It's not pleasant to consider how it began. BG followed them. I think he watched from among the trees when Libby was at platform one taking the first picture of only the long, lone MHB.
Then, at 2:07, he must see that LG is snapping a photo of Abby but he isn't seen on the HB. Did Libby need a minute to stop and download it to Snapchat? IDK how that app works.
By 2:13, she films BG as he nears Abby
because her *grey sleeve is caught in the frame
.
Hence, it's likely he knew Libby was using her camera at least for the first photo of the length of the bridge. He waited. He may have noticed Libby snapping the image of Abby at 2:07 for snapchat, too, because BG's not visible on the bridge, att.
* The image of BG I just posted was purposefully cropped of her grey sleeve from the image.
The bridge from end to end is 1300 or so feet, that's a long distance to see a phone. Plus the condition of the railroad timbers were very treacherous. If you looked away for very long you could get very badly hurt if not killed and he was probably trying to hurry before his prey possibly got spooked through the woods or another hiker came along. By the time he got close enough to focus fully on them and threaten them, Libby probably had her phone where he couldn't see it. Just my thoughts.
And I have an issue with anyone, including family, criticizing anyone else for using the #justiceforabbyandlibby hashtag. The right person (people, in my opinion) need to be held accountable for this in order for justice to be achieved.
Also, the family didn't create that hashtag/they don't own it, but that's really beside the point. The point is that I'm sure the family wants the RIGHT people convicted.....correct?
I believe the issue is that the hashtag is now being used as advertising for a fundraiser for the defendant RA - who will go to trial as the suspect who murdered the girls. That hashtag was created/supported by the girls’ families FOR the girls. RA is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but as of now, he is the right person. If his guilt cannot be proven BARD, he should not be convicted.
I believe the issue is that the hashtag is now being used as advertising for a fundraiser for the defendant RA - who will go to trial as the suspect who murdered the girls. That hashtag was created/supported by the girls’ families FOR the girls. RA is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but as of now, he is the right person. If his guilt cannot be proven BARD, he should not be convicted.
The fundraiser is not for the defendant. It's for legal experts that biased Judge Gull is refusing to provide money for. They are public defenders and she's tying their hands, financially (and in many other ways).
Sure. But THAT car was seen parked at the time of the murders.
And RA verified that he wore the same clothing that the killer did, places himself on the bridge and admits to seeing girls leaving the area while he entered the trails and has a gun that matches a bullet.
This is a whole lot of coincidence for this man on that day within a specific window of time, would you agree?
Agreed, all of these individual bricks of evidence and information will come together to create a wall of Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. That's what the State must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt whatsoever, but what is reasonable to the John & Jane Q Juror.
One thing, meh. 2, 3 maybe? But all of this combined with his 5 confessions, and who knows what else the State has, is going to build a solid wall that the Defense will not be able to blow down with their ritual theories and made for TV movie drama.
When is too much coincidence too much? Here, no doubt.
They said it looked like he had been in a fight.
Not sure, but for me, that would be someone that is roughed up and bloody.( perhaps the interviewing LE followed up by asking "do you mean bloody when you say that he looked like he was in a fight?")
It did say 'muddy and bloody, like he'd been in a fight' in the PCA.
That was disputed by the famous FM from the D. For me, I'm going to stick with what was filed to the Court by LE instead of what the D interpreted. Each to their own though.
The fundraiser is not for the defendant. It's for legal experts that biased Judge Gull is refusing to provide money for. They are public defenders and she's tying their hands, financially (and in many other ways).
Understood. You know I value your opinion on here - you have been here since Thread 1 start. We may differ on viewpoints, but I know we all want the same thing - justice for the girls.
These are all the cars being referred to (Ford Focus, PT Cruiser and SUV), they look similar to me backed in, especially fs driving by and only getting a quick glimpse, except for the '65 Comet. JMO
Once again, The older vehicle was parked approximately 150 yards from the old CPS building and parked on the side of the road . It was as NOT backed in at the CPS building.
It did say 'muddy and bloody, like he'd been in a fight' in the PCA.
That was disputed by the famous FM from the D. For me, I'm going to stick with what was filed to the Court by LE instead of what the D interpreted. Each to their own though.
Correct, but they provided, in the footnotes, exactly where they got that information from (flash drive containing her June 7, 2017 interview). Do you think they'd lie and then cite where they got the information from?
The whole point of the Frank's Memorandum is to highlight exactly where LE stretched the truth/omitted facts in the PCA, with footnotes to prove it.
These are all the cars being referred to (Ford Focus, PT Cruiser and SUV), they look similar to me backed in, especially fs driving by and only getting a quick glimpse, except for the '65 Comet. JMO
Once again, The older vehicle was parked approximately 150 yards from the old CPS building and parked on the side of the road . It was as NOT backed in at the CPS building.
Correct, but they provided, in the footnotes, exactly where they got that information from (flash drive containing her June 7, 2017 interview). Do you think they'd lie and then cite where they got the information from?
The whole point of the Frank's Memorandum is to highlight exactly where LE stretched the truth/omitted facts in the PCA, with footnotes to prove it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
