could be eliminated by the lack of a DNA match. (John Mark Karr in JonBenet Ramsey's case, for example.)
But LE often withholds, even in cases where they have relatively strong forensics. I'm thinking of the Hannah Graham case. That was a high profile one where they wouldn't say exactly how she was killed. They did say there was a forensic link to another case, though they wouldn't elaborate. Later of course, after they got their man, more was revealed.
Police also won't say if they know how the girls were killed in the Evansdale murders, or if they have DNA. And there are many others like this if you Google.
I think what's not being stated here is that police want the public to think they are weeding out false confessions, instead what they are really doing is screening tips (especially in high profile cases where they get a ton), hiding info from the perpetrator that can be used effectively against him during a police interrogation, and ensuring that perpetrators don't have time to come up with alibis/reasons for their DNA being at a scene that might ultimately introduce doubt during a trial.