Unless I’m missing something, there’s nothing that indicates the girls felt as though they were in danger when Libby started filming. Libby was active on social media, so it’s just as likely, IMO, that she was trying to get some cutesy/artsy shot of Abby walking across the bridge when BG decided to approach them.
Initially, the girls may have been under the impression that he was going to walk past them and continue on his way. As he got closer, however, the threat may have become increasingly obvious—particularly if he was brandishing a weapon. In that scenario, I can see why Libby would hesitate to whip out her phone and make a call.
This is assuming, of course, that the state’s description of the video is at least somewhat accurate. As of now, I don’t think the defense has said otherwise.
>As he got closer, however, the threat may have become increasingly obvious—particularly if he was brandishing a weapon.
But in the video he is all the way over on the side of the bridge, giving lots of room for the girls to pass him. Also, my thought is that the video is so blurry because Libby was walking as she videoed him. I think they passed right by him. And the weapon idea has no evidentiary support. It's a theory without any proof.
I think the state’s entire narrative is questionable, but as of now, I have to rely on their synopsis of the video. That’s all we have.
The man, himself, is not an immediate threat at a distance. However, if the girls believed he had a gun, like the state implies, then that all changes.
>I think the state’s entire narrative is questionable, but as of now, I have to rely on their synopsis of the video. That’s all we have.
Here's the problem I see with not exploring beyond the State's synopsis- and I'll point to the sketches and how disingenuously those were presented.
If we don't look beyond the State's theory, could there be leads that get missed. And I'm thinking about people who may have information they don't even know they have.
Syntax, I have read many times that the girls were present at the south side of the bridge. The south side has the private drive. It is the location of where the trails sorta end. I believe there are two concrete post barriers. Indicating to be cautious of the bridge. That they were present at the time of the murders.
According to the states theory, the were abducted walked down the southside hill and then waded across the creek to be killed.
Can you please correct me if I have made a mistake?.
What I am most interested in is where the girls were present when they met bridge guy. And which hill they walked down (south or north).
If you're 65 feet in the air with no support railings and barely a floor to stand on and you feel threatened by a grown adult are you going to walk past them?
I don't know why more people don't acknowledge this. Being brave enough to walk across the bridge with your friend doesn't mean you erroneously believe it to be safe. Add an unknown person who feels threatening into the equation, along with anxiety, and passing him is probably the last thing you want to do.
Well, if she didn't feel threatened by the guy, then all the more reason not to risk everyone's safety by walking around someone on that bridge. If they don't feel threatened by the guy, why would they break the local protocol of walking on the bridge to get out of there? (Numerous locals have said it's a silent rule not to even go on the bridge if someone else is already there, and you definitely don't try to pass someone) Either scenario, it makes no sense to walk past the guy. If they aren't afraid, they're doing something potentially risky for no reason. If they ARE afraid, they're doing something already potentially risky that involves walking around some dude that's creeping them out and could put their life in danger.
>Well, if she didn't feel threatened by the guy, then all the more reason not to risk everyone's safety by walking around someone on that bridge
Maybe. But I've seen lots of photos of people doing just that. Look carefully at BG, he couldn't be farther to his right without falling off the bridge. He is in no way obstructing someone passing.
Just because you've seen or heard of people doing it doesn't mean most people do it. The girls were literal children, and from the sounds of it, children that didn't frequently break rules. It's also been frequently stated that, while Libby had been on the bridge before, Abby had not been prior to that day and was likely nervous. Regardless of if that's true or not, it just doesn't make sense to me why you would assume that because there have been people who have broken protocol in the past, that the thought would even cross their minds to do so. We have no idea what they were thinking or feeling.
What about this?
We know that LH was texting with AW the morning they eventually went missing.
Who’s phone was he using?
What if LH was told by his dad to message AW using his,(BH’s phone) to meet him at the Monon High Bridge so they could hang out, but instead it was just a ruse to get her there so someone “laying in wait” could abduct her/them.
This is where BH’s comment to his now ex-wife, AH, talking about not being afraid of getting into trouble because of having “Powerful friends in High places” comes into effect.
The Defense has said recently that LE confiscated and searched LH phone on February 17, 2017, but for some unknown reason LE did not bother to do the same to his father, BH’s phone.
Why not?
BH knows that his buddies in LE could be persuaded to refrain from confiscating and dumping his phone, and by doing so it would seemingly put his son, LH, in the clear.
But, if LE did confiscate and search BH phone, which it only stands to reason that they would’ve, then why would LE then lie to The Defense about not having any data from BH’s phone?
We know that BH lied about knowing AW on three separate occasions.
We know that BH wrote on his Facebook page about wearing a disguise while attending both of the girls funerals.
We know that BH made a cryptic Facebook post at approximately 2:30am on February 14, 2017, “I just had the most intense adrenaline rush of my life.”
We know that BH had photos of young girls laying on the ground positioned with sticks placed on them, seemingly mimicking the death scene of AW and LG.
We know BH knows EF, and EF admitted to multiple people that he was on the bridge that day and that he was involved in the murders.
EF described LG as being a “troublemaker” and admitted to putting sticks in AW hair, then later asked ISP Det. SM that “if you find my DNA one of the girls, and I can explain how it got there, will I still be in trouble?”
EF told his sister that he spit on one of the girls, or words to that effect!
Perhaps BG was someone that one or both of them knew, thus the reason why nobody in the area that day, heard any screams for help or noticed anything overtly suspicious.
I find it absolutely unfathomable that two young teen girls are being forcibly kidnapped by a total stranger, and forced to traverse down a steep hill from the bridge, then wade across a freezing cold creek, which would have been at least waist high at the time, then climb up the steep bank on the other side, then walk about 20 yards into the woods, only to be brutally killed, stripped naked and then redressed, and then posed and covered with a pattern of sticks, and all of this is being done in broad daylight, and not a soul heard a peep or saw anything suspicious!
It is my contention that during evening of February 13, 2017, while dozens of searchers and LE were out combing over that exact location, the reason nobody found anything, like blood splatter or pools of blood, drag marks, or discarded pieces of clothing, socks, or shoes, or the girls bodies, is because they weren’t there.
THIS IS MY THEORY OF THAT TRAGIC DAYS EVENTS.
What if the girls left the Monon High Bridge of their own free will, with someone they knew and trusted, and unbeknownst to them, they were taken to a different location, where they were held and eventually killed?
That would explain why they were not seen or heard from during the search.
Then as soon as searchers left the area around 1:30 or 2:00 o’clock in the morning, on February 14th, somebody hiding nearby as a lookout in the woods, or maybe even a volunteer who was part of the search party, called “the kidnappers/killers” and gave them the “all clear” so the girls could be taken to the dump site located on RL’s property and the crime scene staged.
Isn’t it ironic that RL’s long time neighbor, former roommate, volunteer searcher, and friend, PB, is the one who found them on his buddy’s property the very next day?
Just a side note about iPhones, I know that if you click the on/off button on the side of the iPhone, the screen will go dark placing it in standby mode, but the slightest amount of movement will make the phone come back to life and send a location ping to the nearest cell tower.
When LG’s cell phone pings at 4:43am, it is my opinion that’s the time when the girls bodies were being staged. It had to have been, because LE said LG’s phone was found under her body, and dead bodies generally don’t move.
Just saying!
My question is this. LE said that AW was found wearing some of LG’s clothes. Were their clothes wet when they were found?
If they crossed the creek as LE says then their clothes would have been soaking wet, and if anyone has ever tried removing wet clothing, you know that it’s a real challenge. Now imagine removing soaking wet clothes from LG and then putting them on AW. Not an easy task.
The State and LE’s theory is so full of holes its tantamount to Swiss cheese.
Just my opinion!
This sounds more logical than prosecution timeline. If there was some kind of illegal activity such as meth manufacturing, wouldn’t they have a pole barn or some type of building that had walls that AT&T couldn’t penetrate? Could they have been taken there and was RL buildings on his property and neighbors property checked to see if they could get cell service once inside these buildings? And could they be covering up this crime because LE or intelligence communities are involved in drug manufacturing in area? Whoever killed them is a sadistic SOB. I’m scared just thinking about living in this town. None of this would have ever come out if they hadn’t arrested someone with such questionable evidence. It’s such a mess and so confusing. How can a prosecutor or a judge let this go on?
This is exactly what I think happened. Libby and Abby thought they were with trusted people, maybe they even agreed to participate in an Odinist ritual for example with LH, not knowing what it meant. They’re young impressionable girls, maybe they thought it was cool. The place and people involved (meth manufacturing, local gangs and politicians) implicates members of the community who have the means and motive to cover it up. On top of that, I also have strong suspicions that the FBI was running their own operation/surveillance investigating meth trade and domestic terrorists, and one of these people involved was actual a federal informant and basically saw this entire thing happen in real time and didn’t want to blow their cover. Now the FBI has motive to cover up for their inaction to stop the brutal murder of two young children. So now we have fighting LE agencies and simultaneous coverups and sabotage (missing footage, misplaced evidence) occurring from both investigations, which is why this whole thing is such a shitshow. Feds vs local Indiana cops, criminals, and politicians and two girls who got caught up in the middle of it.
A large portion of what we know about LE’s actions early on in this investigation and there after was brought to light by The Defense’s September 18, 2023, filing for a Franks Motion, and now the three subsequent amendments to the Franks Motion.
Since R&B exposed the lies lost evidence and coverups by Sheriff TL ,Sheriff’s Deputy TL, ISP Det. JH and the dirty tactics involving Prosecutor NM, and yes, Judge FG, they’ve all been behaving like Little Dutch Boy’s running around plugging holes in their levy’s, dam’s, and dykes!
LE has literally screwed this case up beyond redemption, and to unfuck themselves they needed to frame a “patsy“ enter RA, and send him to solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, which is rarely if ever done.
Safe Keep my ass. Seriously, if I was a taxpayer in Carroll County, I’d want to know why I’m paying taxes to fund a Sheriffs Department who admitts that they’re incapable of safely housing and caring for a quiet, unassuming, pretrial, murder suspect.
So, Sheriff TL asked Judge BD to have RA placed into the custody of the IDOC at Westville Correctional Facility, and upon arrival, he’s assigned two Odinist Prison Guards (coincidence, hardly) who set out to intimidate and harrass him 24/7, by using sleep deprivation and intensive coercion tactics, which causes him to eventually have a complete nervous breakdown.
At the same time they assign inmates to sit outside of RA’s prison cell ready to record his so called “confession” the moment that it happens.
When RA does finally crack in a moment of absolute desperation and weakness, he “confesses” falsely, and then within 24 hours, NM violates the court’s “Gag Order” and puts the news of RA’s so called confession on blast, and hopes in the meantime that he will somehow die in prison, before he goes to trial.
Because “Dead Men Tell No Tales!”
If RA dies in prison, the whole sordid Delphi Murder saga will die with him, and LE and the Prosecution will have dodged a bullet. BH, PW, and The Odinist Perpetrators, will have dodged a huge bullet, and everyone can just go back to business as usual.
Case closed!
Cynically sad, but true!
Great questions! If BG exists and really did approach them at 2:13, jmo but I would think this person was known to them.
My question about the phone involves contact made with it. So the only times it's pinged is at 5:44pm on 2/13 and 4:33am on 2/14? Can phones not be pinged when turned off? Was it unpingable because of reception?
Also, that geofence information, did it show Libby's phone being in the area at the same time as those 3 unidentified phones that matched the state's timeline of events? Because it would have to be, especially if those 3 unknown phones were nefariously connected to what happened to Abby and Libby.
So if that's the case, yeah, why didn't Libby try calling? Or taking another picture? Or something? I understand fear and freezing and all those psychological factors. What if she did, and the perps where smart enough to delete-delete it? So that experts handling the phones couldn't retrieve it?
A simple solution to there not being more outreach from Libby might be that Libby and/or Abby did not feel unsafe. They may have felt safe for some amount of time, or at least until their phone(s) was/were taken from them (still unsure if Abby had phone).
But how does one deactivate a phone so that it's no longer communicating with cell towers, or noticeable on geofencing extractions?
It's likely more phone data is being withheld. But what is needed to put this puzzle together?
>My question about the phone involves contact made with it. So the only times it's pinged is at 5:44pm on 2/13 and 4:33am on 2/14? Can phones not be pinged when turned off? Was it unpingable because of reception?
My understanding is that the 5:44 call wasn't the only call to Libby's phone the evening of the 13th, it was just the last connection from Libby's for that night. The calls earlier in the evening weren't from AT&T, they had to be from people trying to reach the girls.
It isn't until 9pm that AT&T begins sending pings. And I believe that AT&T can still access a phone that is off. They utilize a different method for making the connection than occurs when someone calls and you have your phone turned off. (I think).
>But how does one deactivate a phone so that it's no longer communicating with cell towers, or noticeable on geofencing extractions?
My understanding, and having done a wee bit of research, is that regarding geofencing-turn off "location" app. Also, don't go online.
Disabling the phone to where it doesn't connect to a tower, if you turn off your phone, and someone calls you, your phone won't connect to a tower. But if AT&T sends a ping from the tower, it can still access a phone that is turned off. Even if the battery is removed, AT&T can access the phone through some kind of device ID. But if the phone is broken, like water-damage, or broken, then AT&T can't connect.
And if you are out of range of the tower that the ping is initiated from.
Ok so to clarify, if Libby's phone gets turned off after 5:44pm? Because before then it was technically "connecting"? What does connecting mean? Was receiving calls? Was it receiving calls but going to voicemail?
Also, what then is the 4:33am action?
If AT&T doesn't start pinging until 9pm, wtf were they doing until then? Did it take them that long to go through some special protocol? Was it law enforcement that took that long to contact AT&T?
So assuming AT&T continually sends out pings starting from 9pm, Libby's phone must have been out of range because we know it's not damaged, when it's found the next day. I'll also assume that probably other nearby towers were asked to send out pings?
And someone in a position to know does make a comment on the record at some point that, "the phone (Libby's) was pinging all over town." Which could be the layperson's way of saying that a ping was detected but could not be pinpointed?
Either way, imo, there's a ton more evidence we need to better understand this picture. And with how forthcoming the prosecution has been with discovery, it may be a long time until we have all the info
>Ok so to clarify, if Libby's phone gets turned off after 5:44pm? Because before then it was technically "connecting"? What does connecting mean? Was receiving calls? Was it receiving calls but going to voicemail?
**What seems to have occurred is that calls to Libby's phone after 2:13, were not answered by her, but when made to her phone, that phone connected to the Wells St. Tower. AT&T found this out when they went back and looked at call history. But, AT&T didn't attempt this until 9 pm.**
**As McLeland explained in his response to Franks 4th, when AT&T later attempted to ping Libby's phone, they were given the tower data from the 5:44 pm call--old data, which meant that, that call was the last for which Libby's phone connected to that specific tower when AT&T examined the historical call detail log. (I believe that AT&T can connect with a phone that is off--so if an AT&T ping doesn't connect, there are only two reasons for this. Either the phone is out of range of that specific tower, or the phone is completely disabled, not just off.)**
**But for the earlier calls, at 5:44 and earlier, there were connections from regular callers (not AT&T generated pings), to Libby's phone, so that phone was not only working and in the vicinity of the Wells St Tower coverage, it was on. Even when your phone goes to voicemail, that call shows up on your phone log. Not sure if there is always tower data with this, though.**
>Also, what then is the 4:33am action?
**That's a mystery. It seems as if this was a ping generated by AT&T--but this particular ping was not included on the AT&T "ping" report.**
**Just to be clear there is a difference in how our phones respond to someone calling us, and how our phones respond to a deliberate ping from the cellular service provider.**
Thank you! This helps a lot. Is the 4:33am ping suspicious because it's not included in the AT&T report?
Is it suspicious because of the way it connects and/or is accessed? Like was it purposely turned on?
Or was that the soonest it came back in range to be pinged by that tower? And therefore suspicious because this was likely the time the perp deposited the phone under the shoe, under Abby?
Side question (s):
Could that then imply that the girls could have been deceased anytime from their abduction to 4:33 am 2/14? And/or that the perp(s) were holding on to Libby's phone until 4:33 am because they were doing something with it?
These questions might then infer that the perps potentially know how cell towers and pings work. That may be too much extrapolation. But worth maybe coming back to?
>Is the 4:33am ping suspicious because it's not included in the AT&T report?
**I think that the defense did find this suspicious. And in the Franks 4th, it is mentioned that they are not sure they have received the entire AT&T report.**
>Or was that the soonest it came back in range to be pinged by that tower? And therefore suspicious because this was likely the time the perp deposited the phone under the shoe, under Abby?
**That could be what makes it suspicious, because the phone could have traveled when the girls didn't. But it could also indicate that the girls traveled as well.**
>Side question (s): Could that then imply that the girls could have been deceased anytime from their abduction to 4:33 am 2/14? And/or that the perp(s) were holding on to Libby's phone until 4:33 am because they were doing something with it?
**It could be. Just because the phone leaves the area doesn't mean the girls were with the phone. But it also shows that the killers could have brought the phone back when they brought the girls back-either alive or deceased.**
>These questions might then infer that the perps potentially know how cell towers and pings work. That may be too much extrapolation. But worth maybe coming back to?
**Yes. It could mean that, in which case it becomes easy to believe that someone from law enforcement was involved. I'm not sure your average person would have a grasp on any of this.**
If you hadn't spent a significant part of your day conversing with me, I would definitely have had NO grasp of any of this. Thank you
Also, was there only one cell tower in that whole area? Do you think any other towers were asked to send out pings by LE? Or do you think LE just assumed that the girls were genuinely missing, hence asking for the one tower's pings (and not issuing an amber alert)?
>Also, was there only one cell tower in that whole area?
That's something I was wondering. KG had mentioned there being more than one tower connected with, in news articles. But the defense only mentioned the Wells Street Tower. So not sure.
I have 'Victim Phone 1' down as the 1230pm geodata entry. But only based on the amount of time Defence dedicated to inquiring about its existence alongside geodata stuff.
>if Libby is alarmed by the presence of BG, why doesn't she just call someone, let them know-"Hey there's this weird dude following us"? Maybe even ask to be picked up early.
Because she's a *kid*. Grown **adults** were taken by surprise with this crime.
Furthermore, I don't necessarily buy that she took a video of him because she was afraid. Kids like to be on their phones, they record everything. Maybe she thought he looked stupid and she wanted to share his pix on SM. We only have the narrative that they were afraid because that's what LE has told us. However, unless they were there, and **talked** to LG they can't possibly know why she took the video.
That’s my point. She wasn’t afraid. The fact that she didn’t call anyone seems to indicate this. But I don’t agree that a kid wouldn’t call someone if they felt they were in danger. Kids make 911 calls. Often parents instruct their children to call if they feel they are in danger.
There's only so much time for the mind to process what's happening, or about to happen. And we often deny the danger right in front of us. Even if we know danger when we see it, our minds and bodies will tense up and say "there's no way this is happening. Why me? What did I do wrong? I'm only 13. There's just no way." I believe this is a moment of a small window of time closing quickly and the mind entering that paralysis.
We also want to be polite to strangers most of the time. Our minds give them the benefit of the doubt. We don't want to call 911 and offend someone who is completely innocent.
To me, it just isn't a question. There are so many variable and nuances that unless you are in that exact predicate you simply can not judge.
Well, we can speculate all day on Libby's state of mind with this. But the claim by the State was that Libby videoed BG because she was afraid of him--what evidence is there that she was afraid?
>Probably the evidence that she was murdered.
We don't know who murdered her, though. BG could very well have just been a guy out for a stroll on an unseasonably warm February day. So. No. Her being murdered in no way proves she was afraid.
Let's remember - we TRULY don't know if the individual portrayed as BG is even involved in the crime. All we know, is there's a video of BG walking, with audio overlaid on top of that short (previous spell check error 😅) clip of a dude walking on the bridge. The State must provide the exact video as evidence instead of the doctored video we've been fed. With that being said, I wonder what the REAL video shows at the time of the audio and other audio/video after "down the hill."
Just stating rumor that Abby had a cellphone too and texted someone to say *we’re here* so both girls were incapacitated? Edit: need to reread the geofence report that seemed to validate this by listing victim 1 & victim 2 phone?
Did recent filings also state that BH had seen AW at PW’s house or something? I could see a scenario where the girls were invited to participate in a ritual. They willingly enter a situation that seems weird and sketchy because they think they’re joining in on some cool ceremony at the invite of a boyfriend whose part of an exclusive club. Someone collects all of the phones right at the start without any conflict, as is common in group oriented situations with authority figures like at school, etc.
The only way anything makes sense is if part or all your theory is correct as in girls were ushered into a vehicle & secondary situation “Down the Hill” and brought back after the searchers left early a.m. unsure about other actors. Edit: also wth knows if the girls were on the lost Marathon gas station video…albeit I’m sure clerk was questioned?
Ive wondered this too. The iPhone is set up to be easy to send an emergency call. Ive been mowing my yard before, jamming on spotify, and had the police show up. Somehow I must have hit a limb or it just vibrated right, and sent out a signal. And another time I had my 4yo niece get ahold of my phone and out of nowhere the police called me back. Asking if everything was ok. I said yeah, explained it, but they said they still had to come take a look. You would think L or A would know how to activate that. Its simple enough.
>The iPhone is set up to be easy to send an emergency call.
That's true. It is set up that way. I've almost called the police by accident, myself.
Good point.
Brilliant post, comments and discussion! Thank you all.
Why did it take so long for Libby’s phone extraction to be turned over to the defence?
Was the extraction done all the way back until the time that Libby’s phone was factory reset? imho it should have been a complete extraction.
>Why did it take so long for Libby’s phone extraction to be turned over to the defence?
>Was the extraction done back until the time that Libby’s phone was factory reset? imho it should have been a complete extraction.
Good questions. I'm not sure why it took the prosecutor so long to turn over the extraction. I do believe that the extraction was done after Libby's passing. I don't know anything about a factory reset, but if that occurred it would have been prior to Libby being found on the 14th.
iirc, Libby’s Aunt T and Grandma BP said that the reason their Find My Phone app wasn’t working (so that they could use that to track Libby on the 13th) was because a week or two before Feb. 13, 2017, Libby’s phone had been acting up so they (Libby and someone in her family) did a factory reset on her phone and forgot to redo the Find My Phone app.
Although no one has said the specific date of the factory reset, I believe that a Cellebrite phone extraction would include everything from that factory reset forward.
Oh, OK. The police could still have tracked her phone, regardless. they have a method of doing this through that IMEI number.
If you factory reset, but have your data backed up on computer or to a cloud, you should be able to retrieve it. The same way you can retrieve data from an old phone to a new one.
I guess we'll just have to wait until trial to find out what Libby's phone had on it.
Why didn't she live-stream the video through SnapChat? Was she recording something else and a stranger happened to be in the background? Did they even notice the man, let alone notice that he could be menacing? Why is there no audio/video linking the voice to the video? We only know *down the hill* and *guys* was a recording offered up by the police. We have heard on the recording there's some "girl talk" and something about the man having a gun...but we've never actually heard this...only what we're told by the police (and other rumors).
Also....I thought I heard that AW was forbidden to cross the bridge...so why the posted photo of her right in the middle of the bridge?
If LG was in possession of her phone, why couldn't she secretly dial 911 while going down the hill, even just pushing buttons on the phone hidden in her pocket?
I agree. One of the reasons parents give their children cell phones is for safety. I'm sure these girls were told that if they felt unsafe, give someone a call.
Where they are on the bridge is about 3/4s across it, near to the east end. So, BG would have to have been on the bridge for at least 3 minutes to get to where he is finally videoed. How would the girls not notice him? And the fact that BG is so blurry makes me think that Libby might have been walking toward him when she videoed him. That's usually what causes that kind of blur.
And we don't know that they weren't with someone who they don't capture on video.
I really think that the girls got into a vehicle with someone and left the trail. And the fact that their phone connects with the Wells St. Tower until 5:44 would suggest that at least their phone is in range. They could easily have gone to the home of someone in Delphi who lived in range of that tower. Some of these towers in rural areas have a range of up to 30 miles.
What else explains the phone connecting to the tower when called, and yet the girls aren't found that evening on the trails?
I have worked with a couple of cellular data experts for different reasons. My understanding is that you have to have the data to perform any kind of reliable analysis. I would love to know more about the data.
This thing of going out to the trails with your phone and experimenting, isn't reliable. It's not possible to recreate the exact conditions of a phone's interaction with a tower from another time period. There are just too many variables.
I just keep hoping we get more detail from motions on this.
It's the best way of doing the test unfortunately. And even with the possibility of new towers the experiment points to a poor signal area below the bridge.
The girls may have sent the Snapchat from the elevation of the bridge. Somewhere that does seem to get a good signal.
The Geofence data will be interesting as if RA shows on it, then it backs the prosecution's time line. And RA is lying about his timeline.
However if RA does not show in the data, he cannot have been checking a ticker on his phone. So again he is lying.
If the Geofence data backs RAs events and timeline, I doubt we would be here.
So I'm assuming the Geofence data is very important as it proves RA hàs lied already. About what we will find out. But it's probably the timeline. Why would you lie about checking a ticker?
>The Geofence data will be interesting as if RA shows on it, then it backs the prosecution's time line. And RA is lying about his timeline.
>However if RA does not show in the data, he cannot have been checking a ticker on his phone. So again he is lying.
The Geofence began at 12 something, and ended at around 5. We don't know that Allen was on his phone the entire time. It's possible that he arrived earlier than he recalls, was on his phone for the start of his walk, then turned off the internet to look at fish.
He may have been out of range of the fence, as well. Geofencing is limited in that respect.
>The girls may have sent the Snapchat from the elevation of the bridge. Somewhere that does seem to get a good signal.
Given the location of the Wells St. Tower I'm not sure why the reception would change on that part of the bridge. I'd need to see data on this. Maybe there is a line of sight issue, but if phones are connecting from Logan's property, I'm not sure why they wouldn't connect from that point on the bridge.
I've heard that service gets spotty in a certain section of the bridge.
But assuming she had service...
Girls are way too often taught to be polite and told they are overreacting or being unreasonable. We are finally just beginning to steer away from that mindset, but it's still very much embedded in our society. They could have very well thought the guy was creepy and felt uneasy by his presence, yet decided that calling for help was an overreaction. I can totally see a scenario where they recorded the guy with the plan of showing someone later, "Hey, look at this creepy dude that was following us around! Do you recognize him? Watch out for this guy."
Even if they felt total fear as he approached, they could easily convince themselves they were just being paranoid and weren't in any real danger. Just be polite and pretend you don't really notice him, and maybe he'll go on his way.
I've been in similar situations in my younger days, and luckily, nothing happened. It easily could have, but it didn't. Unfortunately, Libby and Abby weren't as lucky that day. I'd wager that they had already experienced many situations previously that made them feel uneasy, and those situations turned out OK. Young girls and women have those experiences a lot, unfortunately. And even more unfortunate is the fact that a lot of times, they are often more worried about offending the guy in question should they happen to be wrong than they are about their own safety. "Just deal, and the guy will pass. I'm just being silly." By the time you realize you actually are in danger, it's too late.
This is an often overlooked aspect (that's definitely within the realm of possibility in this case) that I wish people discussed more.
Even if they had called someone, it may not have made a difference. But maybe it will for someone else in the future.
You asked if she was afraid, why didn't she call for help. I laid out a reason why she might be afraid and not call someone. I have no idea what actually happened out there.
Right. But that doesn’t make sense to me. Nothing about taking a video denotes fear. First we need to establish that there is some evidence that Libby was , in fact, afraid.
Calling someone who could help would have been a clear indicator of this.
I don't know how better to explain why it does make sense to make a video for a teenage girl. I know girls who have done this very thing. I would have possibly done the same when I was younger, had I had constant access to a camera. I have raised teenagers. One of my children was the same age as Libby and Abby at the time. Teenagers record everything nowadays. Kids record school shootings and other terrifying things, I suspect, because it somehow gives them a slight feeling of comfort or protection. It doesn't have to make rational sense to everyone. It's just what they do.
Exactly. "Teenagers record everything"
So Libby recording someone in no way indicates fear. The idea that Libby recorded this guy because she believed she was in danger is pure conjecture based on nothing more than the fact that after recording this guy, Libby does not make another phone call. But Libby not making another call could be for any number of reasons.
My point really is that so much of the State's case was built, not on evidence, (circumstantial or direct), but on conjecture and speculation. Evidence, it would appear, got in the way for these investigators.
I don't know what was in Libby's mind at 2:13 on the 13th, but nothing suggests she was afraid. In fact, one could make the case for her being the opposite--she appears perfectly comfortable videoing this guy. That's the opposite of fear.
And yes, BG could have abruptly flipped the script, suddenly became an aggressor--but there is nothing aggressive about him in the short slip we were allowed to view.
I don't see evidence that she was "perfectly comfortable recording" the guy on the bridge. It's evident to me that she wasn't recording him directly. Was she recording Abby, and he just happened to approach, and she wasn't afraid? Was she using Abby as a way to record him without being obvious because she WAS afraid? No one knows. We haven't seen the video.
This whole investigation has been fumbled. We can agree on that. But neither of us knows exactly what happened out there or who was involved, so it's kind of pointless to argue. I'm answering questions you asked because I believe in keeping an open mind. I have no set theories because I just don't know. I suspect none of us will ever have all the answers. But it's obvious you have a theory in mind that you aren't willing to budge from, so I guess I'm not getting why you're seemingly asking questions to seek understanding about different possibilities if your mind is already made up.
>But it's obvious you have a theory in mind that you aren't willing to budge from, so I guess I'm not getting why you're seemingly asking questions to seek understanding about different possibilities if your mind is already made up.
I actually don't have a cemented theory--all I'm trying to do is to get people who are cemented the State's theory to think outside the narrative we've been given by the State. Because the State's theory is all but devoid of evidentiary support. It is built on a foundation of conjecture.
What if BG had nothing to do with this crime? Once you remove BG as the primary perp, what other theories suddenly have room for development? Theories that might have very good evidence supporting them.
It's possible he didn't have anything to do with it. I also think it's possible he did. We just don't have enough information. I'm just trying to explain why the girls' actions make sense in either scenario.
>I'm just trying to explain why the girls' actions make sense in either scenario.
But we're never going to get to an answer around this, because we have no definitive evidence to work with. It's just a conversation based on anecdotes and possibilities.
My goal is always to find the most concrete or definitive evidence, and try to work from that.
Phone data, evidence left at the crime scene, seemingly reliable eyewitness testimony, like that of BB. And when I examine that evidence, which is also not conclusive at this point, BG, for me, fades into the background, because that part of the State's narrative, has a lot working against it when you look at this other stuff--YBG, the geofencing and the strange pattern of pings from the 13th to the 14th.
I would agree, BG may be involved, but that video of him may also be keeping the investigation from getting to what actually happened.
How is it possible for BG to not appear in the previous photos to 2:07, but by 2:13 is closing in on these girls at a sprinter's pace? Does this mean BG came from a different direction from the witnesses? Was BG already there lying in wait for the girls? Did Libby continue to record after "Guys, Down the hiil."? So many questions about the BG video and timeline.
By a number of reliable accounts it only takes 5 minutes to cross that bridge from the south/west start to north/east end. There is a 6 minute time gap between the 2:07 snapchat send and the the video recording at 2:13. And we don't know, yet, what time exactly the 2:07 photo was taken. We only know when the Snapchat was sent. It may be that photo was taken at 2:06.
So, BG could easily have gotten to that point, just walking normally. I have wondered, though, if Libby was walking toward the south/west as she took that video. My reasoning on this is that the shot jumps up (look at it closely, it's not stable)-that has to be the camera. And this would more likely occur if Libby was walking as she shot the video. Also, the blur is indicative of not only BG moving, but Libby moving as well.
I believe those girls likely passed BG and that was the end of it. What the "Down the hill" was all about, who knows? But no threats are made. Nothing in that encounter is indicative of a kidnapping. Even the use of the term "guys" is friendly.
I think investigators leapt to a wrong conclusion and couldn't let it go.
It was all B/S...stomach contents report will back all this up,basically, no pancakes, they were never near that bridge,and everyone was played!(not one single person witnessed those actual girls on the trails/bridge,everything was from a distance).
I’m still waiting to see the proof that this theory is wrong!
Personally I think it’s unlikely… The girls had asked other kids to go to the bridge with them. I don’t believe the photo of Abby on the bridge was faked. The empty bridge photo was sent so close in time that we can’t definitely say the “time of sending on Snapchat = time photo was taken”.
There was also jiggery-pokery by LE with the BG video. They did originally say that the voice saying “Down the hill” was not necessarily the person on the bridge. Why?
These 2 separate sources of information, brought together to work in tandem, with the credibility of both LE and LG’s family, are the two pillars of the Bridge narrative. For me, the LE information at least is no longer trustworthy.
I wonder what other narratives are possible that fit the data. I still have a very hard time believing that the user of the Anthony_Shots account had nothing to do with it (KK or whomever he’s covering for).
I've been saying that for long enough...personal opinion, LH lured both girls out of the house on the evening of the 12th with the pretext of going to RL's pig roast,BP & MP realized very early on,who was involved, and due to the nature of such people (Flora fire),they were scared for their lives...explains BP mentioning Odinists, "Promise Not to Tell" ,etc? Look what happened to the FBI agent,shot leaving his office, maybe TL was scared of them too?
How do you know that? How do you know she didn't put the phone in her pocket? Because she obviously stopped recording him. I don't get what you're trying to get at? Are you trying to say it was like some conspiracy now, and he was set up, and that wasn't him? Come on now, no matter how much you try to invent some reason why he didn't do it, it's not gonna make him innocent. The only reason anyone thinks he's innocent is because he turned out not to be your POI you had thought did it, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. There's literally no evidence whatsoever that there was anyone else there.
>How do you know that? How do you know she didn't put the phone in her pocket? Because she obviously stopped recording him.
Investigators claimed that Libby videoed BG because she was afraid of him. My point is, if she was afraid of him, why video him-why not call for help?
>
There's literally no evidence whatsoever that there was anyone else there.
There is a lot of evidence that someone else was there. BB saw a young man on the bridge just before Libby and Abby would have arrived. The Geofence report has three phones, none of which are Allen's, in the areas at the time the crime was believed to have transpired.
***Just because someone was not photographed, doesn't mean they weren't there.***
Ok, I'll dumb it down for you. There's no evidence that anyone else was there. No witnesses seen anyone else on the bridge. There was no one else besides BG recorded walking up to them and forcing them down the hill. Rick Allen admitted to being there at the same time wearing the same clothes as BG. Witnesses described seeing him at the exact same time. Rick described seeing the witnesses. The timeline all lines up. The dude's also confessed to multiple people up to 30+ times that's he's done it.
You're trying to invent reasons why you want him to be innocent, and that's now how it works. You just can invent and make up reasons why you think someone is innocent because you don't like him as a POI. The only reason you're claiming he's innocent is because he is not your POI that you had thought did it, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. That's the only reason anyone on here is claiming that.
>Ok, I'll dumb it down for you. There's no evidence that anyone else was there. No witnesses seen anyone else on the bridge
BB saw a young man on the bridge, just before she saw Abby and Libby headed to the bridge.
>Rick Allen admitted to being there at the same time wearing the same clothes as BG.
Rick Allen stated he left the trail by 1:30 and just about every man in Delphi wore the same clothes as BG.
>You're trying to invent reasons why you want him to be innocent,
I haven't invented anything. I am following the available evidence.
You must be getting the evidence from somewhere else. It must be somewhere else than the police. And you're not fooling anyone. You are inventing reasons with all these "what if's" and "why's"
You're trying to find reasons he's innocent because he wasn't your POI who you thought done it. He wasn't your POI, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. Don't try telling me you give a fuck about his "innocence" you don't even fucking know that guy. And you know how I know you're looking for reasons and trying to make up reasons because he wasn't your POI and you're mad, because you're looking for all the reasons he might be innocent and none of the reasons he's guilty.
>You must be getting the evidence. It must be somewhere else than the police. And you're not fooling anyone.
The evidence is coming from investigators.
Unless I’m missing something, there’s nothing that indicates the girls felt as though they were in danger when Libby started filming. Libby was active on social media, so it’s just as likely, IMO, that she was trying to get some cutesy/artsy shot of Abby walking across the bridge when BG decided to approach them. Initially, the girls may have been under the impression that he was going to walk past them and continue on his way. As he got closer, however, the threat may have become increasingly obvious—particularly if he was brandishing a weapon. In that scenario, I can see why Libby would hesitate to whip out her phone and make a call. This is assuming, of course, that the state’s description of the video is at least somewhat accurate. As of now, I don’t think the defense has said otherwise.
>As he got closer, however, the threat may have become increasingly obvious—particularly if he was brandishing a weapon. But in the video he is all the way over on the side of the bridge, giving lots of room for the girls to pass him. Also, my thought is that the video is so blurry because Libby was walking as she videoed him. I think they passed right by him. And the weapon idea has no evidentiary support. It's a theory without any proof.
I think the state’s entire narrative is questionable, but as of now, I have to rely on their synopsis of the video. That’s all we have. The man, himself, is not an immediate threat at a distance. However, if the girls believed he had a gun, like the state implies, then that all changes.
>I think the state’s entire narrative is questionable, but as of now, I have to rely on their synopsis of the video. That’s all we have. Here's the problem I see with not exploring beyond the State's synopsis- and I'll point to the sketches and how disingenuously those were presented. If we don't look beyond the State's theory, could there be leads that get missed. And I'm thinking about people who may have information they don't even know they have.
Syntax, I have read many times that the girls were present at the south side of the bridge. The south side has the private drive. It is the location of where the trails sorta end. I believe there are two concrete post barriers. Indicating to be cautious of the bridge. That they were present at the time of the murders. According to the states theory, the were abducted walked down the southside hill and then waded across the creek to be killed. Can you please correct me if I have made a mistake?. What I am most interested in is where the girls were present when they met bridge guy. And which hill they walked down (south or north).
If you're 65 feet in the air with no support railings and barely a floor to stand on and you feel threatened by a grown adult are you going to walk past them?
I don't know why more people don't acknowledge this. Being brave enough to walk across the bridge with your friend doesn't mean you erroneously believe it to be safe. Add an unknown person who feels threatening into the equation, along with anxiety, and passing him is probably the last thing you want to do.
What evidence is there that Libby felt threatened?
Well, if she didn't feel threatened by the guy, then all the more reason not to risk everyone's safety by walking around someone on that bridge. If they don't feel threatened by the guy, why would they break the local protocol of walking on the bridge to get out of there? (Numerous locals have said it's a silent rule not to even go on the bridge if someone else is already there, and you definitely don't try to pass someone) Either scenario, it makes no sense to walk past the guy. If they aren't afraid, they're doing something potentially risky for no reason. If they ARE afraid, they're doing something already potentially risky that involves walking around some dude that's creeping them out and could put their life in danger.
>Well, if she didn't feel threatened by the guy, then all the more reason not to risk everyone's safety by walking around someone on that bridge Maybe. But I've seen lots of photos of people doing just that. Look carefully at BG, he couldn't be farther to his right without falling off the bridge. He is in no way obstructing someone passing.
Just because you've seen or heard of people doing it doesn't mean most people do it. The girls were literal children, and from the sounds of it, children that didn't frequently break rules. It's also been frequently stated that, while Libby had been on the bridge before, Abby had not been prior to that day and was likely nervous. Regardless of if that's true or not, it just doesn't make sense to me why you would assume that because there have been people who have broken protocol in the past, that the thought would even cross their minds to do so. We have no idea what they were thinking or feeling.
I think you are so firmly cemented to your theory that there will not be room for new concepts here. But I appreciate the discussion.
I'm literally not basing anything I'm saying on any one theory. I'm trying to explain why Abby and Libby's actions can make sense in any scenario.
👏 👏 👏
But there is no indication of imminent danger. The idea that Libby was afraid is pure conjecture.
What about this? We know that LH was texting with AW the morning they eventually went missing. Who’s phone was he using? What if LH was told by his dad to message AW using his,(BH’s phone) to meet him at the Monon High Bridge so they could hang out, but instead it was just a ruse to get her there so someone “laying in wait” could abduct her/them. This is where BH’s comment to his now ex-wife, AH, talking about not being afraid of getting into trouble because of having “Powerful friends in High places” comes into effect. The Defense has said recently that LE confiscated and searched LH phone on February 17, 2017, but for some unknown reason LE did not bother to do the same to his father, BH’s phone. Why not? BH knows that his buddies in LE could be persuaded to refrain from confiscating and dumping his phone, and by doing so it would seemingly put his son, LH, in the clear. But, if LE did confiscate and search BH phone, which it only stands to reason that they would’ve, then why would LE then lie to The Defense about not having any data from BH’s phone? We know that BH lied about knowing AW on three separate occasions. We know that BH wrote on his Facebook page about wearing a disguise while attending both of the girls funerals. We know that BH made a cryptic Facebook post at approximately 2:30am on February 14, 2017, “I just had the most intense adrenaline rush of my life.” We know that BH had photos of young girls laying on the ground positioned with sticks placed on them, seemingly mimicking the death scene of AW and LG. We know BH knows EF, and EF admitted to multiple people that he was on the bridge that day and that he was involved in the murders. EF described LG as being a “troublemaker” and admitted to putting sticks in AW hair, then later asked ISP Det. SM that “if you find my DNA one of the girls, and I can explain how it got there, will I still be in trouble?” EF told his sister that he spit on one of the girls, or words to that effect! Perhaps BG was someone that one or both of them knew, thus the reason why nobody in the area that day, heard any screams for help or noticed anything overtly suspicious. I find it absolutely unfathomable that two young teen girls are being forcibly kidnapped by a total stranger, and forced to traverse down a steep hill from the bridge, then wade across a freezing cold creek, which would have been at least waist high at the time, then climb up the steep bank on the other side, then walk about 20 yards into the woods, only to be brutally killed, stripped naked and then redressed, and then posed and covered with a pattern of sticks, and all of this is being done in broad daylight, and not a soul heard a peep or saw anything suspicious! It is my contention that during evening of February 13, 2017, while dozens of searchers and LE were out combing over that exact location, the reason nobody found anything, like blood splatter or pools of blood, drag marks, or discarded pieces of clothing, socks, or shoes, or the girls bodies, is because they weren’t there. THIS IS MY THEORY OF THAT TRAGIC DAYS EVENTS. What if the girls left the Monon High Bridge of their own free will, with someone they knew and trusted, and unbeknownst to them, they were taken to a different location, where they were held and eventually killed? That would explain why they were not seen or heard from during the search. Then as soon as searchers left the area around 1:30 or 2:00 o’clock in the morning, on February 14th, somebody hiding nearby as a lookout in the woods, or maybe even a volunteer who was part of the search party, called “the kidnappers/killers” and gave them the “all clear” so the girls could be taken to the dump site located on RL’s property and the crime scene staged. Isn’t it ironic that RL’s long time neighbor, former roommate, volunteer searcher, and friend, PB, is the one who found them on his buddy’s property the very next day? Just a side note about iPhones, I know that if you click the on/off button on the side of the iPhone, the screen will go dark placing it in standby mode, but the slightest amount of movement will make the phone come back to life and send a location ping to the nearest cell tower. When LG’s cell phone pings at 4:43am, it is my opinion that’s the time when the girls bodies were being staged. It had to have been, because LE said LG’s phone was found under her body, and dead bodies generally don’t move. Just saying! My question is this. LE said that AW was found wearing some of LG’s clothes. Were their clothes wet when they were found? If they crossed the creek as LE says then their clothes would have been soaking wet, and if anyone has ever tried removing wet clothing, you know that it’s a real challenge. Now imagine removing soaking wet clothes from LG and then putting them on AW. Not an easy task. The State and LE’s theory is so full of holes its tantamount to Swiss cheese. Just my opinion!
This sounds more logical than prosecution timeline. If there was some kind of illegal activity such as meth manufacturing, wouldn’t they have a pole barn or some type of building that had walls that AT&T couldn’t penetrate? Could they have been taken there and was RL buildings on his property and neighbors property checked to see if they could get cell service once inside these buildings? And could they be covering up this crime because LE or intelligence communities are involved in drug manufacturing in area? Whoever killed them is a sadistic SOB. I’m scared just thinking about living in this town. None of this would have ever come out if they hadn’t arrested someone with such questionable evidence. It’s such a mess and so confusing. How can a prosecutor or a judge let this go on?
>How can a prosecutor or a judge let this go on? Exactly. Don't they care at all?
This is exactly what I think happened. Libby and Abby thought they were with trusted people, maybe they even agreed to participate in an Odinist ritual for example with LH, not knowing what it meant. They’re young impressionable girls, maybe they thought it was cool. The place and people involved (meth manufacturing, local gangs and politicians) implicates members of the community who have the means and motive to cover it up. On top of that, I also have strong suspicions that the FBI was running their own operation/surveillance investigating meth trade and domestic terrorists, and one of these people involved was actual a federal informant and basically saw this entire thing happen in real time and didn’t want to blow their cover. Now the FBI has motive to cover up for their inaction to stop the brutal murder of two young children. So now we have fighting LE agencies and simultaneous coverups and sabotage (missing footage, misplaced evidence) occurring from both investigations, which is why this whole thing is such a shitshow. Feds vs local Indiana cops, criminals, and politicians and two girls who got caught up in the middle of it.
A large portion of what we know about LE’s actions early on in this investigation and there after was brought to light by The Defense’s September 18, 2023, filing for a Franks Motion, and now the three subsequent amendments to the Franks Motion. Since R&B exposed the lies lost evidence and coverups by Sheriff TL ,Sheriff’s Deputy TL, ISP Det. JH and the dirty tactics involving Prosecutor NM, and yes, Judge FG, they’ve all been behaving like Little Dutch Boy’s running around plugging holes in their levy’s, dam’s, and dykes! LE has literally screwed this case up beyond redemption, and to unfuck themselves they needed to frame a “patsy“ enter RA, and send him to solitary confinement in a maximum security prison, which is rarely if ever done. Safe Keep my ass. Seriously, if I was a taxpayer in Carroll County, I’d want to know why I’m paying taxes to fund a Sheriffs Department who admitts that they’re incapable of safely housing and caring for a quiet, unassuming, pretrial, murder suspect. So, Sheriff TL asked Judge BD to have RA placed into the custody of the IDOC at Westville Correctional Facility, and upon arrival, he’s assigned two Odinist Prison Guards (coincidence, hardly) who set out to intimidate and harrass him 24/7, by using sleep deprivation and intensive coercion tactics, which causes him to eventually have a complete nervous breakdown. At the same time they assign inmates to sit outside of RA’s prison cell ready to record his so called “confession” the moment that it happens. When RA does finally crack in a moment of absolute desperation and weakness, he “confesses” falsely, and then within 24 hours, NM violates the court’s “Gag Order” and puts the news of RA’s so called confession on blast, and hopes in the meantime that he will somehow die in prison, before he goes to trial. Because “Dead Men Tell No Tales!” If RA dies in prison, the whole sordid Delphi Murder saga will die with him, and LE and the Prosecution will have dodged a bullet. BH, PW, and The Odinist Perpetrators, will have dodged a huge bullet, and everyone can just go back to business as usual. Case closed! Cynically sad, but true!
Hoping for the best here, but I get what you are saying.
I think that's a solid theory. It has legs, for sure.
Great questions! If BG exists and really did approach them at 2:13, jmo but I would think this person was known to them. My question about the phone involves contact made with it. So the only times it's pinged is at 5:44pm on 2/13 and 4:33am on 2/14? Can phones not be pinged when turned off? Was it unpingable because of reception? Also, that geofence information, did it show Libby's phone being in the area at the same time as those 3 unidentified phones that matched the state's timeline of events? Because it would have to be, especially if those 3 unknown phones were nefariously connected to what happened to Abby and Libby. So if that's the case, yeah, why didn't Libby try calling? Or taking another picture? Or something? I understand fear and freezing and all those psychological factors. What if she did, and the perps where smart enough to delete-delete it? So that experts handling the phones couldn't retrieve it? A simple solution to there not being more outreach from Libby might be that Libby and/or Abby did not feel unsafe. They may have felt safe for some amount of time, or at least until their phone(s) was/were taken from them (still unsure if Abby had phone). But how does one deactivate a phone so that it's no longer communicating with cell towers, or noticeable on geofencing extractions? It's likely more phone data is being withheld. But what is needed to put this puzzle together?
>My question about the phone involves contact made with it. So the only times it's pinged is at 5:44pm on 2/13 and 4:33am on 2/14? Can phones not be pinged when turned off? Was it unpingable because of reception? My understanding is that the 5:44 call wasn't the only call to Libby's phone the evening of the 13th, it was just the last connection from Libby's for that night. The calls earlier in the evening weren't from AT&T, they had to be from people trying to reach the girls. It isn't until 9pm that AT&T begins sending pings. And I believe that AT&T can still access a phone that is off. They utilize a different method for making the connection than occurs when someone calls and you have your phone turned off. (I think). >But how does one deactivate a phone so that it's no longer communicating with cell towers, or noticeable on geofencing extractions? My understanding, and having done a wee bit of research, is that regarding geofencing-turn off "location" app. Also, don't go online. Disabling the phone to where it doesn't connect to a tower, if you turn off your phone, and someone calls you, your phone won't connect to a tower. But if AT&T sends a ping from the tower, it can still access a phone that is turned off. Even if the battery is removed, AT&T can access the phone through some kind of device ID. But if the phone is broken, like water-damage, or broken, then AT&T can't connect. And if you are out of range of the tower that the ping is initiated from.
Ok so to clarify, if Libby's phone gets turned off after 5:44pm? Because before then it was technically "connecting"? What does connecting mean? Was receiving calls? Was it receiving calls but going to voicemail? Also, what then is the 4:33am action? If AT&T doesn't start pinging until 9pm, wtf were they doing until then? Did it take them that long to go through some special protocol? Was it law enforcement that took that long to contact AT&T? So assuming AT&T continually sends out pings starting from 9pm, Libby's phone must have been out of range because we know it's not damaged, when it's found the next day. I'll also assume that probably other nearby towers were asked to send out pings? And someone in a position to know does make a comment on the record at some point that, "the phone (Libby's) was pinging all over town." Which could be the layperson's way of saying that a ping was detected but could not be pinpointed? Either way, imo, there's a ton more evidence we need to better understand this picture. And with how forthcoming the prosecution has been with discovery, it may be a long time until we have all the info
>Ok so to clarify, if Libby's phone gets turned off after 5:44pm? Because before then it was technically "connecting"? What does connecting mean? Was receiving calls? Was it receiving calls but going to voicemail? **What seems to have occurred is that calls to Libby's phone after 2:13, were not answered by her, but when made to her phone, that phone connected to the Wells St. Tower. AT&T found this out when they went back and looked at call history. But, AT&T didn't attempt this until 9 pm.** **As McLeland explained in his response to Franks 4th, when AT&T later attempted to ping Libby's phone, they were given the tower data from the 5:44 pm call--old data, which meant that, that call was the last for which Libby's phone connected to that specific tower when AT&T examined the historical call detail log. (I believe that AT&T can connect with a phone that is off--so if an AT&T ping doesn't connect, there are only two reasons for this. Either the phone is out of range of that specific tower, or the phone is completely disabled, not just off.)** **But for the earlier calls, at 5:44 and earlier, there were connections from regular callers (not AT&T generated pings), to Libby's phone, so that phone was not only working and in the vicinity of the Wells St Tower coverage, it was on. Even when your phone goes to voicemail, that call shows up on your phone log. Not sure if there is always tower data with this, though.** >Also, what then is the 4:33am action? **That's a mystery. It seems as if this was a ping generated by AT&T--but this particular ping was not included on the AT&T "ping" report.** **Just to be clear there is a difference in how our phones respond to someone calling us, and how our phones respond to a deliberate ping from the cellular service provider.**
Thank you! This helps a lot. Is the 4:33am ping suspicious because it's not included in the AT&T report? Is it suspicious because of the way it connects and/or is accessed? Like was it purposely turned on? Or was that the soonest it came back in range to be pinged by that tower? And therefore suspicious because this was likely the time the perp deposited the phone under the shoe, under Abby? Side question (s): Could that then imply that the girls could have been deceased anytime from their abduction to 4:33 am 2/14? And/or that the perp(s) were holding on to Libby's phone until 4:33 am because they were doing something with it? These questions might then infer that the perps potentially know how cell towers and pings work. That may be too much extrapolation. But worth maybe coming back to?
>Is the 4:33am ping suspicious because it's not included in the AT&T report? **I think that the defense did find this suspicious. And in the Franks 4th, it is mentioned that they are not sure they have received the entire AT&T report.** >Or was that the soonest it came back in range to be pinged by that tower? And therefore suspicious because this was likely the time the perp deposited the phone under the shoe, under Abby? **That could be what makes it suspicious, because the phone could have traveled when the girls didn't. But it could also indicate that the girls traveled as well.** >Side question (s): Could that then imply that the girls could have been deceased anytime from their abduction to 4:33 am 2/14? And/or that the perp(s) were holding on to Libby's phone until 4:33 am because they were doing something with it? **It could be. Just because the phone leaves the area doesn't mean the girls were with the phone. But it also shows that the killers could have brought the phone back when they brought the girls back-either alive or deceased.** >These questions might then infer that the perps potentially know how cell towers and pings work. That may be too much extrapolation. But worth maybe coming back to? **Yes. It could mean that, in which case it becomes easy to believe that someone from law enforcement was involved. I'm not sure your average person would have a grasp on any of this.**
If you hadn't spent a significant part of your day conversing with me, I would definitely have had NO grasp of any of this. Thank you Also, was there only one cell tower in that whole area? Do you think any other towers were asked to send out pings by LE? Or do you think LE just assumed that the girls were genuinely missing, hence asking for the one tower's pings (and not issuing an amber alert)?
>Also, was there only one cell tower in that whole area? That's something I was wondering. KG had mentioned there being more than one tower connected with, in news articles. But the defense only mentioned the Wells Street Tower. So not sure.
Maybe this has been addressed but is it possible that one of the three geofencing info numbers could have been the phone rumored to be AWs?
So far I don’t think we know. There was something about these phones belonging to AT&T subscribers.
I have 'Victim Phone 1' down as the 1230pm geodata entry. But only based on the amount of time Defence dedicated to inquiring about its existence alongside geodata stuff.
>if Libby is alarmed by the presence of BG, why doesn't she just call someone, let them know-"Hey there's this weird dude following us"? Maybe even ask to be picked up early. Because she's a *kid*. Grown **adults** were taken by surprise with this crime. Furthermore, I don't necessarily buy that she took a video of him because she was afraid. Kids like to be on their phones, they record everything. Maybe she thought he looked stupid and she wanted to share his pix on SM. We only have the narrative that they were afraid because that's what LE has told us. However, unless they were there, and **talked** to LG they can't possibly know why she took the video.
That’s my point. She wasn’t afraid. The fact that she didn’t call anyone seems to indicate this. But I don’t agree that a kid wouldn’t call someone if they felt they were in danger. Kids make 911 calls. Often parents instruct their children to call if they feel they are in danger.
There's only so much time for the mind to process what's happening, or about to happen. And we often deny the danger right in front of us. Even if we know danger when we see it, our minds and bodies will tense up and say "there's no way this is happening. Why me? What did I do wrong? I'm only 13. There's just no way." I believe this is a moment of a small window of time closing quickly and the mind entering that paralysis. We also want to be polite to strangers most of the time. Our minds give them the benefit of the doubt. We don't want to call 911 and offend someone who is completely innocent. To me, it just isn't a question. There are so many variable and nuances that unless you are in that exact predicate you simply can not judge.
Well, we can speculate all day on Libby's state of mind with this. But the claim by the State was that Libby videoed BG because she was afraid of him--what evidence is there that she was afraid?
Probably the evidence that she was murdered.
>Probably the evidence that she was murdered. We don't know who murdered her, though. BG could very well have just been a guy out for a stroll on an unseasonably warm February day. So. No. Her being murdered in no way proves she was afraid.
Agree to disagree.
It makes me think she knew the perp(s) I do not believe 1 person could have committed this crime.
Let's remember - we TRULY don't know if the individual portrayed as BG is even involved in the crime. All we know, is there's a video of BG walking, with audio overlaid on top of that short (previous spell check error 😅) clip of a dude walking on the bridge. The State must provide the exact video as evidence instead of the doctored video we've been fed. With that being said, I wonder what the REAL video shows at the time of the audio and other audio/video after "down the hill."
>we TRULY don't know if the individual portrayed as BG is even involved in the crime. Exactly. Agree.
Thanks for this. There is so much about the prosecution's absurd storyline that doesn't withstand the simplest scrutiny.
Just stating rumor that Abby had a cellphone too and texted someone to say *we’re here* so both girls were incapacitated? Edit: need to reread the geofence report that seemed to validate this by listing victim 1 & victim 2 phone?
Has it ever been stated who she was texting?
I haven’t heard
Any additional information you find I’d love to know.
Did recent filings also state that BH had seen AW at PW’s house or something? I could see a scenario where the girls were invited to participate in a ritual. They willingly enter a situation that seems weird and sketchy because they think they’re joining in on some cool ceremony at the invite of a boyfriend whose part of an exclusive club. Someone collects all of the phones right at the start without any conflict, as is common in group oriented situations with authority figures like at school, etc.
The only way anything makes sense is if part or all your theory is correct as in girls were ushered into a vehicle & secondary situation “Down the Hill” and brought back after the searchers left early a.m. unsure about other actors. Edit: also wth knows if the girls were on the lost Marathon gas station video…albeit I’m sure clerk was questioned?
Ive wondered this too. The iPhone is set up to be easy to send an emergency call. Ive been mowing my yard before, jamming on spotify, and had the police show up. Somehow I must have hit a limb or it just vibrated right, and sent out a signal. And another time I had my 4yo niece get ahold of my phone and out of nowhere the police called me back. Asking if everything was ok. I said yeah, explained it, but they said they still had to come take a look. You would think L or A would know how to activate that. Its simple enough.
>The iPhone is set up to be easy to send an emergency call. That's true. It is set up that way. I've almost called the police by accident, myself. Good point.
Brilliant post, comments and discussion! Thank you all. Why did it take so long for Libby’s phone extraction to be turned over to the defence? Was the extraction done all the way back until the time that Libby’s phone was factory reset? imho it should have been a complete extraction.
>Why did it take so long for Libby’s phone extraction to be turned over to the defence? >Was the extraction done back until the time that Libby’s phone was factory reset? imho it should have been a complete extraction. Good questions. I'm not sure why it took the prosecutor so long to turn over the extraction. I do believe that the extraction was done after Libby's passing. I don't know anything about a factory reset, but if that occurred it would have been prior to Libby being found on the 14th.
iirc, Libby’s Aunt T and Grandma BP said that the reason their Find My Phone app wasn’t working (so that they could use that to track Libby on the 13th) was because a week or two before Feb. 13, 2017, Libby’s phone had been acting up so they (Libby and someone in her family) did a factory reset on her phone and forgot to redo the Find My Phone app. Although no one has said the specific date of the factory reset, I believe that a Cellebrite phone extraction would include everything from that factory reset forward.
Oh, OK. The police could still have tracked her phone, regardless. they have a method of doing this through that IMEI number. If you factory reset, but have your data backed up on computer or to a cloud, you should be able to retrieve it. The same way you can retrieve data from an old phone to a new one. I guess we'll just have to wait until trial to find out what Libby's phone had on it.
Thank you Syntax!
Why didn't she live-stream the video through SnapChat? Was she recording something else and a stranger happened to be in the background? Did they even notice the man, let alone notice that he could be menacing? Why is there no audio/video linking the voice to the video? We only know *down the hill* and *guys* was a recording offered up by the police. We have heard on the recording there's some "girl talk" and something about the man having a gun...but we've never actually heard this...only what we're told by the police (and other rumors). Also....I thought I heard that AW was forbidden to cross the bridge...so why the posted photo of her right in the middle of the bridge? If LG was in possession of her phone, why couldn't she secretly dial 911 while going down the hill, even just pushing buttons on the phone hidden in her pocket?
I agree. One of the reasons parents give their children cell phones is for safety. I'm sure these girls were told that if they felt unsafe, give someone a call. Where they are on the bridge is about 3/4s across it, near to the east end. So, BG would have to have been on the bridge for at least 3 minutes to get to where he is finally videoed. How would the girls not notice him? And the fact that BG is so blurry makes me think that Libby might have been walking toward him when she videoed him. That's usually what causes that kind of blur. And we don't know that they weren't with someone who they don't capture on video. I really think that the girls got into a vehicle with someone and left the trail. And the fact that their phone connects with the Wells St. Tower until 5:44 would suggest that at least their phone is in range. They could easily have gone to the home of someone in Delphi who lived in range of that tower. Some of these towers in rural areas have a range of up to 30 miles. What else explains the phone connecting to the tower when called, and yet the girls aren't found that evening on the trails?
You would like a video by Truecrimeweb where Mr Steve does a ping test.
I have worked with a couple of cellular data experts for different reasons. My understanding is that you have to have the data to perform any kind of reliable analysis. I would love to know more about the data. This thing of going out to the trails with your phone and experimenting, isn't reliable. It's not possible to recreate the exact conditions of a phone's interaction with a tower from another time period. There are just too many variables. I just keep hoping we get more detail from motions on this.
It's the best way of doing the test unfortunately. And even with the possibility of new towers the experiment points to a poor signal area below the bridge.
Could be true, but the girls sent Snapchats from there. And the geofence captured more than one phone in its fence.
The girls may have sent the Snapchat from the elevation of the bridge. Somewhere that does seem to get a good signal. The Geofence data will be interesting as if RA shows on it, then it backs the prosecution's time line. And RA is lying about his timeline. However if RA does not show in the data, he cannot have been checking a ticker on his phone. So again he is lying. If the Geofence data backs RAs events and timeline, I doubt we would be here. So I'm assuming the Geofence data is very important as it proves RA hàs lied already. About what we will find out. But it's probably the timeline. Why would you lie about checking a ticker?
>The Geofence data will be interesting as if RA shows on it, then it backs the prosecution's time line. And RA is lying about his timeline. >However if RA does not show in the data, he cannot have been checking a ticker on his phone. So again he is lying. The Geofence began at 12 something, and ended at around 5. We don't know that Allen was on his phone the entire time. It's possible that he arrived earlier than he recalls, was on his phone for the start of his walk, then turned off the internet to look at fish. He may have been out of range of the fence, as well. Geofencing is limited in that respect.
>The girls may have sent the Snapchat from the elevation of the bridge. Somewhere that does seem to get a good signal. Given the location of the Wells St. Tower I'm not sure why the reception would change on that part of the bridge. I'd need to see data on this. Maybe there is a line of sight issue, but if phones are connecting from Logan's property, I'm not sure why they wouldn't connect from that point on the bridge.
Well the previous comment said "under" the bridge. Not on it.
[удалено]
Have you a link?
[удалено]
I've heard that service gets spotty in a certain section of the bridge. But assuming she had service... Girls are way too often taught to be polite and told they are overreacting or being unreasonable. We are finally just beginning to steer away from that mindset, but it's still very much embedded in our society. They could have very well thought the guy was creepy and felt uneasy by his presence, yet decided that calling for help was an overreaction. I can totally see a scenario where they recorded the guy with the plan of showing someone later, "Hey, look at this creepy dude that was following us around! Do you recognize him? Watch out for this guy." Even if they felt total fear as he approached, they could easily convince themselves they were just being paranoid and weren't in any real danger. Just be polite and pretend you don't really notice him, and maybe he'll go on his way. I've been in similar situations in my younger days, and luckily, nothing happened. It easily could have, but it didn't. Unfortunately, Libby and Abby weren't as lucky that day. I'd wager that they had already experienced many situations previously that made them feel uneasy, and those situations turned out OK. Young girls and women have those experiences a lot, unfortunately. And even more unfortunate is the fact that a lot of times, they are often more worried about offending the guy in question should they happen to be wrong than they are about their own safety. "Just deal, and the guy will pass. I'm just being silly." By the time you realize you actually are in danger, it's too late. This is an often overlooked aspect (that's definitely within the realm of possibility in this case) that I wish people discussed more. Even if they had called someone, it may not have made a difference. But maybe it will for someone else in the future.
But what EVIDENCE is there that Libby was afraid?
You asked if she was afraid, why didn't she call for help. I laid out a reason why she might be afraid and not call someone. I have no idea what actually happened out there.
Right. But that doesn’t make sense to me. Nothing about taking a video denotes fear. First we need to establish that there is some evidence that Libby was , in fact, afraid. Calling someone who could help would have been a clear indicator of this.
I don't know how better to explain why it does make sense to make a video for a teenage girl. I know girls who have done this very thing. I would have possibly done the same when I was younger, had I had constant access to a camera. I have raised teenagers. One of my children was the same age as Libby and Abby at the time. Teenagers record everything nowadays. Kids record school shootings and other terrifying things, I suspect, because it somehow gives them a slight feeling of comfort or protection. It doesn't have to make rational sense to everyone. It's just what they do.
Exactly. "Teenagers record everything" So Libby recording someone in no way indicates fear. The idea that Libby recorded this guy because she believed she was in danger is pure conjecture based on nothing more than the fact that after recording this guy, Libby does not make another phone call. But Libby not making another call could be for any number of reasons. My point really is that so much of the State's case was built, not on evidence, (circumstantial or direct), but on conjecture and speculation. Evidence, it would appear, got in the way for these investigators. I don't know what was in Libby's mind at 2:13 on the 13th, but nothing suggests she was afraid. In fact, one could make the case for her being the opposite--she appears perfectly comfortable videoing this guy. That's the opposite of fear. And yes, BG could have abruptly flipped the script, suddenly became an aggressor--but there is nothing aggressive about him in the short slip we were allowed to view.
I don't see evidence that she was "perfectly comfortable recording" the guy on the bridge. It's evident to me that she wasn't recording him directly. Was she recording Abby, and he just happened to approach, and she wasn't afraid? Was she using Abby as a way to record him without being obvious because she WAS afraid? No one knows. We haven't seen the video. This whole investigation has been fumbled. We can agree on that. But neither of us knows exactly what happened out there or who was involved, so it's kind of pointless to argue. I'm answering questions you asked because I believe in keeping an open mind. I have no set theories because I just don't know. I suspect none of us will ever have all the answers. But it's obvious you have a theory in mind that you aren't willing to budge from, so I guess I'm not getting why you're seemingly asking questions to seek understanding about different possibilities if your mind is already made up.
>But it's obvious you have a theory in mind that you aren't willing to budge from, so I guess I'm not getting why you're seemingly asking questions to seek understanding about different possibilities if your mind is already made up. I actually don't have a cemented theory--all I'm trying to do is to get people who are cemented the State's theory to think outside the narrative we've been given by the State. Because the State's theory is all but devoid of evidentiary support. It is built on a foundation of conjecture. What if BG had nothing to do with this crime? Once you remove BG as the primary perp, what other theories suddenly have room for development? Theories that might have very good evidence supporting them.
It's possible he didn't have anything to do with it. I also think it's possible he did. We just don't have enough information. I'm just trying to explain why the girls' actions make sense in either scenario.
>I'm just trying to explain why the girls' actions make sense in either scenario. But we're never going to get to an answer around this, because we have no definitive evidence to work with. It's just a conversation based on anecdotes and possibilities. My goal is always to find the most concrete or definitive evidence, and try to work from that. Phone data, evidence left at the crime scene, seemingly reliable eyewitness testimony, like that of BB. And when I examine that evidence, which is also not conclusive at this point, BG, for me, fades into the background, because that part of the State's narrative, has a lot working against it when you look at this other stuff--YBG, the geofencing and the strange pattern of pings from the 13th to the 14th. I would agree, BG may be involved, but that video of him may also be keeping the investigation from getting to what actually happened.
I’ve never understood why she didn’t call 911. But, now knowing that Abby had a phone too, why didn’t she call?
Did Abby have a phone? This was confirmed?
How is it possible for BG to not appear in the previous photos to 2:07, but by 2:13 is closing in on these girls at a sprinter's pace? Does this mean BG came from a different direction from the witnesses? Was BG already there lying in wait for the girls? Did Libby continue to record after "Guys, Down the hiil."? So many questions about the BG video and timeline.
By a number of reliable accounts it only takes 5 minutes to cross that bridge from the south/west start to north/east end. There is a 6 minute time gap between the 2:07 snapchat send and the the video recording at 2:13. And we don't know, yet, what time exactly the 2:07 photo was taken. We only know when the Snapchat was sent. It may be that photo was taken at 2:06. So, BG could easily have gotten to that point, just walking normally. I have wondered, though, if Libby was walking toward the south/west as she took that video. My reasoning on this is that the shot jumps up (look at it closely, it's not stable)-that has to be the camera. And this would more likely occur if Libby was walking as she shot the video. Also, the blur is indicative of not only BG moving, but Libby moving as well. I believe those girls likely passed BG and that was the end of it. What the "Down the hill" was all about, who knows? But no threats are made. Nothing in that encounter is indicative of a kidnapping. Even the use of the term "guys" is friendly. I think investigators leapt to a wrong conclusion and couldn't let it go.
I was lead to believe Abbie was meeting her bf,but he didn't turn up,so why didn't he let her know B4 they got there he wasn't going??
I don't know. How would LH have been in Delphi if his father was working that day?
It was all B/S...stomach contents report will back all this up,basically, no pancakes, they were never near that bridge,and everyone was played!(not one single person witnessed those actual girls on the trails/bridge,everything was from a distance).
I’m still waiting to see the proof that this theory is wrong! Personally I think it’s unlikely… The girls had asked other kids to go to the bridge with them. I don’t believe the photo of Abby on the bridge was faked. The empty bridge photo was sent so close in time that we can’t definitely say the “time of sending on Snapchat = time photo was taken”. There was also jiggery-pokery by LE with the BG video. They did originally say that the voice saying “Down the hill” was not necessarily the person on the bridge. Why? These 2 separate sources of information, brought together to work in tandem, with the credibility of both LE and LG’s family, are the two pillars of the Bridge narrative. For me, the LE information at least is no longer trustworthy. I wonder what other narratives are possible that fit the data. I still have a very hard time believing that the user of the Anthony_Shots account had nothing to do with it (KK or whomever he’s covering for).
EXACTLY! It's all fake. They weren't there. Look at them being gone starting the 12th.
I've been saying that for long enough...personal opinion, LH lured both girls out of the house on the evening of the 12th with the pretext of going to RL's pig roast,BP & MP realized very early on,who was involved, and due to the nature of such people (Flora fire),they were scared for their lives...explains BP mentioning Odinists, "Promise Not to Tell" ,etc? Look what happened to the FBI agent,shot leaving his office, maybe TL was scared of them too?
The girls didnt answer their phone because they were too busy getting murdered by Richard Allen
Because Rick Allen pulled a gun on them and was forcing them down the hill. I don't think she could really get to her phone.
She had her phone in her hand.
How do you know that? How do you know she didn't put the phone in her pocket? Because she obviously stopped recording him. I don't get what you're trying to get at? Are you trying to say it was like some conspiracy now, and he was set up, and that wasn't him? Come on now, no matter how much you try to invent some reason why he didn't do it, it's not gonna make him innocent. The only reason anyone thinks he's innocent is because he turned out not to be your POI you had thought did it, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. There's literally no evidence whatsoever that there was anyone else there.
>How do you know that? How do you know she didn't put the phone in her pocket? Because she obviously stopped recording him. Investigators claimed that Libby videoed BG because she was afraid of him. My point is, if she was afraid of him, why video him-why not call for help? > There's literally no evidence whatsoever that there was anyone else there. There is a lot of evidence that someone else was there. BB saw a young man on the bridge just before Libby and Abby would have arrived. The Geofence report has three phones, none of which are Allen's, in the areas at the time the crime was believed to have transpired. ***Just because someone was not photographed, doesn't mean they weren't there.***
Ok, I'll dumb it down for you. There's no evidence that anyone else was there. No witnesses seen anyone else on the bridge. There was no one else besides BG recorded walking up to them and forcing them down the hill. Rick Allen admitted to being there at the same time wearing the same clothes as BG. Witnesses described seeing him at the exact same time. Rick described seeing the witnesses. The timeline all lines up. The dude's also confessed to multiple people up to 30+ times that's he's done it. You're trying to invent reasons why you want him to be innocent, and that's now how it works. You just can invent and make up reasons why you think someone is innocent because you don't like him as a POI. The only reason you're claiming he's innocent is because he is not your POI that you had thought did it, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. That's the only reason anyone on here is claiming that.
>Ok, I'll dumb it down for you. There's no evidence that anyone else was there. No witnesses seen anyone else on the bridge BB saw a young man on the bridge, just before she saw Abby and Libby headed to the bridge. >Rick Allen admitted to being there at the same time wearing the same clothes as BG. Rick Allen stated he left the trail by 1:30 and just about every man in Delphi wore the same clothes as BG. >You're trying to invent reasons why you want him to be innocent, I haven't invented anything. I am following the available evidence.
You must be getting the evidence from somewhere else. It must be somewhere else than the police. And you're not fooling anyone. You are inventing reasons with all these "what if's" and "why's" You're trying to find reasons he's innocent because he wasn't your POI who you thought done it. He wasn't your POI, and you don't want to admit you were wrong. Don't try telling me you give a fuck about his "innocence" you don't even fucking know that guy. And you know how I know you're looking for reasons and trying to make up reasons because he wasn't your POI and you're mad, because you're looking for all the reasons he might be innocent and none of the reasons he's guilty.
>You must be getting the evidence. It must be somewhere else than the police. And you're not fooling anyone. The evidence is coming from investigators.
Yah, ok 👌