IN-Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #52

[KyMom]

JMO...I believe he was on the bridge when the images were captured, for one thing..keep in mind the images are still frames from a video. Also, when I look at his feet - how he's stepping, to me, appears to go along with walking on those wooden planks. Plus, I can't think of a good reason they'd alter them and put him in a different location.

 

[Shiressleuth]

There are many MSM articles saying 50-60 feet, this just happened to be the first one I came across. The 10 foot variance isn't in reference to the water's edge, imho.

Thanks for that. This says 50-60 feet from the water as opposed to the waters edge. Presuming the waters edge could be a muddy foreshore to the actual water itself it could be significant whether it is actually 50 feet from the water or 50 feet from the waters edge. I live on a tidal river estuary and it makes a lot of difference. 50-60 feet from the waters edge for me would be in a bunch of estuary mud and a difficult crime scene to investigate. I can see on maps that the creek is about 100-120 feet wide approx and the days before were peak flow due to snow melting and the level may have dropped. Just trying to clarify the scene in my mind. What do you think the 10 feet difference might mean?

 

[Bemused]

I think mostly you are right Bemused.What I should have said is that it would be kinda huge from our standpoint here as far as what theories everyone is coming up with.Of course LE knows more than we do which is why we sit here theorizing and scrutinizing every thing we see and dont see.Oh and where do I add that IMO down at the bottom so I won't have to keep inserting it?

At the top of your window choose "settings" then "edit signature". I don't think you have to use the .sig delimiter as you do in email and newsgroups.

.sig delimiter is: dash dash (space) (return)

 

[Bird of Paradise]

Thanks for that. This says 50-60 feet from the water as opposed to the waters edge. Presuming the waters edge could be a muddy foreshore to the actual water itself it could be significant whether it is actually 50 feet from the water or 50 feet from the waters edge. I live on a tidal river estuary and it makes a lot of difference. 50-60 feet from the waters edge for me would be in a bunch of estuary mud and a difficult crime scene to investigate. I can see on maps that the creek is about 100-120 feet wide approx and the days before were peak flow due to snow melting and the level may have dropped. Just trying to clarify the scene in my mind. What do you think the 10 feet difference might mean?

Have you looked at the area that was taped off on RL's property? It's not on the edge of the water.
Sorry I can't give a link as I'm heading out but take a look and see what you think.

 

[Bemused]

Anyone have any guess why this ABC news picture shows BG in the woods?

Picture on the left....

Is this a different picture or was the original one of BG in the woods??

Was this picture superimposed with the woods??

http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-release-audio-clip-victims-phone-hopes-catching/story?id=45655692

I think it's creative image editing, IMO.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I think it's creative image editing, IMO.

.
I have to run to get to work, but when you blow that picture up, he definitely has facial hair and not just on his chin. I will post tonight, if the thread stays open that long.

 

[MistyWaters]

I have thought this also, they could have snipped BG's image from a woods or trail pic libby got, then pasted him on bridge for public to view it. Maybe had to crop out the original background?

If for some reason they wanted to crop out the original background, then they'd release the image without a background. There absolutely no reason to place BG on the bridge if that wasn't where he was captured by video.

Come trial, if LE were manipulating photos to the point where they were placing the subject at a different location that would work against them imo. Juries do not take kindly to falsfied or fabricated evidence.

 

[Julpal]

How could we even question that the picture could possibly be real? It has BG being invisible and we're seeing trees through him… or the trees are invisible and we are seeing him through them?
jmo

 

[Jax49]

Thanks for that. This says 50-60 feet from the water as opposed to the waters edge. Presuming the waters edge could be a muddy foreshore to the actual water itself it could be significant whether it is actually 50 feet from the water or 50 feet from the waters edge. I live on a tidal river estuary and it makes a lot of difference. 50-60 feet from the waters edge for me would be in a bunch of estuary mud and a difficult crime scene to investigate. I can see on maps that the creek is about 100-120 feet wide approx and the days before were peak flow due to snow melting and the level may have dropped. Just trying to clarify the scene in my mind. What do you think the 10 feet difference might mean?

Check out GH's latest video. About the 13 minute mark the creek is shown, across from the crime scene. It should answer most of your questions.

[video=youtube;DZzBCyLSI0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZzBCyLSI0E&t=793s[/video]

 

[Shiressleuth]

It always makes me chuckle when it keeps getting pointed out about the length of the waist and legs in comparison photos. Unless you can see the belt line beneath the coats there is know way of telling. Blows my mind that this keeps being stated as fact over and over....moo you can't tell, there is no evidence to show different waist lines in those two photos.....grrrrr


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edit to add: one has a longer coat on than the other....

One can visually compare the inside leg length on both photos and have an opinion without seeing where the waist is, which is irrelevant to height anyway because some people have long or short body length IRT height. It's not fact but opinion as we don't know if either pic has been altered in any way so is a moot point as well, but we can all still give our opinions without them being taken as facts.

 

[Elley Mae]

There is a road that continues straight at the hard right turn on 625w on road leads to one home on the east side of the bridge, the drivaway travels under the bridge. There were police cars there on the east side on that driveway as if they were looking for evidence. That area is close to where the girls would have been when the image was taken of suspect. The road is hard to see on maps. Jmo

I have looked at the maps as I was interested in your point and everyone saying it is a private road. The road is labelled 625W and near the bridge it is not the boundary of any one property but goes through the middle of several separate properties. If it has a road number (625W) then it wouldn't be a private road would it? Just a cul de sac? Just curious about your point, which is a good one, so trying to answer why people are saying it is private when it clearly has a road number shown on the property maps. JMO.

 

[expatCanada]

But, all those "properties" are owned by one person/trust.

I have looked at the maps as I was interested in your point and everyone saying it is a private road. The road is labelled 625W and near the bridge it is not the boundary of any one property but goes through the middle of several separate properties. If it has a road number (625W) then it wouldn't be a private road would it? Just a cul de sac? Just curious about your point, which is a good one, so trying to answer why people are saying it is private when it clearly has a road number shown on the property maps. JMO.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Check out GH's latest video. About the 13 minute mark the creek is shown, across from the crime scene. It should answer most of your questions.

[video=youtube;DZzBCyLSI0E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZzBCyLSI0E&t=793s[/video]

Thanks. Saw this when it was first posted but will check again to see how I missed it explain the 10 feet difference.

 

[Justcuriousmom]

If for some reason they wanted to crop out the original background, then they'd release the image without a background. There absolutely no reason to place BG on the bridge if that wasn't where he was captured by video.


Come trial, if LE were manipulating photos to the point where they were placing the subject at a different location that would work against them imo. Juries do not take kindly to falsfied or fabricated evidence.

It's just an opinion. Also, we don't know that there is "absolutely no reason."

I'm not trying to be snarky but I really think it is a viable possibility. Even if it is 50/50


I'm a newbie but I'm definitely always extremely hesitant to post.

MOO

 

[Jax49]

Thanks. Saw this when it was first posted but will check again to see how I missed it explain the 10 feet difference.

I doubt it specifically explains the difference but unless the bodies were laid horizontally to the creek edge, there would be some difference. Originally LE said 50 feet but apparently 50-60 is more accurate. moo

I pointed out the video because it shows the creek and the crime scene tape.

 

[whiskers]

I'm pestering a friend of mine who is a professional photographer. The guy has a good eye.

He emailed me about Google Brain technology zoom technology, but unfortunately it was a one-off project. It's too bad they can't develop it and release at least to US LE.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/02/google-brain-super-resolution-zoom-enhance/

The software basically takes pixels from its nearest neighbor to form a resemblance of what the person should/could look like.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Have you looked at the area that was taped off on RL's property? It's not on the edge of the water.
Sorry I can't give a link as I'm heading out but take a look and see what you think.

Have not seen the CS and tape except in pics and vids. Am looking again at GH vid as per OP . Obviously the CS will be bigger than just where bodies were located IMO.

 

[Bemused]

It's just an opinion. Also, we don't know that there is "absolutely no reason."

I'm not trying to be snarky but I really think it is a viable possibility. Even if it is 50/50


I'm a newbie but I'm definitely always extremely hesitant to post.

MOO

Stop hiding in lurk mode and get vilified with everyone else with a differing opinion.

It is beyond me that some people continue to ignore the fact that LE will have every.single.piece.of.evidence.there.is.to.have and that the assumption that a single blurry photo will make or break this case is nuts to me. IMO They have it all. Everything. No one is going to be arrested based on a blurry photo, thank $deity, IMO.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I doubt it specifically explains the difference but unless the bodies were laid horizontally to the creek edge, there would be some difference. Originally LE said 50 feet but apparently 50-60 is more accurate. moo

I pointed out the video because it shows the creek and the crime scene tape.

They could be side by side vertical to creek and there be no difference or one body 10 feet further away from the creek than the other or other worse scenarios. Why do you think there is a 10 feet discrepancy? It is hard to explain unless they were not together. MOO.

 

[Jax49]

They could be side by side vertical to creek and there be no difference or one body 10 feet further away from the creek than the other or other worse scenarios. Why do you think there is a 10 feet discrepancy? It is hard to explain unless they were not together. MOO.

Ten feet is such a small distance I don't think it means anything.