Case Theories

[zforce]

My first inclination when I heard the “Down The Hill” audio is that he’s almost talking to them as an adult would if he caught them doing something wrong. The tone almost comes across as disappointed in them, so I’m wondering if his initial ruse to get them off the bridge was more along the lines of a “You guys shouldn’t be up here, it’s dangerous” scenario.

It doesn’t come across transient in nature and being that they did comply with his request, the girls may have known him or at the very least considered him to be a legitimate authority figure. He wouldn’t have needed a weapon to control them.

The case appears to be a total crime of opportunity but there has been some speculation as to whether he watched them from afar before making his move, however judging from the video and his approach he looks more like someone walking a route and encountering them....but that being said....while I see the bridge being more of a draw for younger types, I can’t really see if being a preferred path for someone out on their daily walk or trying to get in some cardio. My hang up is did this person re-route themselves when they encountered a crime of opportunity or did it occur along his normal path, and if it was his normal path then where was this man going that made it necessary for him to use the bridge?

The other thing I’ve been assuming, and maybe wrongly, is that the location where the girls were first dropped off is the area where most people would access the park. I get that a person who knew the area could enter from multiple locations, but the girls themselves knew the area and that was still the preferred entry point. If the killer drove to the park then I would think he too would park in that vicinity and his route to the girls is potentially indicative of this, however it occurred to me that from the location of their bodies back to that area would have created more opportunities for other people to have seen him as there doesn’t appear to be a quick escape route back to a vehicle that wouldn’t leave him exposed. As far as I can tell, all of the sightings of people on the trails who have yet to be identified occurred PRIOR to the murders. There is however at least one unidentified vehicle that was seen parked in the area that was there possibly as late as 5pm.

[jackydee]

Jul 9, 2020 16:55:27 GMT zforce said:

My first inclination when I heard the “Down The Hill” audio is that he’s almost talking to them as an adult would if he caught them doing something wrong. The tone almost comes across as disappointed in them, so I’m wondering if his initial ruse to get them off the bridge was more along the lines of a “You guys shouldn’t be up here, it’s dangerous” scenario.

It doesn’t come across transient in nature and being that they did comply with his request, the girls may have known him or at the very least considered him to be a legitimate authority figure. He wouldn’t have needed a weapon to control them.

The case appears to be a total crime of opportunity but there has been some speculation as to whether he watched them from afar before making his move, however judging from the video and his approach he looks more like someone walking a route and encountering them....but that being said....while I see the bridge being more of a draw for younger types, I can’t really see if being a preferred path for someone out on their daily walk or trying to get in some cardio. My hang up is did this person re-route themselves when they encountered a crime of opportunity or did it occur along his normal path, and if it was his normal path then where was this man going that made it necessary for him to use the bridge?

The other thing I’ve been assuming, and maybe wrongly, is that the location where the girls were first dropped off is the area where most people would access the park. I get that a person who knew the area could enter from multiple locations, but the girls themselves knew the area and that was still the preferred entry point. If the killer drove to the park then I would think he too would park in that vicinity and his route to the girls is potentially indicative of this, however it occurred to me that from the location of their bodies back to that area would have created more opportunities for other people to have seen him as there doesn’t appear to be a quick escape route back to a vehicle that wouldn’t leave him exposed. As far as I can tell, all of the sightings of people on the trails who have yet to be identified occurred PRIOR to the murders. There is however at least one unidentified vehicle that was seen parked in the area that was there possibly as late as 5pm.

It's difficult to say how 'authoritative' he appeared to the girls. All I'd say about the audio is that it sounds like someone who doesn't want to panic the girls during the initial abduction. Going by the video and audio recording the girls felt there was something wrong about the situation very early in the encounter; not scary enough to start screaming but wrong enough to record the encounter. I personally think he had a weapon out by the time the audio began but have no way to prove this.

[zforce]

Jul 10, 2020 10:04:44 GMT jackydee said:

Jul 9, 2020 16:55:27 GMT zforce said:

My first inclination when I heard the “Down The Hill” audio is that he’s almost talking to them as an adult would if he caught them doing something wrong. The tone almost comes across as disappointed in them, so I’m wondering if his initial ruse to get them off the bridge was more along the lines of a “You guys shouldn’t be up here, it’s dangerous” scenario.

It doesn’t come across transient in nature and being that they did comply with his request, the girls may have known him or at the very least considered him to be a legitimate authority figure. He wouldn’t have needed a weapon to control them.

The case appears to be a total crime of opportunity but there has been some speculation as to whether he watched them from afar before making his move, however judging from the video and his approach he looks more like someone walking a route and encountering them....but that being said....while I see the bridge being more of a draw for younger types, I can’t really see if being a preferred path for someone out on their daily walk or trying to get in some cardio. My hang up is did this person re-route themselves when they encountered a crime of opportunity or did it occur along his normal path, and if it was his normal path then where was this man going that made it necessary for him to use the bridge?

The other thing I’ve been assuming, and maybe wrongly, is that the location where the girls were first dropped off is the area where most people would access the park. I get that a person who knew the area could enter from multiple locations, but the girls themselves knew the area and that was still the preferred entry point. If the killer drove to the park then I would think he too would park in that vicinity and his route to the girls is potentially indicative of this, however it occurred to me that from the location of their bodies back to that area would have created more opportunities for other people to have seen him as there doesn’t appear to be a quick escape route back to a vehicle that wouldn’t leave him exposed. As far as I can tell, all of the sightings of people on the trails who have yet to be identified occurred PRIOR to the murders. There is however at least one unidentified vehicle that was seen parked in the area that was there possibly as late as 5pm.

It's difficult to say how 'authoritative' he appeared to the girls. All I'd say about the audio is that it sounds like someone who doesn't want to panic the girls during the initial abduction. Going by the video and audio recording the girls felt there was something wrong about the situation very early in the encounter; not scary enough to start screaming but wrong enough to record the encounter. I personally think he had a weapon out by the time the audio began but have no way to prove this.

I’m basing my opinion on a very short sample of audio, so my theory is just as much speculation as it is an inference....but the tone feels more casual and certainly not rushed. He doesn’t need to run up on them with a weapon if his plan is simply to chastise them for playing on the bridge and get them to comply with his request to get off of it and go “down the hill”.

As other posters across the internet have pointed out, the location where he encounters the girls could be seen openly from the other side of the bridge, and we know there were other people using the trails that day, so just interacting with the girls brings a high degree of risk to the situation, let alone if he brandished a weapon at this point.

Something rubbed Libby the wrong way enough for her to take the video, but as I mentioned just the fact that an adult was crossing the bridge towards them could be enough to arouse uneasiness. That being said, he easily could have verbally engaged them upon his approach, thus prompting the recording prior to him reaching them.

A lot has been made about his gait, but LE has clarified that he had to be very careful crossing the bridge and his actual posture in the video is likely that of him being cautious for his own safety as he approached the girls.

[Hot Mess Express]

I can't understand the 'crime of opportunity' theory because this was TWO girls, in broad daylight, after he had been seen by several witnesses, across an unstable bridge with the possibility of being heard AND not knowing how long the girls would be considered missing (and how long he had before people would be looking for them/meeting with them) Not to Mention, if he had followed them, he knew they had a phone on them because they were taking pictures of one another. IMO it was too risky and required too much effort to be considered a Crime of opportunity. We know he pre-meditated the crime because he came prepared- whether he went back to his car to get his weapon 1 hour before the crime or brought it with him when he first entered the trails. We know (from family reports) that one of the girls was the main target of aggression and that one of the girls 'could have escaped' but chose not to. All things considered, I have to lean towards this being a planned crime targeting one or both of the girls for a specific reason. However, I do not believe that the girls knew bridge guy. It's very possible that he was a parent of one of their friends...maybe avenging his child's hurt feelings or just targeting the girls due to some sick minded fantastical quality he desired. I didn't know whose father was whom...for any friend of mine that wasn't in my main circle of 4 friends when I was in high school. I can also lean in to the idea that the girls were targeted because maybe they made a demeaning comment towards him at another part of the trail. Especially if he were one of those perverts that like to expose themselves to young girls. Maybe they laughed or offended him somehow (in his twisted perspective)...either that day or in weeks prior. I'm trying to lean on common sense with what we know. It was risky, he was prepared, he had a scarf covering most of his face (according to witnesses) meaning that he was avoiding any chance of being tied to the crime he was about to commit. It's quite plausible that he was impersonating a 'park ranger' type of authority with plans of raping the girls only, but underestimated the fight they put up when they realized something was amiss.

[goldcountry]

One theory mentioned but not much addressed is that BG was already on the far side of the bridge when Abby and Libby got there, walked past them, then turned around to return in their direction. Either the coward waited for them (or presumably any suitable victim), or came along the path from the other direction. Sort of an ambush scenario.

Let today be the day.

[relish]

I'm just pasting this here because it includes some theories of mine. I realize I posted many of these same ideas somewhere else in this forum months ago. This post was made in the main EAR forum today. I went longer than intended so it seemed relevant to include here:

***

The key element to that crime is that the bridge area is incredibly low traveled, particularly at the far end. On a given day there might not be anybody who actually crosses the bridge. That made it an absolutely ideal hunting ground because Bridge Guy understood that if he did encounter an ideal victim(s) who ventured out onto the bridge, there wouldn't be anybody else to follow or notice. Once Abby and Libby were on the other side they were not trapped, but if they didn't dash away quickly now they were in trouble because there wouldn't be help from anywhere. I believe they probably did fight and scream but it simply was not heard.

And once an aspiring killer identifies that bridge area it wouldn't take any time at all to select the area across the creek as the ideal location for the crime. It holds the perfect combo of not visible from any point on the bridge but also not far away, maybe 170 yards from the end of the bridge. Bridge Guy also knows that area won't be searched quickly. It is within private property and has a creek on one side and a severe slope on the other side. Plenty of trees, even though they would be thin in February.

I see no reason Bridge Guy has to be local. Such a small area with no cameras and very little risk of interruption. I think he could have figured everything out on the first day of reconnaissance and then been mostly bored if he returned to scope a second day. Of course, my viewpoint is extreme minority, which is one of the reason I've needed a break from this case. Did EAR have to visit every house 5 times? Was he "local" to every community he terrorized?

These guys have a handful of major priorities. Once those criteria are satisfied they undertake. They know darn well they can't eliminate all risk. In this era, unlike the EAR era, the camera aspect is extreme risk. That's why cameraless Monon High Bridge Trail was ideal and likewise its proximity to the greatest getaway road of all time, Hoosier Heartland Highway. That road is the single most underrated aspect of this crime. I didn't realize that until visitation. It is double laned 60 mph wide open spaces in both directions with very low traffic and no threat of stoppage or delays of any type, plus nothing but farmland on either side. Long before I reached Delphi itself I was mesmerized by that road, and shocked it had not been adequately described during analysis of that case.

While crossing the bridge it is blatantly obvious that most people only do it partially before turning around and going back. The scenic areas are the first 50 yards or so, while over Deer Creek. That's why the planks are severely worn -- and two missing completely -- in the early stages of the bridge, then heavily worn in the area before the creek ends, then moderately worn near the middle, and then not particularly bad at all for the remainder. In that brief video Bridge Guy is walking in an area where the bridge is not bad at all. In fact, it almost feels like you are walking on land. It is simple to walk fast at the end of the bridge. Many videographers have pointed that out, including Julie Melvin in a video taken 3 weeks after the murders.

IMO, Bridge Guy waited a very long time to make sure Abby and Libby intended to cross fully, and didn't venture out there until they were at least 50-60% across. Bridge Guy had no reason to cross at rapid pace. Abby and Libby were having fun and going so slowly they apparently took at least 20-25 minutes in a crossing that can be done in 7 or 8 at normal pace. Therefore Bridge Guy merely would need that 7 or 8 pace to time it perfectly and reach the girls just as they were finishing. One reason the girls were not overly scared of Bridge Guy is that he was almost certainly crossing at normal pace and not breakneck pace, which was been wrongly assumed throughout and lends to poor evaluation of what likely happened.

[cleopatra]

When I read this part of the article (link below), I thought of the Delphi case.  I suspect the killer was released from prison shortly before he attacked the girls. 

www.wpr.org/forensic-genealogy-helps-green-bay-police-make-arrest-1986-cold-case

In 1981, Griffin was sentenced to nine years in prison for sexually assaulting a child, according to court documents. He was released on parole in May 1986. In July, his parole was transferred to a unit in Green Bay.
According to court documents, Griffin lived near the area where Holstead was last seen, and on his way home from work, he regularly drove by the location where her body was found.

[sammyt]

Nov 17, 2020 15:01:14 GMT cleopatra said:

When I read this part of the article (link below), I thought of the Delphi case.  I suspect the killer was released from prison shortly before he attacked the girls. 

www.wpr.org/forensic-genealogy-helps-green-bay-police-make-arrest-1986-cold-case

In 1981, Griffin was sentenced to nine years in prison for sexually assaulting a child, according to court documents. He was released on parole in May 1986. In July, his parole was transferred to a unit in Green Bay.
According to court documents, Griffin lived near the area where Holstead was last seen, and on his way home from work, he regularly drove by the location where her body was found.

I don't know much about this sad case, but targeting multiple victims could point to a fairly experienced offender.  The bridge guy doesn't look that young to me either.

I would look for unsolved abduction/murders of lone girls, and also for POIs with records for rape, sexual assault or exposure against minors.  It's possible the perp was a known sex offender who decided to leave no witnesses in the future.

I would look nationwide (as the perp slipped the local net in the aftermath) so could be a highly mobile offender without known links to the area.

Such offenders often like to work with children, as teachers, care workers, social workers or sports coaches; but if the perp has a prior criminal record, then he may well work in a blue collar occupation, involving a fair amount of travel.  

[cleopatra]

After he raped the two girls, he could have just fled.  Unless he was already a murderer and killing was part of what he did/does.  If he did just get out of prison, he was wasn't going back if he could help it.  That could be why he killed the girls rather than just fleeing.  Maybe he went to prison because he was I.D.'d at a trial by a previous victim. 

 

[htx]

Sept 4, 2020 23:15:29 GMT Hot Mess Express said:

It's very possible that he was a parent of one of their friends...maybe avenging his child's hurt feelings or just targeting the girls due to some sick minded fantastical quality he desired. I didn't know whose father was whom...for any friend of mine that wasn't in my main circle of 4 friends when I was in high school.  

I'm skeptical that would be the case - if so, I think he would have been recognized and identified by someone by now. Any of your other ideas seem plausible to me, though.

[californiah]

"inclination" is the exact word needed in this series. "HIS" "down the hill" again a setup for FUTURE READERs of HIS Script. OR Just a Hobo on the Line PASSing true Indiana!


Or HE knew these girls on SM. Persons of LE have stated that "HE" has left "multiple signatures"!!!!!

Why do they-LE NOT-release the substantial evidence?? those things that mark him ?? those things that state?

[californiah]

OK KAnt understand myself.


MEANING- WHaT Were Those "SIGNATURES" left???

Because DELPHI Locals have figured, expressed, signified THIS???

[cleopatra]

Nov 17, 2020 15:57:13 GMT sammyt said:

Nov 17, 2020 15:01:14 GMT cleopatra said:

When I read this part of the article (link below), I thought of the Delphi case.  I suspect the killer was released from prison shortly before he attacked the girls. 

www.wpr.org/forensic-genealogy-helps-green-bay-police-make-arrest-1986-cold-case

In 1981, Griffin was sentenced to nine years in prison for sexually assaulting a child, according to court documents. He was released on parole in May 1986. In July, his parole was transferred to a unit in Green Bay.
According to court documents, Griffin lived near the area where Holstead was last seen, and on his way home from work, he regularly drove by the location where her body was found.

I don't know much about this sad case, but targeting multiple victims could point to a fairly experienced offender.  The bridge guy doesn't look that young to me either.

I would look for unsolved abduction/murders of lone girls, and also for POIs with records for rape, sexual assault or exposure against minors.  It's possible the perp was a known sex offender who decided to leave no witnesses in the future.

I would look nationwide (as the perp slipped the local net in the aftermath) so could be a highly mobile offender without known links to the area.

Such offenders often like to work with children, as teachers, care workers, social workers or sports coaches; but if the perp has a prior criminal record, then he may well work in a blue collar occupation, involving a fair amount of travel.  

I suspected the same thing when I heard him say something like, "guys, down the hill..." - the way coaches talk to their kid team members.

[cleopatra]

Sept 4, 2020 23:15:29 GMT Hot Mess Express said:

I can't understand the 'crime of opportunity' theory because this was TWO girls, in broad daylight, after he had been seen by several witnesses, across an unstable bridge with the possibility of being heard AND not knowing how long the girls would be considered missing (and how long he had before people would be looking for them/meeting with them) Not to Mention, if he had followed them, he knew they had a phone on them because they were taking pictures of one another. IMO it was too risky and required too much effort to be considered a Crime of opportunity. We know he pre-meditated the crime because he came prepared- whether he went back to his car to get his weapon 1 hour before the crime or brought it with him when he first entered the trails. We know (from family reports) that one of the girls was the main target of aggression and that one of the girls 'could have escaped' but chose not to. All things considered, I have to lean towards this being a planned crime targeting one or both of the girls for a specific reason. However, I do not believe that the girls knew bridge guy. It's very possible that he was a parent of one of their friends...maybe avenging his child's hurt feelings or just targeting the girls due to some sick minded fantastical quality he desired. I didn't know whose father was whom...for any friend of mine that wasn't in my main circle of 4 friends when I was in high school. I can also lean in to the idea that the girls were targeted because maybe they made a demeaning comment towards him at another part of the trail. Especially if he were one of those perverts that like to expose themselves to young girls. Maybe they laughed or offended him somehow (in his twisted perspective)...either that day or in weeks prior. I'm trying to lean on common sense with what we know. It was risky, he was prepared, he had a scarf covering most of his face (according to witnesses) meaning that he was avoiding any chance of being tied to the crime he was about to commit. It's quite plausible that he was impersonating a 'park ranger' type of authority with plans of raping the girls only, but underestimated the fight they put up when they realized something was amiss.

Those are all good points.

One that sticks out is, "he knew they had a phone because they were taking pictures of each other."   But did he?  He may not have, even if he saw them holding up their phones.  What if he just got out of prison after a serving a long sentence?  He may not have known cell phones took pictures.    I find it odd that he didn't grab their phones from them right away, or at anytime for that matter.  These are reasons I suspect he just got out of prison. 

Another point I like is about him having no way of knowing how soon it would be before the girls would be looked for and known to be missing.  How would he have known their parents weren't with them, behind or ahead of them?  Or, that they were just about to be picked up?  He may have seen them getting dropped off.  If so, when he saw the car drive away, he knew they were left there and it was just the two of them.  He could have been close enough to overhear them say the pick up time.

I doubt either of the girls knew him.  He was behind them.  There was no sign of any of them being acquainted... "hey, hi, what are you up to?"  

[samisdad]

Some thoughts on behavioral/ work/ changes/ changes in appearance , etc.
Smoker changes from cigs to chew or vice-versa. (Fear of possible evidence left.)
Change in appearance, (possible reasons).
Medical issue: (Cancer, chemo, vasectomy, Gastro operations/ weight loss, ED treatment)
Operation Possibly to overcome an injury sustained in attack.
Possibly why/if penetration or rape may not have been perpetuated.
Working out/ lack of exercise: To lose or gain weight,
Jobs: Trucker/ change in routes. Long/ short haul switch. Employer change.
Clothing style: From layered, with hoodie underneath to alternative. Heavier jacket lighter undershirt.
Sports team logos versus hunting sports logos or work apparel logos,
Bolder colors versus camo and earth tones Running shoes
versus boots.

Possible Student return or off at school. (University, Trade, etc.)
     Grades or major: Recent change from previous GPA or change in Major.
     Recent drop out, before or after incident. Transfer to different school.
     Loss of scholarship: Athletic or academic, loss of prestige.

Relational: Loss of custody of child(ren). {Retaliation of former CPS, child services building?}
     Recent financial change in Child support responsibility or paternity.
     Birth of child or awareness of an unwanted pregnancy.
     Anniversary of loss of children or event with Child Services.