IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #53

[Maplesyrup]

Based on my observation [which obviously isn't perfect]...they look like worn out athletic shoes. Could be a generic knock-off brand, could be brand name. They look like an old pair my son has that I want to throw in the trash. He uses his to mow grass so his have green grass stain on them and the leather looks worn. BG has shoes, that to me, look similar in terms of age and wear. MOO

UOTE=FromGermany;13332433]

This shoes are BG's.[/QUOTE]

 

[Blythe]

Is it possible that they do not have DNA?

I think it is possible that some tip about BG was called in. Someone suspected him.

There is just nothing else to go on.

I'm thinking of Ted Bundy, whose girlfriend and two others called in a tip. He was in law school at the time and of course before DNA evidence was obtainable. The tips were dismissed. And the gf, btw, stayed with him while he continued his killing spree.

They may have a name but no DNA to match.

Just saying, he may be on a tip list but nothing else to go on.

 

[Maplesyrup]

Do we have a general consensus in terms of weight and height of BG?

He's taller because I resized the photo when I worked on it, and didn't get it back down to the exact size when I was done. Part of the "skinnier" is from removing the 'aura' around him (from movement). I think I may have accidentally taken a bit of his right elbow, but I didn't slim him down. I think most of the difference is just perception, but I've been wrong before.

MOO

 

[beach]

He's taller because I resized the photo when I worked on it, and didn't get it back down to the exact size when I was done. Part of the "skinnier" is from removing the 'aura' around him (from movement). I think I may have accidentally taken a bit of his right elbow, but I didn't slim him down. I think most of the difference is just perception, but I've been wrong before.

MOO

Thanks for clearifying, I think some of the things people are seeing maybe do to resizing. It can bee tricky to resize and keep proportioning the same. Appreciate all your efforts....:cheers:

Admin Note

Jumping off of these posts -
I meant to come back and post last night after closing the thread but I fell asleep. :blushing:

Over the weekend I asked Tricia specifically about the photos that have been enhanced, altered to remove the background, zoomed in for focus, etc.... She advised that the photos posted are fine for sleuthing purposes. (Nothing new. This has been permitted in many threads.) Here's the deal - it's all about perception. Give each photo as much weight as you see fit, disregard the ones you doubt the depict differently than intended. What is not permitted is an ongoing back & forth, particularly insinuating the people working on the photos have intentionally altered the images to mislead others. Either you find them helpful, or you don't. If you don't, disregard and scroll and roll on past. It's that simple.

Also, any mention of posters who are on time out is strictly prohibited. I easily could have TO'd a few people last night but chose not to because for the most part, this thread was very pleasant and civil until late afternoon. We are very grateful for the civility and change in tone. However, be advised any further references to those posters not currently here will result in a loss a posting privileges for the those choosing to violate that rule.

*please bump as needed*

 

[ImnoSherlock]

Admin Note

Jumping off of these posts -
I meant to come back and post last night after closing the thread but I fell asleep. :blushing:

Over the weekend I asked Tricia specifically about the photo that have been enhanced, altered to remove the background, zoomed in for focus, etc.... She advised that the photos posted are fine for sleuthing purposes. (Nothing new. This has been permitted in many threads.) Here's the deal - it's all about perception. Give each photo as much weight as you see fit, disregard the ones you doubt the depict differently than intended. What is not permitted is an ongoing back & forth, particularly insinuating the people working on the photos have intentionally altered the images to mislead others. Either you find them helpful, or you don't. If you don't, disregard and scroll and roll on past. It's that simple.

Also, any mention of posters who are on time out is strictly prohibited. I easily could have TO'd a few people last night but chose not to because for the most part, this thread was very pleasant and civil until late afternoon. We are very grateful for the civility and change in tone. However, be advised any further references to those posters not currently here will result in a loss a posting privileges for the those choosing to violate that rule.

*please bump as needed*

How are you suppose to know if someone is on time out and shouldn't be mentioned?Is there a TO box to reference?

 

[FrostedGlass]

That's what we do here - we debate. Given the many variations of the original photo that have been posted here, and the numerous spin off discussions based on those modified images, I think it's a good idea from time to time to check the spin off discussions against the original photo.

In the beginning, didn't ISP have both versions of BG on their site?

If you are correct, it's unfortunate that so many media outlets tweaked the originals.

 

[beach]

How are you suppose to know if someone is on time out and shouldn't be mentioned?Is there a TO box to reference?

Best advice is just don't mention other posters who are not currently posting.
(Members who are on a time out are not able to post.)

 

[ImnoSherlock]

Best advice is just don't mention other posters who are not currently posting.
(Members who are on a time out are not able to post.)

ok then

 

[MistyWaters]

I believe there are more than one person involved in these killings and that LE is diligently working to build a case to solidly convict all those who are guilty. DNA could match a suspect but how convicting it is depends on where it is found, ie on their bodies or on an object found nearby. Also that they are still asking for someone to call doesn't mean they don't have suspects but that they need some very specific folks to break the alibis given and provide one more piece of evidence. They could have identified more than one DNA, but like you said, not a match to those in the system or to those who have volunteered samples. I keep remembering that it is a very complex complicated case.

Good points. The comment that's often made similar to yours is if there's several involved and LE has only identified one or more but not all, they'd hold off making any arrests.

While that theory may have been valid earlier, I wonder if doubt is raised because time marches on? (I'm not directing this as you, but I notice the same theories or ideas have been expressed for weeks now, as if time stands still.)

Thinking back but not able to recall an example, I'm inclined to think the identification of one suspect would motivate LE to move forward quickly. That it would be to LEs advantage to proceed with charges against any one of a group. The sooner the better. Even if it involves a plea deal to get one person to talk, it's often the only alternative if initial physical evidence just isn't there. DNA results should all be back, witnesses interviews, subpoenas have been issued in the pursuit of supporting evidence....no longer is the investigation in the early stages.

As for reasons to stall, I'm drawing a blank. Could someone explain what might be the reasoning? Two months later, what would be a hypothetical example of "diligently working"?

In addition, I can't help but reflect on the recent LE interview "optimism is not real high...."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Maplesyrup]

Perhaps driving equipment or some such repetitive movement that would dent the shoes in? I think the shoes look old and worn. MOO

I love what you did here. And ik the magic tool can be tricky, but I'm looking at the shoe our right in both photos. See that tiny little V shape inner foot? I was curious if that's part of where the toe of the shoe to our left should be. Imo always but it does seem like he'd trip over his own foot ( wish he would have) I wondered what might cause That? I see it in both. Think it's just more of the same where the grain is too obscured?

 

[skibaboo]

Caught up. Marking my spot

Aaaaaaaaaaaand
:back:

 

[WebSight]

In the beginning, didn't ISP have both versions of BG on their site?

If you are correct, it's unfortunate that so many media outlets tweaked the originals.

Hi Frosted. Yes they did and I took my copies from those originals that were posted on ISP and FBI.

I remember when we all first started doing things with the pictures way back in the beginning, several WSers, and quite right too, felt stongly that we shouldn't copy any of the copies seen on various sites but go straight to the source, ISP or the FBI, because of the possibility of inadvertent distortion once in the hands of the media.

I have been really miffed to see the skewed image now up on the FBI site. It is, imo, obviously out of proportion and it seems to me it was loaded without correcting the aspect ratio. The whole picture is "fat" not just BG. Ahem, IMO, of course.

 

[Confusion]

Do we have a general consensus in terms of weight and height of BG?

I doubt if we could come up with a general consensus on anything (except that this guy needs to be caught)! My best guess is about 6' (give or take an inch or so) and 190-200#. I could believe he weighs more or less than that, but I'd be surprised if it was off by more than 20#... Now we'll find out that he's really 5'2" and 130#!:banghead:

 

[Maplesyrup]

Shoes he wore that day IMO were disposed of that day or very shortly thereafter. If there was any bloodshed, then it ended up on the shoes along with who knows what else. The shoes are probably in a landfill by now.

 

[Jax49]

I doubt if we could come up with a general consensus on anything (except that this guy needs to be caught)! My best guess is about 6' (give or take an inch or so) and 190-200#. I could believe he weighs more or less than that, but I'd be surprised if it was off by more than 20#... Now we'll find out that he's really 5'2" and 130#!:banghead:

Consensus? LOL, no way. I'm still guesstimating 5'8" and 170 or so. moo

 

[Shiressleuth]

Sorry, but I see the image on the right to be taller and skinnier than the original, and this has nothing to do with removing the background.

I believe Confusion put in a caveat in the original post that there was no guarantee of accuracy.

 

[beach]

Hang on..... need to close for just a few minutes and verify something. TIA for your patience.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I doubt if we could come up with a general consensus on anything (except that this guy needs to be caught)! My best guess is about 6' (give or take an inch or so) and 190-200#. I could believe he weighs more or less than that, but I'd be surprised if it was off by more than 20#... Now we'll find out that he's really 5'2" and 130#!:banghead:

At the end of the day it's all spec and op. Even LE had to enhance so who knows. It was obviously a background shot (with A in foreground maybe) a long way back and prob looks nothing like him/her at all. DNA would be much more helpful. MOO.

 

[beach]

Found the original source. Not cool. Let me clean up and take care of one thing and I will re-open within 10 minutes.

 

[beach]

Admin Note

Jumping off of these posts -
I meant to come back and post last night after closing the thread but I fell asleep. :blushing:

Over the weekend I asked Tricia specifically about the photos that have been enhanced, altered to remove the background, zoomed in for focus, etc.... She advised that the photos posted are fine for sleuthing purposes. (Nothing new. This has been permitted in many threads.) Here's the deal - it's all about perception. Give each photo as much weight as you see fit, disregard the ones you doubt the depict differently than intended. What is not permitted is an ongoing back & forth, particularly insinuating the people working on the photos have intentionally altered the images to mislead others. Either you find them helpful, or you don't. If you don't, disregard and scroll and roll on past. It's that simple.

Also, any mention of posters who are on time out is strictly prohibited. I easily could have TO'd a few people last night but chose not to because for the most part, this thread was very pleasant and civil until late afternoon. We are very grateful for the civility and change in tone. However, be advised any further references to those posters not currently here will result in a loss a posting privileges for the those choosing to violate that rule.

*please bump as needed*

Rules, people! PLEASE review the rules. :tos:

The original photo of BG has been sourced many times from approved sites. It doesn't need to be linked every time it's posted. Grabbing photos from random Social Media accounts (FB, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, etc...) is NOT OKAY. Any future photos must be linked back to an approved source.