I will start by saying that I (IMO) lean towards RA being guilty based on what evidence has been released so far and speculating, as others are, there is some degree of more/better evidence being withheld at this juncture.
Having said that - in catching up with the last threads and pages, it seems to me, again MOO, that in our eagerness to arrest somebody in this case, multiple other posters have credited RA with statements that he has not actually stated. Likewise, certain other information has been posted, supposedly per the PCA but which is not actually in the PCA. I can't seem to quote or reply to anything back from an earlier thread so apologize for that. Realizing opinions may differ I will suggest the following:
1. Incorrect post = [RA places himself at the crime scene & within minutes of the crime in statements to LE]...however....
Correct post per the PCA =
in 2017 per tip to CO, RA states he was "on the trail" (which per alltrails.com is 1.6 miles long and connecting to other trails) between 1:30 and 3:30 on 2/13/17. In that statement he mentions the encounter with the juveniles near the Freedom Bridge west of High Bridge and also that at some point in that 2-hour timeframe he walked from Freedom to High Bridge. In that informal interview he does not say he was on the bridge. He does mention other information about other parked cars near High Bridge and what he was preoccupied with, which to my knowledge has not been verified or disproven but could be important to his case.
in 2022 per formal interview with LE, RA again states he was "on the trail" on 2/13/17 (no specific time is stated this interview). He reiterates the Freedom Bridge encounter and this time states he walked onto the bridge as far as the first platform. [Witness 4 states he was about 50 feet onto the 1200 foot bridge when she allegedly saw him]. RA concludes by saying he walked back, sat on a bench, and left. The lack of specific times here is quizzical as we don't know whether he's implying he was on the first platform around 3:00 before heading out, or that he was on the platform at 1:55 then took well over an hour to walk, sit, & leave by the 3:30 stated in the CO tip?
Now there would be 2 crime scenes here - the abduction scene and the murder scene (as well as theoretically all ground between the two). RA does not actually admit to being within 3+ football fields of the abduction scene. He never states what time he believed he was on platform 1. He specifically states he has never been on the property where the girls were found. Thus as much as we may like to think RA has incriminated himself, I feel it is a stretch if not totally incorrect to pose the lead-in premise at top.
2. Incorrect post = [the timeline is verified and condemning toward RA being BG].... however.....
per the PCA =
The timeline is very challenging to reconcile based on the times listed per the PCA of various photos, business cameras, etc. If you watch very closely the Gray Hughes animated video as I have watched over and over again, you get an appreciation for the difficulty making all of the components work together. It certainly requires all of the parties moving at strange paces plus changing paces. RA covers the ground from where Mears lot joins the trail to the High Bridge in 1.5 minutes wearing jeans and boots to have been on the platform by when Witness 4 says. She (we don't know how dressed) covered the same ground in 5.5 minutes and the girls in activewear and sneakers took 9.5 minutes. Witness 4 could only have been 1 minute behind BG at the Mears lot yet apparently didn't see him until she got to the bridge. Witness 4 must've also only been 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L based on KG's dropoff per PCA and when Witness 4 parked per PCA. With a 60-80 second head start #4 covered 3x as much territory as the girls given #4 had already went all the way to MHB and halfway back while the girls where only halfway en route to MHB. From the Freedom Bridge encounter projected at 1:41 based on several PCA factors, RA went from Freedom Bridge to Platform #1 in around 6 minutes, the same distance it took the Juveniles 57 minutes to cover. Yet after a 1:41 encounter the Juveniles had to take off in a sprint to be seen crossing over Old 25 Hwy four minutes later when Witness 4 drove underneath. Combined with the fact that A&L's photos taken in both directions at 2:01 or 2:03 then again at 2:07 show no evidence of BG, it's overall a difficult timeline to put together.
3. Incorrect post = [we have video of the (RA's) abduction].... however....
per the PCA =
No such thing is mentioned (unless this poster is privy to the unreleased parts of L's recording). PCA states the video taken from L's phone shows an encounter with a male walking behind A. As the male approaches, one of the girls mentions "gun". IMO this is that A or L sees a concealed gun on the male and is trying to inform the other girl... because if the gun were already pointed at the girls there would've been no need to say "gun" (except for the improbable purpose of getting it stated on the phone recording). Interestingly the PCA does state that video AND audio in fact exists of the "down the hill" command although obviously we've only heard the audio of that command as just a snippet of the walking approach and still photo released to date are the only video publicly available of BG. Also interesting word analysis (perhaps overanalysis?!) on the first two full paragraphs on page 2 of 8 is that they basically say much of the same thing yet with some different wording. The earlier paragraph describes the encounter with a male (not an approaching male) then says THE male ordered the girls "down the hill" which implies two things - that the male doing the ordering is the same one they encountered, and by using the word ordering it is different than them asking for instructions or suggesting that they'd meet a_shots at the bottom of the hill. If there is in fact video of that command which we've not seen, it should be evident whether this was coercion at gunpoint or not. The later paragraph repeats the recorded encounter, introduces the word "gun" but then says A male tells (not orders) the girls "guys down the hill" which might leave the door open for a second male coming onto the bridge from the south end and some realted uncertainty whether the video of approaching male is the same person as the male heard on audio. The later paragraph says the video (though not necessarily the audio) ends as A&L begin to proceed down the hill (curiously does not state that any male accompanied them in proceeding down the hill). The earlier paragraph states there is no outgoing (again though not necessarily incoming) communications found on L's phone after 2:13. It seems reasonable to think the two paragraphs might've been written by two different people?
In any event, we as in Websleuths typical posters do not have this video as described. Secondly to the original point, while we may like to connect the dots that RA is in fact BG, the audio/video we have has been available for years and no one with certainty yet has been able to identify RA as BG. Certainly it is more believable that BG committed these crimes than it is that RA did. It would be nice if a witness could've picked RA from a lineup or that more incriminating DNA, fingerprints, etc have been gathered. Without saying, RA has not confessed to being BG even though yes clothing, timing, and so forth are described similarly.
4. We are quick to believe each and everything that the one person Witness #4 says (without knowing anything about her) that fits in with condemning RA, yet quick to discredit the parts that are questionable.
I will certainly say that PCA Page 1 paragraph 3 states that all witness hearsay statements are "considered reliable and credible and can be corroborated with the totality of circumstances" but then PCA goes on to how I would say not necessarily paint Witness #4 in such a favorable light. There is no date of when investigators talked to this witness, whether it was 2017, 2022 or in-between. Of course we don't know who she is or what her background is but what we can glean from the PCA would be:
-- her interview states she "observed a male 50 feet away on the bridge matching the one from L's video". This would imply of course that she didn't have this interview until sometime after L's video was released, which was at miniumum, days after the bodies were discovered. It also could likely imply she didn't come forward right away placing herself near the scene when the girls were missing or first discovered deceased even though she was almost as near to the crime scene as was RA (though she wouldn't be confused for BG).
-- despite saying the man she observed matched L's video, she goes on to describe clothing that is not wholly consistent with what BG was wearing per L's video - she vaguely describes only blue jeans and a blue jean jacket, no description of light jeans or dark jacket, no description of the jacket's material, and no mention of the unique head or waist accessories, and no mention of unique height. She certainly doesn't identify the man seen as RA, which one earlier poster from Thread #161 had stated.
-- she describes seeing 4 juvenile witnesses crossing the bridge over Old Hwy 25 as she drove underneath, even though both RA's account and the juveniles' accounts confirm there were only 3.
-- the times and places she states haven't been and can't be confirmed by anyone (other than partially with Store cameras) but it's these times and places that are forcing an awkwardness in the timelines mentioned above - almost such that it would connect some dots better if she were actually incorrect or off a bit on some of these details.
-- Now I have no idea how close by she lives or the frequency of her trail visits, but I find it perplexing that she drove to the trails yet had so little time of exercise before driving back out. I do quite a bit of exercising in a small town - if I'm doing a shorter workout I normally start and end at home as much like Delphi it's safe with sidewalks and streets that aren't busy. On some occasions I'll drive to a park or somewhere out in a more rural area, but if I do that it's for a longer (60 minutes+?) time of exercise. We know with Witness #4 she was photo'd still driving in towards the parking area at 1:46 and again photo'd driving out after leaving the parking area at 2:14. Considering the time from the parking area to the Store camera each way, that only leaves approx 25 minutes out of the car, not even counting the possibility of changing into walking shoes, checking your phone, or doing a bit of stretching before starting. As stated above, if we totally believe her timeline, she'd have coincidentally been one minute behind BG heading towards the MHB (yet didn't see him down the long straightaway) and no more than 60-80 seconds ahead of A&L heading towards MHB (yet didn't hear KG's car pull up for dropoff). She's inserted herself in the middle of 3 parties within 3 minutes of each other when strangely later there doesn't appear to be a single person on the whole trail for a half hour or so. In any event, given that she'd have needed to get from Mears lot to MHB in 5.5 minutes in order to observe BG on MHB, it would've taken her the same to return - she could've been back to her car, done with her workout, in like 11 minutes unless she kept walking past her car or did a second "out and back" (not likely as she may have spotted BG again). Twice in the PCA she mentions "her walk" which should imply she was not running or moving at a pace too inconsistent with others nearby.
5. Incorrect Post = [BG must be RA because RA places himself in the area and no other males were witnessed in the area] Similarly, [BG/RA would had to have seen/passed the girls based on Witness 4's recollection] .... however ....
This would be true, or at least more believable, if the south end of the bridge were truly a dead-end - namely that the only way one could get to the MHB south end was via from the one exact same trailhead and one must enter the bridge from the north end. However as we know the girls/BG exited the scene from the south end, it's IMO very likely going to be hammered at by the defense that, despite being private property with an embankment to climb, any number of others could've entered onto the bridge's south end from the 'wrong way' "up the hill". A persuasive argument here could nullify much of Witness #4's observations, leaving no other witnesses available. That a perpetrator would enter from the wrong end would be even more likely if such an abduction/murder scene were pre-planned for that site, as the perpetrator would want to visit the site beforehand to make sure all was ready or as expected and there were no unplanned hikers/visitors/neighbors/animals/flooding/excess mud/trees down to obstruct, etc there, and walk the route beforehand they would anticipate using later. Also if by chance they knew the girls were coming to that spot at that time. And of course entering from the wrong end would steer clear of potential witnesses along the normally more populated trail route. I do understand wanting to sequence it out such that BG/RA must be lying in that he didn't see the girls, but IMO I think it's a certain degree of leap to get a jury to believe something must've happened a certain way if there's viable options that it could've happened a different way.
All MOO - comments welcomed, whether agree or disagree!
wibc.com
