Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do believe we can interpret facts as we see fit and that is what having an opinion means. If we don't agree with the posters particular opinion, then we debate it, or ignore it. Nobody's opinion of LE statements is right or wrong and sometimes LE statements are downright ambiguous. (DNA statements for example.) AJMO.Not trying to argue inferred meanings of LE statements, or the guilt or innocence of anyone in this or any other case. I am simply asking for accuracy. The example I provided was a clear example of someone being publicly cleared. There is no ambiguity about the intent. In this case, no one has been publicly cleared. I fail to understand why WS members state what they, themselves, believe LE "really means" as fact instead of just quoting LE directly and opining on what they believe LE "really means". Saying LE has "cleared" anyone publicly is false and misleading statement
Cleared - Confident that individual person(s) are not involved.
Suspected - Reason(s) to believe that individual person(s) are involved.
Not a suspect - No reason to believe that individual person(s) are involved.
You would have to go back to the early threads. Can't tell you which thread off the top of my head. There were at least 4 image analysts that were going bridge by bridge looking for power lines crossing, the right type of bridge, and then the right angles alignments to be make it possible for the picture we see to have been taken in each place. There are at least a half dozen image analysts that are very good at what they do around WS.
We were fortunate to have the power lines in the image. Made it easier to find bridges where there were power lines crossing in proximity to them. Then it is the type of bridge it is which eliminates bridges with overhead structures and all concrete bridges, etc. The only thing that was for certain it couldn't be the Monon High bridge. After a several days of effort the bridge was identified in Monticello.
I have been looking into the proximity of the railways to the crime scene and thinking about the types of people who would be familiar with that area and yet not be local. On the Norfolk Southern Corp website, they list some career paths: http://www.nscorp.com/content/nscorp/en/work-at-ns/career-paths/hourly-positions.html
I was drawn to the job description of the "signal maintainers." They build and maintain signal equipment along railways. They don't travel to locations via rail, they actually drive themselves (and a CDL is required). Extensive regional travel is required for this particular job so they may travel to different sites along the entire length of the corporation's tracks and stay out of town for days or weeks at a time. I'm thinking they may stay in motels/extended stay hotels during their assignments? In their downtime, maybe they have time to explore the towns they are periodically stationed in, so that someone who, for instance, normally works and lives in Fort Wayne, comes to Delphi for a week-long assignment two or three times each year? I'm just wondering if this occupation fits the bill for someone who is a non-local and yet has local knowledge?
Good thought, Yemelyan. I am positive all hotels, motels, B&B's, etc. have been scoured over by police with any and all recorded/verified outsiders gone over with a fine tooth comb. IMHO
I do believe we can interpret facts as we see fit and that is what having an opinion means. If we don't agree with the posters particular opinion, then we debate it, or ignore it. Nobody's opinion of LE statements is right or wrong and sometimes LE statements are downright ambiguous. (DNA statements for example.) AJMO.
Your point about the Amish being disinclined to cooperate with LE--I have no knowledge of this being the case, but you might be right. What this makes me think of though, is the possibility that someone who knows who this guy is has an issue with LE--perhaps an outstanding legal issue. Which is pure speculation (there is no evidence of this, or that the Amish wouldn't want to help solve a murder of this kind, given that they also have children who could be prey to this killer), but maybe there is something to that idea.
Are there any posters here who are local to Delphi or the vicinity? I have two questions...maybe it doesn't exactly require local knowledge. Here goes:
1. I'm thinking about that snippet of audio, "Down the hill." I grew up in a state that had a defined gradient of accents north to south. Is Indiana like that? Is the accent of someone from Delphi, Lafayette, Logansport area significantly different from, say a Fort Wayne accent?
2. Does the Norfolk Southern railroad run through Delphi? If yes, how close are currently active Norfolk Southern tracks to the Monon High Bridge area?
Certain words are pronounced differently in different regions. I knew someone who, although they didn't have a strong southern accent, said 'collar' for the word 'color'. I think he pronounced another word or two differently, as well. He lived on the Ohio river in OH, but across from Kentucky so hence the bit of 'southernness'.snipped by me...
I mentioned way back when the audio was released that I thought BG sounded like everyone I know (based on 3 tiny words) in rural west-central Indiana and east-central IL. I do think there are many from the northern and northwestern portions of Indiana who have a Minnesota-light accent and many from the very southern portions of IN who have a Kentucky-light accent. But I also think a lot depends on where their parents are from and if they've lived there their entire lives, whether they grew up in a city or a rural area, and probably a million other things. Trying to base it off of three words is incredibly difficult as well, but I certainly don't hear anything in the word "down" where I would expect to if they weren't from around here.
I have zero problems with anyone interpreting the facts and presenting their interpretations and opinions. What I do have a problem with is stating those interpretations and opinions as facts. Ex. "RL has been cleared"... umm, no - "RL is not a suspect" is accurate and not the same thing as being "cleared". When LE publicly clears someone, they are quite specific and unambiguous and leaves no room for misinterpretation.I do believe we can interpret facts as we see fit and that is what having an opinion means. If we don't agree with the posters particular opinion, then we debate it, or ignore it. Nobody's opinion of LE statements is right or wrong and sometimes LE statements are downright ambiguous. (DNA statements for example.) AJMO.