Yes, most crimes are solved because the killer lives within a particular geographic area that can be somewhat defined. But public places present a problem much in the same way that interstate highway travel presents a problem. A person can become familiar with a particular place, whether that be a park or a rest stop, and feel comfortable enough to know that place without actually living there or in the general area. In my opinion, this could be someone who has visited the Monon High Bridge trail a few times in the past but does not live anywhere near the local area. And it could also be someone who has visited the Monon High Bridge trail and lives close by too.
Great post overall. I quoted it only partially, the aspect that stood out to me.
I don't exclude Bridge Guy from being local. But I don't view it as necessity or anything close to necessity.
If Bridge Guy is committing a crime like this in a well traveled building, and one with video surveillance, then the local knowledge requirement is extraordinary. He has to know which room he can take them, one that will be accessible and vacant, along with remaining vacant long enough for him to escape. He has to combine that ideal room with camera avoidance. He has to know the foot traffic pattern and timing. And so forth.
What the heck does he have to know at Monon High? Nobody else will be here. That's about it. He's picked that trail because of how low traveled it is. Now where do I take the victims? Up here on the same level as the bridge? Not ideal. There are two homes not far away. This could be messy and noisy. And if I leave the bodies up here anyone who searches for the girls will no doubt find them quickly, perhaps before I'm fully long gone. Okay, how about down the hill from the bridge and on the same side of the creek? The gravel access road cuts through down there. The tree cover is very thin. This is February, after all. Certainly I can do better than this. But I can't risk a long march amidst captivity. Too many things can go wrong, like if I walk them back under the bridge. It needs to be fairly close yet isolated, and visible from as few areas as possible.
IMO, that is the aspect people are missing. It wasn't as if Bridge Guy identified the ideal concealed location amidst hundreds of possibilities. He had only a handful of logical choices, and picked the best one. That wouldn't have taken long at all to figure out.
BTW, I agree with Falling Down that using the gravel access road and then maneuvering back up to the bridge would have been asking too much of Bridge Guy. He would have been waiting down there all day or all week for a victim(s). Plus he wouldn't have had a clear indication of what they looked like in terms of age, etc. Then maneuvering back up to the bridge would have been a chore, especially to the north side. You'd have to cross the creek to emerge over there. Bridge Guy already would have looked wet in Libby's video.
Also, locals wouldn't know a darn thing about that area across the creek where the bodies were found. I stood right there in the middle of the creek bed and couldn't see anything. I guarantee prior to these murders virtually nobody had been there in years. You know there's a slope of some type. That's about it.
I hope all the "likes" to that post and the intimate knowledge supposedly required weren't liking the notion that the intimate knowledge was held by the property owner. That is a particularly pathetic recent theme on YouTube and elsewhere. Talk about flunking probability. Those YouTubers have zero credibility. They sucker gullible types.
