Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by tlcya, Apr 28, 2017.
Yes, Bird, very good points! You may be right!
I don't know if never,I just don't believe what we have been shown is taken on the bridge.It wouldn't make sense not to show more of a perp walking on the bridge unless there was something way off.The police know people would be able to recognize something about this fellow if they could see him walk,the way he moves.However they won't.Gotta ask why.If GH is correct and Libby was roughly 80ft from this cat,and off the bridge already,it takes no time at all to turn and run and if they did,this guy still has 80ft of gap filled,tie missing track bridge to jaunt across but from the YT videos it shows the DTH spot close to the end of the bridge?Has that spot even been confirmed?So does that mean they just stopped and waited for him to reach them?If that's the case and he is just walking towards them with hands in pockets,why not show more video,if she recorded more.But wait,cuz LE said they had to create the image from other pieces of the video,we know more was recorded,right?How could something like this take place on the bridge when LE has said that there were others there that day on the bridge somewhere near the time this was supposedly happening on the bridge.Then you think,well,maybe he hurried them off the bridge but LE said this fellow is middle aged,so that means he had to run across 80 ft of decaying bridge to catch the girls if they were running,and according to GH,already off the bridge,keep control of two teens and then say DTH which didn't sound like an exhausted middle aged man at all to me.I have no evidence that this didn't happen on the bridge but from the way I just described,I don't see how it could've.
Wasn't there a couple there at like 3? And his last sighting via a billboard of one of his photos says last seen 230. So in 30 minutes he was supposedly off the bridge he was supposedly on had the girls and the couple saw or heard nothing? Even if the couple was on the bridge at 330. Still that's seeming just as crazy to me. So I agree imo always. I think it's possible he wasn't on it for the particular stills, but maybe not Never cause I ranted the same thoughts about why not a short clip of he's just walking 60 ft away. Something seems wonky.
Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
I believe it was said that the couple was there at 3.I am not good at finding and pasting links.
Only thing I could find re the couple is a Facebook post but nothing official from LE...
I think he was about to brandish gun from right pocket but still ... even if LE wanted to keep gun a secret I wld think a walking video would get more recognition from public just as you say.
It was talked about on the main thread for sure.I have yet to go to a SM site just based on what everyone here says about it.WS posts get a bit uppity from time to time but I'm sure nothing like SM.There are things which I do wish we could discuss just so 100% of all possibilities could be combed over but I understand their ToS points,so for now I'd still rather be here.
I agree with the theory the guy was photoshopped onto the bridge by LE. There is no shadow on the bridge, but there is on his clothing. Compared to the shot of the girl with shadows, it doesn't look right. The edges around him are not crisp either.
This could mean he was taken out of the scene because they had to clean it up for the public to view. If that is the case, it would be significant because we are seeing him after he finished instead of prior to the murders.
Calling him a suspect could be because they have him on video during and after at the crime scene. We know she started the video. Common sense says she never turned it off.
It changes the perspective entirely. If we are seeing the suspect afterward, what he had on him were items he took from the murders. Could explain a lot.
Re the BG pic "on bridge/original not on bridge" etc.
Newest theory, perhaps still in maturing phase:
One could think RL was right beside BG and therefore we see BG walking along the square timbers on the edge where nobody would normally go. Two men would have to walk both on the edge if they were side by side. One could think RL was erased out of the video still. It would make sense to have been him as he said "maybe the girls got in THE car". That could mean: he was on the bridge and saw THE car himself. It would also make sense if LE isn't searching for RL via billboards and newspapers and posters because they have him already, actually on the safe side. - I don't say RL is the killer. But maybe he knows the part of the story and isn't telling. Above all he isn't snitching on BG, why ever, only he knows.
Why BG is someone who "participated" in the murder (fact told by LE), why maybe RL was present also, why there were men in a car who did perhaps the murder - I don't know. I can't think of a motive.
Why the girls were found on RL property would be the most important question IF RL indeed knew about unlawful things. Although, somehow does it fit very well when he left his property for several hours despite 2 girls of well known families were missing since the day before and were searched for in his "own backyard". I think no 100% uninvolved property owner would leave in a case like that. Only a property owner would leave to say afterwards "I don't know anything, I wasn't even present". - That's my newest idea and of course it's IMO MOO.
RL may not have even know the girls were still missing Tuesday morning...moo
Someone brought up Mickie, the college senior girl with curly blonde hair who was on her bike, and how her photos were manipulated. There is a photo of Micky on her bike alone in the parking lot. Then there is a photo of the car in the parking lot but no Micky in that photo. Turns out Mickie WAS in that photo but they edited her out of it. Which is weird because why edit her out of the photo that would prove that car is who took her?
It doesn't make sense to edit the photo that would be proof.
In this case, with BG and the bridge photo, in this case- if the photo was actually him walking in the park/woods itself but they just edited it to look like he is on the bridge instead of walking in the park/woods...I mean..woods kind of all look the same right? so a background of trees and grass and dirt wouldn't be something the police would need to try to hide, would it?
I kind of don't get why they do that anyway.
I would think that showing him on the bridge if he was actually in the woods or on the trail would decrease the number of possibly credible tips they'd get. I know if they took a slightly blurred picture of me and put it on a bridge like that, nobody would call in tips that it was me, Even if it was perfectly clear, anyone who knows me would swear it wasn't me because of my problems with heights. I'd think it would be more likely that they'd take a picture of him on the bridge and make it look like he was on solid ground, but I may just be biased. MOO
1. I would leave.
2. MOO-RL was never on that bridge. EVER.
In this particular case, LE wanted to show his entire body including his feet so friends or family might recognize the way he appeared in full view. If he was standing in a crime scene, it may not only be trees and grass at that angle depending on where bodies were placed. They aren't going to show victims or the aftermath so putting him into photos of the bridge would serve more than one purpose. LE wanted the public to associate the bridge with him in case it jogged their memory from seeing him there either on that day or perhaps before.
I don't know the case you mentioned about the girl and bike, but LE will often hold things back so not to tip off the suspects to crucial evidence they may have against them.
Any theories associated with Oregon or Ohio?
My opinion only
The mascot of Delphi Community High School is the Oracles.
Just the thing to ease the minds of anyone noticing a person strolling in the area....
That would be cool if we could link that! I just can't find any Delphi Oracles hats in camo, only black.
There is one picture with two men walking together on the bridge. The one in the jacket and hat is one of the men. The second is the man in the camo jacket, who suddenly disappeared from the scene by the time he got close enough to the girls. I believe he went "down the hill" where the other person in the camp jacket was waiting. I believe they are motorcyclist based on the hat they're wearing. And I believe they saw the girls dropped off and followed them. This isn't a crime of opportunity; this is a crime that they wanted to commit to see what murder felt like. I believe the audio file has two voices on it. And I believe the girls, at that age, wanted an adventure. That's why they took video, picture and audio. I did that at their age. Fortunately, I didn't end up in their place. There are actually two men that need to be found. One didn't do this. I don't believe they even tried to hide initially the photos and video. Thank you iCloud for backing up all our info. In cases like this, that's what's needed. I want this case solved. These babies didn't deserve this. I suggest checking the second person in the photo before he disappeared. Compare the second person in the photo to the picture of the single man. It's him. There were two men involved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where and when did you see a photo of two men?
Maybe the OP is confused by the pic of two searchers on the bridge the day after the girls were killed?