Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #124

[Spartygirl]

Respectfully snipped and BBM.
I think it's a reasonable speculation to suggest he had some connection (if even loose) to that home or the homeowner. To effectively pull off his murderous plot it was imperative no one in that house was at home to hear what was transpiring.

*How did he know the owner wouldn't be there?*

Answer this question, and we likely can find the killer.

Amateur opinion and speculation

Let's add to that-- how would he know RL wouldn't be home ??
we would have mailman, because the snowbirds would probably have their mail forwarded, or son picking up mail after work (time frame monitored)
so we have Govt officials, locals, neighbors.

 

[Falling Down]

I believe it is likely this killer had a general target in mind. IOW, he was looking for a certain victim at a specific time and place. And not necessarily targeting Abigail and Liberty specifically. For all I know he did go to the trails that day - or even previous trips - hunting for a victim. His primary target may have been a lone woman, on the bridge and with no one else around. If he were hunting - and I believe he was - he probably had walked over the entire area an hour or two before Abigail and Liberty showed up. He had a rough idea of how many were on the trails and who was where, in a general sense. For example, he probably knew there was no one under the bridge prior to seeing the girls and checked it again as he walked across. If he was searching for lone adult female, preferably petite, he might have realized the two girls were going to be his best opportunity.

As I stated earlier, I watched both seasons of "Mindhunter". One of the comments by the Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, is that he went out hunting almost every night looking for his victims. And this was in NYC where he would see more situations in one night than this killer would see on the trails in numerous trips. And yet, out of all nightly attempts, he had 8 attacks. He had a specific victim and set of circumstances in mind and if they weren't met he simply kept going. I wonder if this killer had not been to the trails in the weeks or months prior to the killings.

If this guy has killed before and/or since, what are the chances Abigail and Liberty are his youngest victims. If all of his other victims were single females, the situation may have dictated that he alter his methods. If he has killed since, maybe he decided multiple victims are not ideal and his others are late teen or adult women by themselves. What if his victim(s) were runaways classed as missing and no one has a clue as to their fate? What if his other victim went to another set of trails and walked or biked there without telling anyone where they were going? (As a teenager I had a set of wooded trails I would hike and many times I took off on them without telling anyone. To this day, if my parents were alive they would have no idea how many times I did that, with a pellet gun, .22 or no gun at all.) Such a person might be another victim and no one is aware of what happened or even that they went out on trails.

In other words if we or even LE are trying to make a connection to another crime it might not be readily apparent in any LE database. If he is a serial killer, Abigail and Liberty might be a one off crime for him. His other victims exhibit an entirely different type of victim and set of circumstances.

I've done thousands of hours of research since this story broke and for probably 2.5 years afterwards. I'm the last person to blow my own horn about that, too, many here have done much more digging and sleuthing on just this one case.

Nothing resembles it. I agree with you 100% @JnRyan. Some great crime stats were shared in recent posts, and I'll expand on that some here.

Think of random abductions of juveniles, which are rare enough in the U.S. Say under age 15. Now think of double abductions, there have been maybe 15 since 1974. I don't know the stats of those roughly 30 who were abducted nor do I know the circumstances, besides the Iowa case from 2012.

Now...how many happened in rural areas? The Iowa case was urban, as I'm sure some other double abduction cases were. How many were on a trail in a rural area? How many were on a trail, in a rural area, and involved an individual who forced the victims to walk to their deaths?

Now...back to attacks on trails in rural areas. Take the national parks out of the equation, but put adults back into the mix. So:

1. A rural park and/or trail area, that is privately owned (like in this case), or publicly owned like a county or small state park. I say "small" because part of BG's MO was being able to escape easily, a huge federal or state park just doesn't fit here with his MO, IMO.

2. A lone woman or teen girl, or a pair.

In this region of the country, the number of attacks that do or kind of fit that short list are really low. IN, OH, KY, MI, IL, and maybe IA and WI. I focused more on areas within IN and adjacent states in my searches.

Now...and I thought about this earlier and hadn't thought about it in a while...what if he has male victims, too? One lone male on a trail would be easier to handle in a small, rural park/trail area than a couple or what have you.

The number of unsolved cases which fit that profile, say within the last 20 years, is really low. IN, IL, MI, OH, and KY. Adult and juvenile cases combined, in fact I think the only case I've found where juveniles were murdered on or near a rural trail within the last 20 years, in those states, is the Delphi case.

JMO

 

[somequestions]

Well, normally I would say, if the girls had not crossed the bridge, he could have taken them from the trail as it is pretty quiet there, however, knowing now how many people were there that day, he pretty much had to hope they would cross the bridge to get to them.
If not, he would have waited for another day
IMO

If you look at this case from an evidence perspective, there were 2 main pictures Liberty German took that day that I remember. The first picture was a complete view of the Monon High Bridge right before her and Abby were to cross. The second picture is a very famous picture in this case. It is the one she took of Abby while looking back in the direction from where they had came. In the background, it does not look like anyone was following them at that time.

If you also remember to consider the fact that when Liberty German took the video of the bridge guy walking towards them, it was from farther away than what was released to the public. The image and video that we got was the best closeup image that could be created of this person on the bridge.

So why is all that significant? It is significant because it made me think of two things. First, if they encountered this bridge guy before they got to the Monon High Bridge, he certainly must have waited a while before he decided to go after them. One way to get a general idea of how long he waited would be to minus the timestamp of the Abby Williams picture from the one Liberty German took of the entire bridge section. This would give you at least a general idea of how long the killer waited before deciding to go after them.

So either Liberty German got bad vibes from someone walking towards them that she had never seen before that moment, or her and Abby had been close enough to recognize the face of the person that seemed to be coming after them on the bridge.

I think the idea that Abigail Williams and Liberty German had crossed paths with the killer before Liberty German actually started taking video of him is a distinct possibility. How, when, and where that occurred I think would go a long way in trying to determine what happened that day.

As for whether or not the girls would have been killed had they not crossed paths at some point with this killer is an argument you can make in any type of case. Most criminals, in my opinion, are opportunistic.

 

[Falling Down]

He was allegedly going to the dump which means he likely was loading a truck or trailer with items to take to the dump. I wonder who knew he left or would be gone awhile. I also wonder about the other property where the alleged snowbirds were away. Surely someone was checking on their property from time to time. Whoever BG is IMO knew there would be no one home during the time to commit the crime. Again IMO

My guess would be that like a lot of rural Americans he takes his regular trash to the dump. That was just one stop he made, that day, at one point he was in Americus. My guess on that would be he went there for lunch, he stopped at the Pizza King there according to MSM reports.

IIRC, RL came home during the late afternoon or maybe after 6PM. Searchers at one point went to his house to ask for permission to search his property. By then it would have been very dark.

Be that as it may, his house is a fair distance from the CS, which is down in the gorge.

As far as BG knowing RL was gone when he was prepping for his crimes, that is he was on the main trail and around the bridge area, from the spot where you could turn off back then along 300 you cannot even see RL's house. In fact the cemetery is so small, from that same spot it's kind of difficult to make out what, exactly, is there in the distance across the farm field, and up the road there on 300. RL's place is just beyond that, and he has trees which kind of obscure his house.

Translated: BG would not have been able to see RL's house from the general area where the girls were dropped off. Did he check RL's house to see if he was home? Maybe, but I don't see any real reason to.

JMO

 

[Falling Down]

Respectfully snipped and BBM.
I think it's a reasonable speculation to suggest he had some connection (if even loose) to that home or the homeowner. To effectively pull off his murderous plot it was imperative no one in that house was at home to hear what was transpiring.

*How did he know the owner wouldn't be there?*

Answer this question, and we likely can find the killer.

Amateur opinion and speculation

Or, for that matter, see anything.

Good post.

 

[JnRyan]

Well, normally I would say, if the girls had not crossed the bridge, he could have taken them from the trail as it is pretty quiet there, however, knowing now how many people were there that day, he pretty much had to hope they would cross the bridge to get to them.
If not, he would have waited for another day
IMO

Or conversely, maybe he had been there 3 or 4 times in the months leading up to February 2017. He just didn't see the opportunity he was comfortable with and he decided to wait for another day. On 13 Feb 2017, Abigail and Liberty may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. If this guy is serial killer, he may be like Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz where he is looking for a particular type of victim in a certain set of circumstances. IOW, it is like the spider in the web - he doesn't target a particular fly, but instead goes after the one that lands in the web.

 

[Falling Down]

I hear you. I think if this killer really is still a local that increases the odds that they could be targeted as opposed to someone from outside the area. With almost 60K in tips (I don't know the actual amount of tips as I've lost track), I can't help but believe he didn't live in the county at the time of the murders.

That said, though, the Georgia town of Ocilla GA is about the same size as Delphi and Tara Grinstead, a teacher and former beauty queen, went missing in 2005 and the killer and his accomplice were not caught until 2017. Her killer was local at the time of the murder and when the GBI arrested him they said he had never even been on their radar. Never questioned, never a POI. Her sister - who accused Tara's former BF - said she had known the killer and his family for years and never had any reason to connect him to any part of the crime. A former girlfriend who he confessed to later on turned the killer in. He was definitely hiding in plain sight.

Makes me wonder, and makes me wonder why LE would make comments that the perp has to be local.

i keep going back to there being no signs nearby indicating the bridge is there, say along the highway, locals knew a bridge was there but couldn't tell you how to get to it, the highway being built in 2014, and other "local" factors that only some people would be privy to.

Before the highway went through, access to C.R. 300 would have been known primarily to locals and truckers and workers for the Andersons complex, and maybe two other businesses which used to be where the highway is now, right by the parcel where the CPS building was.

This guy has to know that area like the back of his hand. I believe the highway construction got his wheels turning, that he could pull off his sick fantasy and drive out of there, nobody would be the wiser. No need to drive closer to town, no need to risk driving east on 300 which, again, carried risk of being seen, even during that time of year.

The Daylight Phantom

JMO

 

[Rural_PC]

But there’s no way he could’ve known they would cross the bridge and he could take them from the end of it.

I'm not married to any one theory, but I could come up with a scenario that fit. Especially if prior contact was made with the victims.

MOO

 

[Falling Down]

Or conversely, maybe he had been there 3 or 4 times in the months leading up to February 2017. He just didn't see the opportunity he was comfortable with and he decided to wait for another day. On 13 Feb 2017, Abigail and Liberty may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. If this guy is serial killer, he may be like Ted Bundy or David Berkowitz where he is looking for a particular type of victim in a certain set of circumstances. IOW, it is like the spider in the web - he doesn't target a particular fly, but instead goes after the one that lands in the web.

He could have waited until the vegetation was on the ground, then started more intense recon of the area.

I agree with your assessment and how other killers go about doing these sorts of things. I really do believe it's a fantasy for them, and they have an urge to kill. They do lots of recon, research, etc., for more elaborate murders, they do what I call "dry runs" as well, etc. They have to feel comfortable in the area(s) they hunt for prey.

One of the biggest facts of this case in my mind compared with other killers is BG was on foot. He has to be in good if not very good physical shape. He went through a lot of trouble to abduct and kill the girls.

JMO

 

[Charlot123]

For @stattlich1 and others who want to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks the Delphi murders was a crime perpetrated by a stranger/not targeted in advance: the first thing that you'd need to see/agree on with me is that this crime was one of a unique subset of murders called a child abduction murder. If you don't agree with this basic premise, then I think you'd have trouble seeing my perspective.

Child abduction murders occur when a victim or victims under the age of 18 are transported ANY distance for the purpose of the commission of a crime. So I believe the murders of Abby and Libby meet this definition.

Child abduction murders are statistically quite different from regular child murders. Regular child murders, without the abduction component, are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a family member or intimate. When abduction is involved, family is only responsible for the murder about 14% of the time. Strangers and acquaintances are about equally responsible for the rest of the cases (strangers account for about 44% of child abduction murders). However, the age of the victim heavily skews this data. Victims age 1-5 are mostly abducted and murdered by acquaintances. As the age of the victim goes up, strangers account for the majority of offenders.

Acquaintances are likely to abduct from the victim's home or another residence. Strangers account for most abductions from public places.

Now you might be seeing how I'm determining that Abby and Libby's case looks more like a stranger child abduction murder than an acquaintance one. But you might be wondering where I'm getting my information. In 2006 a very comprehensive study of child murder was published. You can find this online, it runs about 103 pages and it's the definitive manual used by law enforcement to investigate these types of crimes. It was linked in the previous thread by @margarita25 . The whole purpose of this study, which took 3 and 1/2 years and comprised almost 800 solved cases, was to show that 1. Child abduction murders are very different than regular child murders, and 2. To dispel common misconceptions held by law enforcement that was preventing them from making good decisions when investigating this type of case.

According to this study, child abduction killers overwhelmingly choose their victims because the opportunity presented itself. They rarely choose based on physical characteristics or prior knowledge of the victim. These types of killers had a motive to murder a specific victim in just 12% of cases.

Here is a quote from the Child Abduction Murder Study: " There is a misconception that child abduction murder killers are looking for a child with a certain appearance. Contrary to murders in general, CAM killers were much less likely to select a victim based on a personal characteristic."

The data DO support that CAM killers have a higher likelihood of using the same MO across multiple offenses and that there is a greater predisposition to serial offending. What this means is that child abduction killers are MORE like serial killers - even if they've only committed one offense - than like "regular" murderers.

Also like serial killers, child abduction killers have an overwhelming sexual component in their motivation to kill. 70% of child abduction murders involved a sexual component, compared to 5% of all murders and 14% of non-abduction child murders.

It is rare for what happened to Abby and Libby to happen at all. Only about 1 out of 10,000 reports of a missing child end up with the outcome they had. However, if it DOES happen - then it is slightly more likely than not that a stranger was involved, and it's highly likely that the victim selection was not based on appearance or prior knowledge of the victim. So that's how I reached the conclusions I do. Anything COULD be, as this crime isn't solved, but I'm looking at what history tells us is more likely than not.

Thoughts?

I am on the fence regarding: murders vs child abduction. They were found too close to the bridge, and according to official version, it took a very short time. Likely, murders.

If we assume these are regular murders, all your statistic is not applicable.

Furthermore, you cite a study from 2006. With retroactive data.

Shortly before 2006: Tor browser and first version of Blackberry appeared.

2006 -
Before Google browser, before camera cellphones, before Facebook. And definitely before Kik app.

Modern world. Britain alone. 2018 study. Kik responsible for 1100 cases of child exploitation for the last 5 years.

A lot has changed since 2006.

You once posted that child murder cases could be resolved when there was a proven connection between the murderer and the victim. How does the study from 2006 reflect today’s world, when Kik might be the only connection between the murderer and the victim?

2006 might have good data in general, but sorry, it might also be halfway obsolete, what with the technology developing so rapidly.

 

[Charlot123]

Just watching the local news and a woman was assaulted on a river trail. The perp was medium build and departed on a bicycle. YIKES
Police searching for suspect in Lansing River Trail Assault

3 hrs 38 min by car. Not that difficult.

 

[Yemelyan]

I am on the fence regarding: murders vs child abduction. They were found too close to the bridge, and according to official version, it took a very short time. Likely, murders.

If we assume these are regular murders, all your statistic is not applicable.

Furthermore, you cite a study from 2006. With retroactive data.

Shortly before 2006: Tor browser and first version of Blackberry appeared.

2006 -
Before Google browser, before camera cellphones, before Facebook. And definitely before Kik app.

Modern world. Britain alone. 2018 study. Kik responsible for 1100 cases of child exploitation for the last 5 years.

A lot has changed since 2006.

You once posted that child murder cases could be resolved when there was a proven connection between the murderer and the victim. How does the study from 2006 reflect today’s world, when Kik might be the only connection between the murderer and the victim?

2006 might have good data in general, but sorry, it might also be halfway obsolete, what with the technology developing so rapidly.

@Charlot123 Like it or not, this was a child (because they were under 18) abduction (because he coerced or forced them off the bridge to the place where he committed another crime against them) murder (because they died). It does not matter how short or far he made them go, any distance is considered an abduction in these circumstances. This is how the US Justice Department, who commissioned the study, defines it and investigatory agencies also designate child abduction murders as different from the bulk of child murders but...feel free to lump this case in with the domestic violence cases and adult gang violence if you like, and see if that framework gets you anywhere.

The study is retrospective because this type of crime does not occur at the rate regular murders do. If you used just the child abduction murders that happened in 2006 (or any given modern year), you would have a tiny sample to look at and any conclusion you drew from it would be meaningless. This study looked at 775 cases stretching years back. And I really don't think that the actual motivations that drive a predator like this have changed that much.

I do think that advances in technology are going to have an influence on predatory behaviors but I also don't think the online behavior of two 13 year olds can stump the whole FBI and leave no trace of what they were doing. Phone reset or no. So I have to take that into consideration when I look at scenarios that are more likely than not.

To answer your question, what I posted was that the single factor that impacts a child abduction murder's solvability the most was LE being able to figure out the relationship between victim and offender. And if they couldn't do that, it made the case extremely hard (but not impossible) to solve, in spite of how much physical forensic evidence existed. If there's a way for LE to discover an offender's legal identity from their Kik profile, then yes, I guess it would help increase the case's chance of being solved? I'm not sure if you are talking about child exploitation cases (which is not what the data I'm quoting refer to at all) or abductions followed by murders, though.

Good luck.

 

[Charlot123]

@Charlot123 Like it or not, this was a child (because they were under 18) abduction (because he coerced or forced them off the bridge to the place where he committed another crime against them) murder (because they died). It does not matter how short or far he made them go, any distance is considered an abduction in these circumstances. This is how the US Justice Department, who commissioned the study, defines it and investigatory agencies also designate child abduction murders as different from the bulk of child murders but...feel free to lump this case in with the domestic violence cases and adult gang violence if you like, and see if that framework gets you anywhere.

The study is retrospective because this type of crime does not occur at the rate regular murders do. If you used just the child abduction murders that happened in 2006 (or any given modern year), you would have a tiny sample to look at and any conclusion you drew from it would be meaningless. This study looked at 775 cases stretching years back. And I really don't think that the actual motivations that drive a predator like this have changed that much.

I do think that advances in technology are going to have an influence on predatory behaviors but I also don't think the online behavior of two 13 year olds can stump the whole FBI and leave no trace of what they were doing. Phone reset or no. So I have to take that into consideration when I look at scenarios that are more likely than not.

To answer your question, what I posted was that the single factor that impacts a child abduction murder's solvability the most was LE being able to figure out the relationship between victim and offender. And if they couldn't do that, it made the case extremely hard (but not impossible) to solve, in spite of how much physical forensic evidence existed. If there's a way for LE to discover an offender's legal identity from their Kik profile, then yes, I guess it would help increase the case's chance of being solved? I'm not sure if you are talking about child exploitation cases (which is not what the data I'm quoting refer to at all) or abductions followed by murders, though.

Good luck.

Kik app? It is a magnet for pedophiles. And no, it doesn’t keep any information.

In the story linked, kids were sexting via Kik. Can you imagine how easy it would be for an adult to lure the child using such an app? For exploitation, or to kill.

This is how these pedophile killers find victims, and no, Kik keeps nothing.

Westfield police warn of children sexting on Kik app

This is why I say 2006 was too long ago. If there is a connection between a killer and a victim, modern apps successfully hide it.

ETA: not meaning to establish connection between any app and the girls specifically. I merely think they were modern, tech savvy girls, using the same apps as their friends. but this very factor might be working against the case now. As to who the BG was, I keep an open mind. Could be someone in their environment, or someone living in the vicinity of Delphi and stalking them, or could be a random stranger. We do need to keep our minds open. This is why I feel TV stations need to show BG, in case he is a stranger. But I assume he could be linked to them as well.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

So either Liberty German got bad vibes from someone walking towards them that she had never seen before that moment, or her and Abby had been close enough to recognize the face of the person that seemed to be coming after them on the bridge.

I think the idea that Abigail Williams and Liberty German had crossed paths with the killer before Liberty German actually started taking video of him is a distinct possibility. How, when, and where that occurred I think would go a long way in trying to determine what happened that day.

What if the girls had seen him on the trail somewhere and they recognized him on the bridge as the same man (because of his stature/gait/something?), BUT suddenly his clothing had changed from ie. sportily dressed (?) to an "average farmer". THAT and following the girls would have been a serious reason to distrust him. Brainstorming ....

 

[Detective Willy]

I think BG must be an expert Serial Killer who picks his time to strike with immaculate planning like Israel Keyes. He would have gotten away with this crime 100% without the audio and the video and it looks like he has still gotten away with it anyway?

 

[stattlich1]

'Epitome of evil': Delphi double murder still a mystery three years later | X101 Always Classic

What do you think is so unusual about the manner of death that would result in statements such as these?

"a crime Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter calls “the epitome of evil.”

“I’m in my 35th year and I’ve never experienced anything quite like it,” Carter told ABC News.

And then, this following statement from that article. What specifically do you think he refers to when he talks about "certain things"?

“Unless someone absolutely somehow studied that [trail] in great depth, they would not know specifically where certain things were,”

Clearly, I agree they were abducted. I also believe the killer was familiar with the trail, had been there before, likely several times, if not many.

And this idea of "extreme fear" being the reason one would not come forward, or even a "threat" to not reveal the killers identity, I've read this type of reasoning from LE before on this case.

What would be the reason for a person who knew the truth in this case to not speak it? Fear of being killed by the killer? Would it be a wife, son, or daughter? Would a friend keep that confidence? Wow. If true, someone lives a terrible, terrible life with this murderer on the loose.

I like asking questions, when y'all answer them, you teach me And I think it leads us ever so slightly closer to the truth.

 

[Charlot123]

My intention wasn't to offend anyone. But if you saw yourself in what I wrote about decent people....I was trying to say that it's normal to try to "normalize" these acts of extreme evil. You may be one of the people who are thinking, if I can figure out the "why Abby, why Libby" then I can protect myself/my loved ones from this type of horrible scenario.

Let's say they were killed because they investigated and were about to expose a sex ring in Carroll County. To me this is absolutely preposterous but to some, it's a "better" answer than the alternative, which is that there is a really evil person out there who killed only to appease his own desires and used two other basically randomly chosen humans in the most depraved of ways.

BBM. I suddenly realized that I never saw anyone post such a thing here, on this forum, except for you. Where did you find it, @Yemelyan?

Someone mentioned a sensational case that I consider unrelated, although I do watch it with some glee (The man in question once loudly admonished Mr. R.L. and slapped him with 4 years! Let the hypocrite get the whole bottle of own medicine). But no one, ever, stated it like this.

Can you name a post where it says exactly this?

 

[Charlot123]

I'm still confused, but I guess that's part of why I chose this name. What I said was that I consider myself to be a decent person; however, I don't fit your description of one. I don't wonder "why Abby, why Libby?", I wonder "why anybody?" I don't see much sense in trying to normalize the case because I don't think there's anything normal about it. I tend to think that coming up with a scenario that seems to fit can help to understand the thinking of the person, and therefore, may make it slightly easier to identify him.

Some examples are: If his plan was to get them onto the bridge from the start, it's highly unlikely that he has any fear of heights, and may be very comfortable with them. This could suggest several occupations that involve working in high places. If he didn't have a gun, he would most likely be in reasonably good physical condition. My thinking on that is that he would have to be fit to catch 2 girls if they decided to run, and if he looks somewhat athletic, it seems like the girls would be less likely to try to run. There are many characteristics that can be determined, somewhat accurately, by thinking about what type of person could and would choose a certain scenario. These, in addition to the list on my other post, are what make me go through different ways a crime could have been committed.
MOO

Do you know that fear of heights is genetic? Basically, it is not “height” per se, it is about function of proprioceptors (nerve endings responsible involved in assessing body position), as well how many details do you need to see to feel you are “on earth”. (People with fear of heights don’t panic in a cluttered room on 37th floor). So I think the opposite is true, what profession could people without fear of heights choose, and what should be limiting for people with fear of heights?

I think he is athletic, but his outfit looks full of junk. If he outran them in this stuff, he is a marathon runner (maybe? Anyone around Delphi participating in, say, Boston Marathon?). Or, there should have been someone else waiting at the crime place, if the things went the way we were told.

Maybe not, perhaps, the girls were truly abducted, using some ruse, but then, it changes the whole story.

 

[Confusion]

Do you know that fear of heights is genetic? Basically, it is not “height” per se, it is about function of proprioceptors (nerve endings responsible involved in assessing body position), as well how many details do you need to see to feel you are “on earth”. (People with fear of heights don’t panic in a cluttered room on 37th floor). So I think the opposite is true, what profession could people without fear of heights choose, and what should be limiting for people with fear of heights?

I think he is athletic, but his outfit looks full of junk. If he outran them in this stuff, he is a marathon runner (maybe? Anyone around Delphi participating in, say, Boston Marathon?). Or, there should have been someone else waiting at the crime place, if the things went the way we were told.

Maybe not, perhaps, the girls were truly abducted, using some ruse, but then, it changes the whole story.

I believe we were both saying the same thing about fear of heights, although it doesn't necessarily mean he works at one of the jobs that a person who didn't like high places wouldn't do. He doesn't look extremely athletic in the stills and video clip, which makes me think that he most likely had a gun and/or a partner. I mentioned it a couple years ago, and still wonder at times if he may not have had a partner who looked trustworthy to the girls. If so, they may have tried running toward that person for help and ended up becoming trapped. Most of the time I don't believe it happened though because I think there would have been some evidence for them to find if it did.
If you think my posts are a jumbled mess at times, you should see what's going on in my head when I think about this case (and a few others.)

 

[stattlich1]

I think BG was intimately familiar with the trail, the bridge, the stream, and the surrounding wooded area. How?

I think he either

1. Was local or spent lots of time in the Delphi area and fooled around out there as a kid/adult.
2. Was local, or spent lots of time in the Delphi area, and a hunter
3. Was involved in trail clearing and/or maintenance

I'm not sure if the girls were lured there that day, it's possible. For me, to believe they were targeted means BG had to have foreknowledge of their arrival there that day, through word of mouth, overheard conversation, or electronic media. It also implies, for me, that there was a motive of some sort for the murder.

Now, if it is a case of a murderer plotting to kill a random victim, then for me it becomes a different scenario for sure. The issue I have with this is, why would BG choose to follow through with the two victim scenario, and the added risk that involves? Was it his intent to murder two, one not being sufficient? Or was it the thrill of the challenge? Had he been there so many times, and now tired of the wait, decided this opportunity was good enough?

My opinion remains there is some connection between BG and at least one of these girls.