Bird of Paradise
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,871
- Reaction score
- 315
He can be placed anywhere,including on the bridge,Gray Hughes has done it multiple times.I don't believe the murderer was on the bridge.
Wait....what???

He can be placed anywhere,including on the bridge,Gray Hughes has done it multiple times.I don't believe the murderer was on the bridge.
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?
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. Imo
Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
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:![]()
He can be placed anywhere,including on the bridge,Gray Hughes has done it multiple times.I don't believe the murderer was on the bridge.
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.
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:![]()
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???You mean as in never?
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.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.
I believe it was said that the couple was there at 3.I am not good at finding and pasting links.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
I believe it was said that the couple was there at 3.I am not good at finding and pasting links.
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.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/
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.
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.