My thoughts this morning are on whether or not BG had a weapon. I have taken time to consider other theories, like BG using a lure, or pretending to be an authority, or having something over one of the girls, or anything other than the use of a weapon to gain control. These things should be considered when we don't know exactly what happened.
But I'm just not comfortable that a killer would risk this crime in a public place, where other people were around (albeit fairly isolated), during daylight hours, engaging two teenage girls, walking them to a separate location from the bridge (including a creek crossing), and murdering them all without the use of a weapon for control. I just can't let myself believe the "intimidation and manipulation" factor of anything less than a weapon would accomplish all of that.
I keep coming back to one of the only basic facts that we know in this case: BG cornered them at the south end of the bridge and told them "guys...down the hill." They were then killed across the creek (and yes, I still believe it could have been farther east than the spot below the cemetery, but I digress...). LE officer JH said there isn't much more that would be helpful in the audio, so there's just nothing to indicate to me that anything was said to the girls about him being an authority, or having a dog, or talking about something he has on them, or anything else. If he did, in actuality, walk right up to them at the end of the bridge and immediately order them down the hill, in the tone he did, without any kind of initial explanation to who he was, then I just cannot see it happening that way without a weapon.
Just my thoughts, of course.