jillycat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,746
- Reaction score
- 11,841
Oh he knows the location but rightly he isnt going to reveal its location so that whomever erected it can continue to use it without others knowing where it has been placed. He is just trying to protect the privacy of the owner. The still shots could have come from this security video and he knows if he releases who has it and where it is located then the owner will be bombarded by the press. Plus if the stills were taken from this person's security camera if the murderer is caught this person will be a vital witness in the trial when they introduce the entire video footage, which I do believe they have.
IMO
It's simple enough to say that they received image content from a third party source that is not a trail cam source (because we now know that anyway) and can't reveal that source. That could be the victim's phone, a local hiker or tourist's phone, a nearby resident's camera, or whatever.
I don't think this is about privacy as much as it's about info associated with those images - either more images, or other electronic time stamps/witness statements/physical evidence that connect the pics of him and their time and location with this crime.
Depending on where he was on the trail, when, and how close it was to where they found the victims, and where that places all parties around the 2:07 timeline of Libby's picture, etc., I suspect there's more to why the police aren't talking about image sources.
And sometimes, police don't say squat about anything because if they say one thing, it leads to more questions, and when they don't want to answer them, the public just gets more upset and starts running with wild speculation, which we've already seen. It's a case of 'Those who are talking don't know and those who know aren't talking'.