so what do you think? this guy makes the rounds, cases out different spots, drives around, doesn't stick around long enough to be obvious...waiting for the optimal moment? He was READY..loaded to the gills with his equipment, maybe even filming...so the whole time he was there he was walking around or perched somewhere with all of his stuff in place...what ever that is..clothesline, possible go pro, possible rifle, possible hand gun, knives,, zip ties and god knows what all...and then happens upon his perfect situation...he doesn't even hesitate or seem like he has to work out what he is going to do with 2 girls , one who is probably a pretty good fighter....and yes he has low anxiety, like obviously...but he still is so prepared...maybe overly prepared..overly prepared unless he always knew there would be 2 girls/ victims and not one...
I think there is something about this case that tells LE that this killer is somehow in or around their community and found these two on-line or elsewhere. They know a lot more than we do. I wonder if the FBI is waiting to see him again...see him kill again, it sounds horrible, I know but they have to figure him out and they need more clues about where or who he is.
He may have moved on and left Delphi or the area around there...maybe just sitting in a trailer somewhere...
mOO
Looking at a video on YouTube someone was re-enacting, there was not a clear line of sight to any of the houses on the south bank of the river. The elevation at that point is flat and there were many tree trunk obstructing in between.
Once they went down the gravel bank from the rail road ties, the drop obscures line of sight from houses even more. The only real fear he would have of being seen was from someone on the gravel road/driveway directly below the bridge and he could have glanced left and right when he was right over top that walking towards the girls.
Again, this is why I think this was a planned location based on a smart person casing the area and minimizing the chances of being caught.
I would agree with the opinion that he is or was local . It is hard to believe that he had no familiarity with this area.
I disagree that he closely knew either girl.
AW has stated that either, or both girls , would have made that known in the audio.
AMOO JMO MOO
This is an incredibly insightful article about serial killers:
The Serial-Killer Detector
“A few years ago, I got some people at the F.B.I. to run the question of how many murders in their records are unsolved but have been linked through DNA.” The answer was about fourteen hundred, slightly more than two per cent of the murders in the files they consulted. “Those are just the cases they were able to lock down with DNA,” Hargrove said. “And killers don’t always leave DNA—it’s a gift when you get it. So two per cent is a floor, not a ceiling.”
“Serial killers tend to stick to a killing field. They’re hunting for prey in a concentrated area, which can be defined and examined.” Usually, the hunting ground will be far enough from their homes to conceal where they live, but not so far that the landscape is unfamiliar. The farther criminals travel, the less likely they are to act, a phenomenon that criminologists call distance decay.”
“By noting where killings took place or the bodies were discovered, you can actually create probability distributions.” In his book “Geographic Profiling,” Rossmo notes research that found, among other things, that right-handed criminals tend to turn left when fleeing but throw away evidence to the right, and that most criminals, when hiding in buildings, stay near the outside walls.”
“In 1965, a killing led to an arrest more than ninety-two per cent of the time. In 2016, the number was slightly less than sixty per cent, which was the lowest rate since records started being kept.”
What, if a smart killer studied crime for years, reading, talking to experts, consuming videos, only for his goal to become the undisputed no. 1 in serial killing, by doing all these typical things differently.“Serial killers tend to stick to a killing field. They’re hunting for prey in a concentrated area, which can be defined and examined.” Usually, the hunting ground will be far enough from their homes to conceal where they live, but not so far that the landscape is unfamiliar. The farther criminals travel, the less likely they are to act, a phenomenon that criminologists call distance decay.”
bbmThis is why I wonder what he trained himself in. Chess, as I have said? Strategy games? Go? Board games? Poker?
2-3 beer with some locals, some skillful asking about BG's allegedly "acquaintances" in the house and he would have known all, what he had to know. IMOIt was the perfect spot for him to pull off his fantasy, on a relatively mild February day. I'm convinced he knew the one homeowner there close to where they crossed the creek was not home, and may have done research to figure out they were out-of-town for an extended period. That was the only property/house which had a clear line-of-sight for part of the abduction.
No way he would have tried this during Summer, the vegetation is too thick, there would have been too much foot traffic, and the homeowner would have been home.
JMO
bbmHowever, they might have known him through a loose connection, but unable to place/identify him out of context to his normal setting.
opinion and speculation only
Perhaps the killer was a person who felt "he had to kill to get rid of his inner demons/voices", and that it was only an unlucky coincidence that it was Abby and Libby whom he killed, as he probabloughy believed he could subdue two children. Had he instead met two adults that day, he would have waited to another day. There was a double murder here in Sweden in 2004, where a young boy and a middle-aged woman were killed on the street, and there were no connection between the killer and his victims, and there had not been any specific reason why he had chosen his victims, just that he saw them as "easy targets". It took 16 years to solve it.
DNA Solves Cold Cases/Parabon Nanolabs & GED/Match.
“In 1965, a killing led to an arrest more than ninety-two per cent of the time. In 2016, the number was slightly less than sixty per cent, which was the lowest rate since records started being kept.”
This is a very interesting article, but this particular stat is fascinating. You would think these numbers would be reversed with all the advances in forensics and scientific testing and of course DNA. I wonder why the big drop. Is it because the nature of the crimes themselves has changed?
Is it due to changes in police investigative techniques?
adding..
if this guy is a pedophile and he likes this particular age , (pedo's are very specific)... the bridge area might not be a good place to find 13 year old girls alone.
unless you know in advance they will be there.
so maybe he is not a pedophilic necessarily and just a sadistic thrill killer.
I put money he has raped before, and there are females out there who have had experiences with him.
mOO
What, if a smart killer studied crime for years, reading, talking to experts, consuming videos, only for his goal to become the undisputed no. 1 in serial killing, by doing all these typical things differently.