Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by Tricia, Apr 22, 2019.
OK thanks. I'm disregarding that whole post.
I don’t know but considering the investigation is conducted by a multi-agency task force, I’d think it’d be more than one person.
Wait, do you have a link? If you are naming him as a POI, you’ll need to use his initials: BS.
(thought we could use a half grin while sorting through nightmares)
Oh shoot...I remember now off limits.............sorry
striped T-shirt under coat?
I’m not sure if he actually saw BG, I just know he was there that day and DG spoke to him at the crossroads as FSG was headed to the Freedom Bridge.
I think BG was near that crossroads section when the girls arrived.
It looks to me like BG is wearing glasses...does anyone else see this, or are my eyes deceiving me? Like the kind where the top portion of the glasses is a dark frame, but the bottom portion is just the lens, so you’d only notice the top part in the video. Maybe we’ve been mistaking what is actually the top part of his glasses for a darker, bushier eyebrow?
I think it's also possible for DNA evidence if they were stabbed... But, I suppose, if killer wore gloves and there was no "break-through"... no DNA. Same with s/assault, I suppose.
You can by shocker things online. I have one. It will knock an adult male to the floor. I take it with me often. Edited to say the sound alone is frightening enough to scare off most people.
Long-time lurker, first time commenter. I hereby affirm that the following statements are MOO.
I firmly believe the killer was someone the girls met online. Perhaps that trail was their prearranged meeting place, unbeknownst to the family member who dropped them off. When the girls realized he wasn't who he presented himself to be online, they tried to separate themselves from him but he arrived there with other plans and their fate was sealed. Evidence was recovered from Libby's phone, so we can assume it was accessible. But what about Abby's phone? What if her phone contains vital clues and conversations leading up to that meeting? If it's an iPhone with an unknown passcode, even the FBI wouldn't be able to unlock it.
Apple vs FBI: All you need to know
I only speak on this point because of similar things my friends and I did when we were young and naive 14 years ago as MySpace and "online profiles" became popular. Luckily we always met these "online friends" at the mall or other public places, but our parents had no idea what we were really up to when they were dropping us off. It makes my skin crawl to think about how trusting we were of complete strangers we "knew" from an online profile.
Regarding "The Shack", I believe that's tied to a false alibi given to LE early on. "Can you account for ________'s whereabouts on the afternoon of the 13th?"... "Yes, he was at home with me"... "What did the two of you do that day?"... "We watched a movie"... "What movie?"... "'The Shack'". Perhaps LE is looking at the person who provided that alibi and saying, "You're full of $h!t and we know it. Come up off it."
The foregoing statements are MOO.
I actually considered adding a disclaimer that I don’t suspect Ben Savage, the actual person! Just throwing it out there in case anyone has ever thought, hey, doesn’t so-and-so resemble Cory from that old TV show?
Is this like a Wheres Waldo? Bc I still don't see him.....MOO
It almost looks like an eye patch on the right eye, with a hat like a pirate's hat and a backpack ...
Welcome to Websleuths, @Dovvey and @Chartini.
Welcome, Chartini!!! As always with new members, your fresh insight is AWESOME. So glad you joined us.
I think the second part may be from an old article, back when they searched the property. Imo
I think the media was asked to stay away and give the family 2 weeks... "at least 2 weeks"... to absorb all the new information in private. ... Just a courtesy, imo, extended towards 2 families who have been, and are still going through what could be described as a wide awake nightmare.
I just wanted to quickly clarify that a therapist would generally not be able to provide info regarding a case of this nature without a release of information from the client/suspect themselves. Duty to warn only applies to future acts, not to criminal behavior that happened in the past. That said, because the crime involved children, I think there could be a solid argument that confidentiality should be waived because child abuse occurred...even though the victims, who one is generally seeking to protect, are tragically deceased. It’s a tricky ethical area.
I’m with others in here who think that this new sketch is someone they know was there but whom they discarded due to the fact he had a reason to be there. Or perhaps he himself was a witness giving them false leads. IMHO, the police came upon something that made this suddenly become known and this press conference was their way to saying it to their suspect.