Sorry if some/all of these questions have been answered. I've been multi-quoting as I go, but once again gave up before being completely caught up.
Refresh my memory. Was the time of BG walking on the bridge ever released?
I believe the video was said to be timestamped at about 2:30.
I can only speak for myself. It's not that I believe LE is untrustworthy. It's that I've lost some confidence in them. They had the sketch they just released for five months before the other, much-publicized sketch was created. For five months, it was their only eyewitness sketch. But they never shared it with the GP. Then, the other sketch was developed and released. For the next year and a half it became the "face" of BG. Now, more than 2 years after the murders, suddenly, they dismiss the much-publicized sketch and replace it with a different one. This sketch doesn't really *seem* to match the person on the video. The face also *seems* too youthful to belong to the older voice captured on the audio. But now we're supposed to believe LE when they express no doubt that this is BG. I'm sorry, but it comes across to me as *too* certain, as though LE is trying too hard to assure us, after their big oopsie, that they know what they're doing. That said, I do hope I'm wrong.
I really don't think the voice sounds as old as it did in the beginning. He has a fairly deep-pitch and a rather calm demeanor for the circumstances, but that doesn't always mean old.
apologize if I am asking a stupid Q- I did not follow this case when it was new. Do they think she filmed him from a distance? ... coming toward them, before he started his interaction with them? So they were probably apprehensive about him but not so scared initially that they flat out tried to run away?
They have said the reason the pictures were so unclear is because they were taken at a distance and after enlarging, enhancing, etc., that was the best they could do. They said when the stills were first released that they couldn't be enhanced any more than they already were (not that it stopped most of us from trying) because the best that the government had already did what they could with much better equipment than the average person would have. I thought it sounded like they thought he was more weird than scary, but LE never said that as far as I know.
Hi all.
I haven't posted in a long time but something about this case has been bugging me.
What does it mean to "hide in plain sight?" IMO it means not to hide at all. Someone who is hiding in plain site doesn't need to "hide" in normal terms because no one knows they are there. Someone who blends in, like a chameleon. In this case I think it is or could be IMO someone they see (they being Delphi citizens) every day but pay no attention to. Could be a teacher, a janitor, a law enforcement officer, a coach, etc. It is only after someone gets caught that people say "OMG, he was right there, all along!" Someone like that.
When I hear them talking about someone hiding in plain sight, I tend to think of people like the mail carrier, trash man, delivery drivers, bus boys (are they still called that?) at restaurants, store clerks, etc. Someone you may see almost every day, but you really have no idea what the person looks like. Someone who fits in so well in their particular location that they just sort of blend into the background.
There are over 90 threads here and I can't possibly keep up. Will someone please help refresh my memory? TIA
1) Had the girls gone to this park alone before?
2) Did they ask to go to the park that day?
3) Was there a specific reason they went to the park?
4) Was there a specific time they wanted to be at the park?
5) Who knew they were going to be at the park?
6) Did either of the girls have any sort of social media account?
7) Did they text or call anyone or post anything that day to let friends know where they were going to be?
4. They didn't ask to go there at a specific time. They wanted to go, and they got a ride when the sister was leaving for her friend's house and then work.
5. Nobody really knew they were going before they left other than the sister, father and grandmother, and it was said (but not confirmed by LE) that another friend had originally wanted to go with them. The were said to be posting pictures from there on SnapChat (I believe), which would have let people know where they were.
1) It was stated earlier that Libby had been to this park/bridge with her sister. We do not know if Abby had been to the park or the bridge before this day.
2) Abby spent the previous night at Libby's house. Libby had permission to go, but Abby's mom had not been consulted.
3) The reason given was that Libby wanted to shoot some photos.
4) Unknown if they wanted to be there at a specific time. Libby's sister dropped them off around 1:15-1:30 and Libby's GF was to pick them up at 3:15-3:30. (times are roughly given as the details escape me).
5) Libby's sister, GM, GF - although I am not sure GF knew ahead of time, but he knew to g pick them up. There was a 3rd girl that was invited but was not there - I don't think she could get permission to go. So, she knew as did someone in her family.
6) Libby had KiK. They may have had fb, but someone else can verify this.
7) Unknown, although the photo of Abby on the bridge was published on Snapchat by Libby. I have no idea how that works.
One thing I've been trying to remember. I thought Abby's mother said that Abby had been allowed to go on the trail before, but there was no way she would have given permission to go on the bridge. I was never sure if that meant it was out of the ordinary for her to cross the bridge that day, or if she had been on it before without her mother knowing about it. I keep wondering if they had only crossed the bridge originally to get away from the weird guy on the north side, and she recorded him when she saw that he was following them over there.
As always, this jumbled mess is my opinions because I don't have any links handy and can't guarantee the accuracy of my memory.
