A few thought snippets that came in my mind today:
The focus of the public is on BG the way he looked on the day the crime was committed and geographically on the bridge. But is that relevant ? It sure was in the time right after the crime. It was important to look for witnesses of that day. But nothing useful came from that approach, sadly.
We can almost certainly assume that BG knew that area quite well, the police seems to think so, too. Yet the crime itself, the killing and possible other actions were committed in the area around the creek (where the bodies were found). This was an area with dense vegetation, no place you would go to for a hike or such. It's not an area you just stumble over. Its an area you know because you have checked it out a few times or you know it from other activities.
So it is likely that BG was in that area a few times, but he would have looked much different. No blue jacket, no hoodie pulled deep down into his face etc.
He would have looked just like some guy walking through the shrubbery, probably more often than once. Did police ever ask if people made such observations ? Open question, I have no answer.
Another possibility is of course that he knew that area from his childhood. If so this information would probably not lead very far.
Let's suppose he knew not only a specific area around the creek but the creek itself. Who knows creeks ? People who go fishing. Might BG be an angler ?
I stumbled over a photo of Abby while fishing:
Picture of person of interest released by Delphi police | Daily Mail Online
Probably a coincidence. And then again maybe not ?
(disclaimer: if this has been discussed before, mea culpa, its not possible to read thousands of pages of chat, just ignore my post then
)