I still wonder if there is anything we can discern from the fact where their bodies were found? That is a lot of private property to cover in order to get from the bridge to where the victims were found. It almost makes me wonder if maybe BG had some kind of inside knowledge of the private property. I mean 3/4 of a mile hike from the public trail is quite a distance through the woods. I just can't force my mind to think that some random person traveling through would take these victims all the way down there. This guy definetly knew this are very well, I just keep finding myself drawn to these maps trying to figure what i am missing. I think that is why its so hard for me to understand, bc in my mind it just screams of a local perp. I just feel like this guy after the murders walked away and continued his hike back towards his house just like he was strolling on that bridge. But I also know all the reasons why this doesn't make sense, Locals would have identified him by now, no known association to victims, nobody saw anything etc. With that said, I always seem to think that the simplest answer tends to be the most accurate.
Who would be most likely to be at these trails during the week? Local person IMO
Who would know the area? Local person IMO
Who would know the private properties and homeowners habbits/ when they could get in and out? Local person IMO
Who would know best route to get in and out/where to park/where to go to walk away/paths through private property? Local person IMO
The only logical assumption I can make is if it was a Cyber crime and this person knew that these victims liked to go to these trails and he set up trial runs in order to scope this location. But in my opinion he would still be 1 either local, or semi local, as maybe his job put him in this area quite often for work.
sorry for the jumbled novel, just trying to put my 20 threads worth of reading into cognitive thoughts. all in MOO