I have a few other ideas about the shoe actually:Thank you PHOTOGRAPER4 you ask some great questions. I just copied this part from your post:-> ""One of LG's shoes was found on the bridge side of the creek. We know some clothes were missing and one shoe was recovered. why is one shoe found where it was? Does that speak to the killer leaving the area and dropping it perhaps? Like do we think LG dropped it there on her own hoping to give a clue as to their direction of movement? Or? Thoughts pls?"
My thought is the shoe that was found is an important clue! If the shoe was found quite a distance from the bodies and the shoe had no blood on it, then one of the girls may have purposely dropped it. If the shoe was found quite a distance from the bodies and was covered in blood, then that would indicate (at least in my humble opinion) that the killer took the shoe along with some other belongings and dropped it as he made his escape.
Of course, the FBI is diligent in photographing crime scenes and would be looking for drag marks. Perhaps the killer just moved the girls to an area that provided more seclusion and delaying the discovery of the crime.
I remember some contributors discussing a second location many years ago and a possible accomplice...could that be the couple heard arguing? Did they mean a couple of men, women or one of each?
-> It seems doubtful that the shoe found on the bridge side had any blood on it at all. Why? Because if there had been blood on it that was noticeable, or concerning in amount, it probably would have alarmed LG‘s sister who was along that side of the bridge when the searchers found LG. I haven’t read or seen anything to suggest that the shoe itself freaked anyone out in any way. I’ve only read that the shoe was found on the bridge side not too long before the searchers found the bodies of the girls. If it were more notable, we’d have heard stories about it being found and people being upset and freaked out by it.
Following that train of thought, I’m left with two options really.
1. LG kicked the shoe off herself in order to give some clue to anyone who she knew was going to be soon looking for her and AG as to which direction they may have gone in. She knew her dad was to meet her very soon and she was probably aware that if she didn’t answer his calls / texts, that would worry him. She was smart. She may have dropped it hoping to give a sign as to where to go. It would be interesting to know if the shoe looked kicked off, or if it looked placed. EG: where specifically was it? Was it pointed in the direction the girls were likely sent in? Was LG one who normally bothered to tie and untie laces? Were the laces left differently than she might have left them? You can bet that these are questions the police probably have the answers to.
You can also bet they probably used forensics to find possible evidence as well. EG: that shoe might tell the police a lot more than you think. EG: an assessment of it would tell police whether the shoe had been cleaned before it was found. Perhaps someone took the time to clean dirt or other debris off it and left it there on purpose to help hasten the process of finding the girls. More likely if his aim was shock and horror.
Or: perhaps there was dirt on the sole that matched dirt from the side of the hill they were told to go down. If the other shoe was found, that would have the same soil if it was marched down the hill. Let’s consider the creek for a minute as well. What about minerals from the water itself? If the shoe had been in the creek or not, if that shoe was in the creek even for a brief moment before it ended up where it did, then perhaps minerals soaked into the absorbent parts and could be determined by police - that might tell them if the shoe was placed or left there before the actual killing.
2. If someone placed that shoe there postmortem, you might know if it had been cleaned. EG: was bleach used? Sprayed on? Wiped off? You might notice that with the help of a special chemical and a black light (luminal, I think, but do not quote me). If there was no blood on the shoe, then where was it while the bloody murders happened? Did the killer keep it a safe distance away? Avoid getting blood on it as he made his retreat?
I’m going to just assume police know more than we know about the shoe and everything else and hope it helps point in a direction that tells the story and solves the crime eventually.