Bird of Paradise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,871
- Reaction score
- 297
Found Deceased IN - IMAGE discussion re Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi
- Thread starter tlcya
- Start date
- Status
Lilowlet
Imo always
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 57
I don't either tbh, and it's anyone's guess as to why. Maybe the where he actually was is important to the case. Or like was said so you can focus solely on him. Etc. ImoWait....what???You mean as in never?
Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
This is not how a murder in control of 2 girls would be walking with 2 hands in his pockets so I believe he was on the bridge. LE has also stated that the act of the crime happened immediately after these shots from the video were taken.
He also is looking down as people who have actually walked the bridge say there is 4" gaps between the planks, with gouges...basically you have to watch where you are walking on this bridge.
As to why LE hasn't released more? Its possible this is all Libby got and she quickly panned away or put her phone in her pocket.
He also is looking down as people who have actually walked the bridge say there is 4" gaps between the planks, with gouges...basically you have to watch where you are walking on this bridge.
As to why LE hasn't released more? Its possible this is all Libby got and she quickly panned away or put her phone in her pocket.
Bird of Paradise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,871
- Reaction score
- 297
The two stills (now 3) that have been put into a gif for our viewing proves (IMO) he was on the bridge.
The ties line up, the trees line up. If we were talking one still photograph I could entertain your idea, but...
:snooty:
Lilowlet
Imo always
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 57
Lol it's cool, I understand your point of view. Imo still even with different stills, I think it's possible to get that affect if you have a specific background to use y pu can make them be further up or back and resize and tweak. Sure tedious, but if its important enough to do so, I believe it's not put of the universe to believe it 😋😊The two stills (now 3) that have been put into a gif for our viewing proves (IMO) he was on the bridge.
The ties line up, the trees line up. If we were talking one still photograph I could entertain your idea, but...
:snooty:
Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
Ember123
On Time Out
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 140
I mentioned same idea way back when but others didn't seem to think it worth considering. My reasoning was maybe the video was taken in woods (Libby on ground filming?) and they PLACED him on bridge as a sample for public to view either to a) jog memories of any who may have seen him on bridge that day or another day, as in reinforcing that this all took place in vicinity of bridge, hoping to stir peoples' memories ... or
b) orig background included some thing(s) LE did not want public to see.
I guess that could be, but still he looks innocent enough and the 3 snippets we see he is walking with his hands in his pockets so that would be odd for someone who has two girls on the ground trying to get things done and get out.
I guess the demeanor in the picture doesn't look like how one would behave when they have two girls captured. idk
Ember123
On Time Out
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 140
Yes, Bird, very good points! You may be right!The two stills (now 3) that have been put into a gif for our viewing proves (IMO) he was on the bridge.
The ties line up, the trees line up. If we were talking one still photograph I could entertain your idea, but...
:snooty:
ImnoSherlock
Occasional Poster
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2017
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 57
I don't know if never,I just don't believe what we have been shown is taken on the bridge.It wouldn't make sense not to show more of a perp walking on the bridge unless there was something way off.The police know people would be able to recognize something about this fellow if they could see him walk,the way he moves.However they won't.Gotta ask why.If GH is correct and Libby was roughly 80ft from this cat,and off the bridge already,it takes no time at all to turn and run and if they did,this guy still has 80ft of gap filled,tie missing track bridge to jaunt across but from the YT videos it shows the DTH spot close to the end of the bridge?Has that spot even been confirmed?So does that mean they just stopped and waited for him to reach them?If that's the case and he is just walking towards them with hands in pockets,why not show more video,if she recorded more.But wait,cuz LE said they had to create the image from other pieces of the video,we know more was recorded,right?How could something like this take place on the bridge when LE has said that there were others there that day on the bridge somewhere near the time this was supposedly happening on the bridge.Then you think,well,maybe he hurried them off the bridge but LE said this fellow is middle aged,so that means he had to run across 80 ft of decaying bridge to catch the girls if they were running,and according to GH,already off the bridge,keep control of two teens and then say DTH which didn't sound like an exhausted middle aged man at all to me.I have no evidence that this didn't happen on the bridge but from the way I just described,I don't see how it could've.Wait....what???
Lilowlet
Imo always
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2017
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 57
Wasn't there a couple there at like 3? And his last sighting via a billboard of one of his photos says last seen 230. So in 30 minutes he was supposedly off the bridge he was supposedly on had the girls and the couple saw or heard nothing? Even if the couple was on the bridge at 330. Still that's seeming just as crazy to me. So I agree imo always. I think it's possible he wasn't on it for the particular stills, but maybe not Never cause I ranted the same thoughts about why not a short clip of he's just walking 60 ft away. Something seems wonky.
Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
ImnoSherlock
Occasional Poster
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2017
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 57
I believe it was said that the couple was there at 3.I am not good at finding and pasting links.
Only thing I could find re the couple is a Facebook post but nothing official from LE...
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/liber...ssing-snapchat-facebook-photos-family-bridge/
ImnoSherlock
Occasional Poster
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2017
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 57
It was talked about on the main thread for sure.I have yet to go to a SM site just based on what everyone here says about it.WS posts get a bit uppity from time to time but I'm sure nothing like SM.There are things which I do wish we could discuss just so 100% of all possibilities could be combed over but I understand their ToS points,so for now I'd still rather be here.
SeriouslySearching
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 35,527
- Reaction score
- 264
I agree with the theory the guy was photoshopped onto the bridge by LE. There is no shadow on the bridge, but there is on his clothing. Compared to the shot of the girl with shadows, it doesn't look right. The edges around him are not crisp either.
This could mean he was taken out of the scene because they had to clean it up for the public to view. If that is the case, it would be significant because we are seeing him after he finished instead of prior to the murders.
Calling him a suspect could be because they have him on video during and after at the crime scene. We know she started the video. Common sense says she never turned it off.
It changes the perspective entirely. If we are seeing the suspect afterward, what he had on him were items he took from the murders. Could explain a lot.
This could mean he was taken out of the scene because they had to clean it up for the public to view. If that is the case, it would be significant because we are seeing him after he finished instead of prior to the murders.
Calling him a suspect could be because they have him on video during and after at the crime scene. We know she started the video. Common sense says she never turned it off.
It changes the perspective entirely. If we are seeing the suspect afterward, what he had on him were items he took from the murders. Could explain a lot.
D
Deleted member 102539
Guest
Re the BG pic "on bridge/original not on bridge" etc.
Newest theory, perhaps still in maturing phase:
One could think RL was right beside BG and therefore we see BG walking along the square timbers on the edge where nobody would normally go. Two men would have to walk both on the edge if they were side by side. One could think RL was erased out of the video still. It would make sense to have been him as he said "maybe the girls got in THE car". That could mean: he was on the bridge and saw THE car himself. It would also make sense if LE isn't searching for RL via billboards and newspapers and posters because they have him already, actually on the safe side. - I don't say RL is the killer. But maybe he knows the part of the story and isn't telling. Above all he isn't snitching on BG, why ever, only he knows.
Why BG is someone who "participated" in the murder (fact told by LE), why maybe RL was present also, why there were men in a car who did perhaps the murder - I don't know. I can't think of a motive.
Why the girls were found on RL property would be the most important question IF RL indeed knew about unlawful things. Although, somehow does it fit very well when he left his property for several hours despite 2 girls of well known families were missing since the day before and were searched for in his "own backyard". I think no 100% uninvolved property owner would leave in a case like that. Only a property owner would leave to say afterwards "I don't know anything, I wasn't even present". - That's my newest idea and of course it's IMO MOO.
Newest theory, perhaps still in maturing phase:
One could think RL was right beside BG and therefore we see BG walking along the square timbers on the edge where nobody would normally go. Two men would have to walk both on the edge if they were side by side. One could think RL was erased out of the video still. It would make sense to have been him as he said "maybe the girls got in THE car". That could mean: he was on the bridge and saw THE car himself. It would also make sense if LE isn't searching for RL via billboards and newspapers and posters because they have him already, actually on the safe side. - I don't say RL is the killer. But maybe he knows the part of the story and isn't telling. Above all he isn't snitching on BG, why ever, only he knows.
Why BG is someone who "participated" in the murder (fact told by LE), why maybe RL was present also, why there were men in a car who did perhaps the murder - I don't know. I can't think of a motive.
Why the girls were found on RL property would be the most important question IF RL indeed knew about unlawful things. Although, somehow does it fit very well when he left his property for several hours despite 2 girls of well known families were missing since the day before and were searched for in his "own backyard". I think no 100% uninvolved property owner would leave in a case like that. Only a property owner would leave to say afterwards "I don't know anything, I wasn't even present". - That's my newest idea and of course it's IMO MOO.
Jax49
Florida Native
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 10,039
- Reaction score
- 30,022
pageantmom
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2013
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 83
Someone brought up Mickie, the college senior girl with curly blonde hair who was on her bike, and how her photos were manipulated. There is a photo of Micky on her bike alone in the parking lot. Then there is a photo of the car in the parking lot but no Micky in that photo. Turns out Mickie WAS in that photo but they edited her out of it. Which is weird because why edit her out of the photo that would prove that car is who took her?
It doesn't make sense to edit the photo that would be proof.
In this case, with BG and the bridge photo, in this case- if the photo was actually him walking in the park/woods itself but they just edited it to look like he is on the bridge instead of walking in the park/woods...I mean..woods kind of all look the same right? so a background of trees and grass and dirt wouldn't be something the police would need to try to hide, would it?
I kind of don't get why they do that anyway.
It doesn't make sense to edit the photo that would be proof.
In this case, with BG and the bridge photo, in this case- if the photo was actually him walking in the park/woods itself but they just edited it to look like he is on the bridge instead of walking in the park/woods...I mean..woods kind of all look the same right? so a background of trees and grass and dirt wouldn't be something the police would need to try to hide, would it?
I kind of don't get why they do that anyway.
Confusion
Creative Spelling Expert
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 5,275
- Reaction score
- 6,280
I would think that showing him on the bridge if he was actually in the woods or on the trail would decrease the number of possibly credible tips they'd get. I know if they took a slightly blurred picture of me and put it on a bridge like that, nobody would call in tips that it was me, Even if it was perfectly clear, anyone who knows me would swear it wasn't me because of my problems with heights. I'd think it would be more likely that they'd take a picture of him on the bridge and make it look like he was on solid ground, but I may just be biased. MOO
Bird of Paradise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,871
- Reaction score
- 297
- Status