If not the stalker, I think the person could be the neighbor who was there speaking with the police that night, or another neighbor who went by to see what was going on.
I do not believe this person was arrogantly leaning on their car as Morgan's mom states. I think the person was in motion and walking in a similar direction as the police.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
http://sapac.umich.edu/article/320
But not only was neighbor Elliot there as he stormed over with LE still present..hes likely in one of the 12 pphotos snapped from the motion activated wildlife cam..and not just that but imo most imporantly is the fact that Toni Ingram with the stalker pic in hand went to elliot's home that very next day and showed Elliot the stalker snapshot, they discussed it extensively including Elliot bringing down an exact replica of the shirt the stalker was wearing in the snapshot(exact except supposedly a different color)..to which caught many of our attention toward Elliot..
So, for those reasons I believe that it obviously was not neighbor Elliot in the snapshot..also in speaking about the neighbor directly to the side of the Ingram home, R imo there has been quite a level of open contact with R and find it impossible for the individual thats better known as thr stalker in the wildlife cam snapshot..for that individual to have even possibly been from R's household..then the neighbor directly on the other side of the Ingram home has thus far in the retelling of these events up til the present time in the stalking(mid sept 2011)no one at all has been residing in this neighbors home so the same for anyone from that residence as in easily marked off the list of "could bes"..
And then further down into the cul de sac after the empty neighbors home you then have the residence of alphabet kids and/or their parents..which goes without saying at this point in time in the blog that its the opinion of the Ingrams that possibly one of those neighbors from one of those two homes in the cul de sac quite possibly is "the stalker" whose photo was snapped from the wildlife cam..
My main point in detailing the neighbors is that the ingrams speak to their having thoroughly gone thru similar lists of each neighbor and the likelihood(or not) of each neighbor as possibly being the one in the snapshot..quite obviously they had become very obsessive in many ways with exactly who resided within their neighborhood alot further beyond just the immediate neighbors..so not only would those individuals each have been easily ruled out as possibilities..but you combine that with the "stalker wildlife cam snapshot" having been out and about in the public knowledge that a neighbor would absolutely have been called out for it being them, if by some chance theyd chosen to not come forward of embarrassment or otherwise..
But yet still along with all of those aforementioned details in existence imo making the chances of it being an unidentified neighbor truly slim to none you also take into consideration that this was a felony stalking investigation(and regardless that some may be of the opinion that fact means nothing)it does however very much include investigators having not only looked at the Ingrams list of possibilities and those marked off as possibilities..but they go it even a step further that imo for me pretty much takes care of that slim to none chance that may have been arguable to have existed..detectives having spoken with neighbors and been absolutely aware of any, if any even existed as possibilities of specific neighbors actually being the individual in the snapshot..that there truly is no actual realistic possibility that this was just an innocent, curious and/or nosy neighbor that is seen clearly in the driveway of the Ingram home within single digit minutes of the sheriff deputies having driven away from the victims home..from there within minimal seconds we have another snapshot that is motion activated the wildlife cam to take another snapshot of what imo obviously shows something coming in contact with the mounted cam that at the very least moves the camera therefor changing its view of where it was aimed when the camera actually snapped the photo..
For me if there were doubt in my mind or that my opinion was that this was quite likely not at all what it "seemed" but rather much different was an innocent happenstance of a curious neighbor that just happened to be in that spot of the motion activated cam..if I believed that to be the most likeliest of accurate scenarios of the who/why this snapshot is of..for me the second of the two extremely close in time snapped shots erases those doubts or opinions of this being an innocent happenstance involving a neighbor..for me that goes out the window in seeing that within minimal seconds of the unidentified individual's photo being captured..you see immediately thereafter that something has suddenly and drastically altered the angle of the camera from where it had prior to that steadily stayed mounted in the one position..
Due to that I find there being a zero possibility of an innocent, curious neighbor having immediately chosen by whatever means necessary to move, change, damage, knock down, or in any way alter the cam or the view of the cam..
Again that is just me personally and sharing what multitude of reasons imo clearly exist that do not only not point to it not likely being an innocent, curious neighbor that we see in the snapshot..but even moreso the reasons and details that exist that prove that this is not a snapshot of an innocent, curious neighbor..
My apologies for being rather longwinded and I do fully realize as well as respect that others do not agree and/or view the details differently than I..it'd be defintely a rather boring, non productive atmosphere here if we were to all agree and view things all the same..along with there'd likely be very, very few pages of posts in each of the cases here
