00:00:05
[Applause] [Music] [Applause] How can a case where they've told us so little be so big? Right. This case is
00:00:30
just it seems huge. It seems really small on the outside when you when you look into it and you're like, "Oh, well,
00:00:37
we have a a couple seconds of a video clip of somebody walking on a bridge. We have couple seconds of some guy talking
00:00:44
saying guys down the hill." Mhm. And then you look into it and you're like, "Wow, this is a huge huge case." And
00:00:52
part of that has been I think a lot of a lot of it is due to speculation. And we
00:00:58
talked about this quite a bit before is right now anytime some some guy does something super violent, sexual in
00:01:07
nature resulting in murder, any of those different things, we're seeing them being brought to the forefront of being
00:01:15
a possible suspect in the deli murders case, right? And not just individuals that are arrested in Indiana, but
00:01:22
anybody that's arrested that has ties to Indiana. Well, one guy we talked about was Paul Eder. Okay. Now, he is super
00:01:31
interesting for a million reasons, but one thing that you and I keep keep going back to is DNA. Okay. So, early last
00:01:42
week, what came out was that the sheriff states that the Deli murder investigators have requested Eder's
00:01:50
autopsy results as well as his DNA. Okay. Okay, so this guy was 55 years old. He's dead. He committed suicide
00:01:58
after a standoff with police where he was in this standoff with police because he had he had
00:02:05
attacked a woman. He abducted her while she was changing a tire on the side of the road in Tippy Canoe County, which is
00:02:13
not terribly far from Deli. Well, she actually didn't she actually like break down right by his house? Yeah.
00:02:22
something. The way that the the story works that that I read anyway was that he she broke down on the side of the
00:02:28
road right in front of his property very early in the morning, like at like 4:30
00:02:32
in the morning. Yeah. He offers to help her and she's she's kind of creeped out by this
00:02:39
dude. So, she decides, you know, I don't need any help. And just continues on. Well, right. And we but we make some
00:02:45
leaps here. Like one one of the things that I've heard was, "Okay, well, this Eder guy creeped out his victim and that
00:02:53
we we know that Abby and Libby were creeped out enough to take pictures of the guy, bridge guy." And so some people
00:03:01
make that leap that this girl felt the same thing that Libby and Abby felt. Mhm. He ends up following her and
00:03:10
abducting this woman. Eventually, he lets her go after rape and sexual assault. And then the police catch up with Paul
00:03:18
Eder because he's driving around in a stolen vehicle. Yeah. After this standoff, he commits suicide. And now we
00:03:24
find out that the sheriff's, they're saying that the investigators requested his autopsy results and his DNA. And
00:03:30
we've seen DNA requests before and we've we've talked about this before, but to me, this really solidifies for me what I
00:03:40
believe there to be DNA. And you say, "Well, Nick, why are they even questioning? Why are you Nick Colonel
00:03:47
Captain? Why are you garage idiots questioning the DNA? Well, we're questioning the DNA because in the
00:03:53
beginning, the investigators made it sound as if they had it. And then at some point that went away from their
00:04:01
their press releases and from their what their words that they were choosing to use to the public. It just disappeared.
00:04:07
And so then you have to question, is there something wrong with the DNA or did they not have it? or did they speak
00:04:13
did they speak out before they knew if they were going to have it or not? Yeah. And one of the statements that they made
00:04:19
again that makes me question it or I think would make anybody question it is the idea that they say look we're not
00:04:25
going to clear anybody. We're not going to do that. We're going to call it checked or or they've been we've gone
00:04:32
over that person. He's been checked. Yeah. We're not going to say that they've been cleared until somebody's
00:04:38
arrested and somebody's convicted and then the next statement is if they are convicted, right? Meaning
00:04:47
that this um law enforcement officer believes that they might one day arrest somebody but might not be able to get a
00:04:55
conviction. That's what it makes it seem. Now, they might just be playing it safe and that's fine and I understand
00:05:01
that. But if they're not playing it safe and that statement is a true statement,
00:05:06
that makes you question if they have DNA. Because if you have somebody that you arrest for the crime, you have DNA,
00:05:13
plus you have other evidence, why wouldn't this be a slam dunk? Well, and then one thing too is we discussed the
00:05:21
reasons why you would ask someone to submit their DNA even if you did not have this. You're doing it as a scare
00:05:28
tactic, as a way to see if this suspect will squirm, right? And and immediately become uncooperative in your questions
00:05:37
and in your investigation. And then you go, well, we should be checking into this guy further because he doesn't want
00:05:43
to seem to help us with this double homicide of of two children. I mean, yeah, you can be guilty of a lot of bad
00:05:50
things, but nothing as bad as this. So you you you would think persons would comply and offer their assistance at the
00:05:59
very least to just get their name off of this investigation. Well, you see this similarly with um asking people to take
00:06:07
a lie detector. We know that we can't use that in a court of law, but we're going to use it to kind of see how you
00:06:13
play play out this hand. Right. And so the thing though that really kind of I'm really going the way of yes, they have
00:06:23
DNA and I I've always kind of been that way on this on this case, but I feel like the longer that we look into it,
00:06:30
the the stronger my feeling is and my the higher my confidence level gets that they do have DNA. And so it just doesn't
00:06:38
make any sense to me when people I I I'm leaning your way. I I have some reservations about it, but at
00:06:47
the end of the day, it's like why would they keep bringing up the idea that they're going to test individuals? And
00:06:53
even law enforcement kind of said, look, it would be they'd be very surprised if if Eder
00:07:02
is is connected in any way, but is it just a statement that they're making to the public to let them know we're doing
00:07:11
everything in our power? Yeah. Well, not only that, you have you have the public saying, "This guy's a
00:07:17
suspect." And if if the public considers him a suspect, then law enforcement better as well, at least to the point of
00:07:24
check into him, like you said, he's been checked. And then move on to your next guy. And I I think that's where the
00:07:32
argument comes in where people start to question if there's DNA because they're going, "Oh, there's been all these
00:07:38
suspects in the public's eye, right? the police and investigators and FBI are saying, "We're checking into this guy
00:07:44
that we've been made aware of now because he's been arrested for something else." And then we never hear anything
00:07:52
as far as the guy being cleared. And like you pointed out, that's for good reason. They've already said early on
00:07:58
that they are not going to clear anyone whether they whether they get somebody's
00:08:03
DNA and they compare it to what they have on file, the sample that was left at the crime scene and they might go
00:08:11
he's been checked. He's been checked. We know, they may know that that person did
00:08:16
not do it, but they're not going to say that publicly until, as you said, Captain, somebody is sitting in court
00:08:24
and sitting through the court the the trial process. Well, and let's break that down a little bit because that
00:08:29
didn't make a lot of sense to me. Why Why would you not state that somebody's cleared if you cleared them? And and one
00:08:35
of the things that they were saying is that if you come out publicly and say uh Logan, for example, you know, the girls
00:08:43
were found on Logan's property, Logan was arrested on other charges. If they go through and check alibis and do some
00:08:51
things, they go, "Okay, well, Logan is cleared." And then it comes back that he's not cleared. And they arrest him
00:08:59
and they go to trial. that just the statement that the law enforcement at one point cleared this
00:09:06
individual that could be reasonable doubt, right? That gives the jury reasonable doubt. And so that makes a
00:09:12
lot more sense. And because then you're fighting an uphill battle. You're you're
00:09:16
now saying, "Well, at one point we cleared this individual, but now uh no." And and so if if at one point law
00:09:26
enforcement said this person wasn't involved, that would, like you said, gives you probable cause to go, well, I
00:09:35
uh or gives you reasonable doubt to go, you know, if they weren't sure at one point, how am I supposed to be sure?
00:09:42
Mhm. Well, the the other thing that really strengthens my belief that they do have
00:09:49
DNA, one, I'm just going back to the beginning and realizing and knowing and reminding myself that they said they had
00:09:56
it at one point and I see that it's disappeared from their narrative. I'm fine with that and I get why I think
00:10:03
that is and I think it's smart and I'll get into that in just a second. But the thing that really strengthens my belief
00:10:10
that there is DNA here is they're requesting it from a dead man. And we know this to be true per per the news
00:10:18
reports that were coming out last week. And on top of that, the way that that the wording that they use when they
00:10:24
state that is that they requested it shortly after this guy committed suicide, shortly after Paul Eder killed
00:10:31
himself. So the thing the thing is it's no longer a scare tactic if there's nobody to scare, right? it's just simply
00:10:38
collecting evidence at this point. And so that really strengthens it for me on that level. And then I've recently
00:10:48
viewed a a short interview where um Kim Riley, one of the officers, one of the investigators with the state police,
00:10:59
he's not the on the local level, he's on the state police where he Here's the thing with these with these with the
00:11:06
investigators here. They're all doing a very good job. They're they're trying to
00:11:10
field and answer as many questions as possible. They do have a, let's say, script or a narrative to try to stick to
00:11:18
that they've all agreed upon, but on occasion because they are being so transparent or or at
00:11:25
least with what what they're willing to share and their availability to be in front of the public and to answer
00:11:33
questions. On occasion, you can catch a little bit of a slip where you're like, "Oh, I don't know that they were
00:11:38
supposed to say it like that." or well, and think about all the emotions they're
00:11:43
they're carrying around with them. So, in one in one of these little news clips, I saw Kim Riley stating, you
00:11:50
know, basically he's being asked, if you have DNA or if you have so much evidence
00:11:55
on this guy, why hasn't there been an arrest? And he was saying, well, there there's
00:12:03
we and he's trying to be hypothetical, but you can tell in a way he's probably talking about what's actually going on
00:12:09
with the case. He says, you know, well, we might have a situation here where this person has never done anything
00:12:17
before and we just don't have any way of tracking him down or tracing this individual. Right. So, that really that
00:12:26
statement to me really makes me feel like the police at least believe that they're working on a suspect. the bridge
00:12:34
guy has not been convicted of anything where he would have his DNA profile already submitted to Cotus. And then
00:12:42
when when he goes further to say wouldn't have anything to track, no way to trace this individual, that also
00:12:49
makes me wonder if they have fingerprints as well, but they're just not in the system that we do have stuff.
00:12:55
We just we need to find the right guy, the right person, bring him forward and and have his fingerprints and or DNA to
00:13:05
compare this to. And so I I feel good that I think that it's there. I think the reason why
00:13:11
you go back and you go back and you go, "Oh [ __ ] we talked about DNA. Let's kind of just drop that from the story
00:13:17
and not bring it up again." Because and then there's other times where we have somebody like Daniel Nations who says,
00:13:23
"I submitted my DNA." And you never hear from police saying that they that yeah,
00:13:28
we asked him to do so or he did submit it, anything like that. They just say he's somebody we're not really that
00:13:34
interested in. I think the other thing if you do in fact have DNA or as some guys up in the Amy Mahalik case like to
00:13:41
say bait in the net. I always thought that was a strange way to word it. But if you do in fact have
00:13:49
DNA, you might want to drop that from the narrative just for the fact that you want this guy to slip up. Wait, why why
00:13:55
do you find that weird? Bait baiting the net. I just saw so when when u the investigators at
00:14:03
Watertown, right? I mean, they're they're by water, right? But what I mean by that is when they're asked if they
00:14:10
have DNA, um most of the time their answer is, well, we have bait in the net, rather than just giving you a a
00:14:19
clear general, right, clear general understanding. Sometimes they've given a better answer than that, but but for a
00:14:25
while they were sticking to that bait in the net kind of thing, which is fine. Um
00:14:31
anyway, what I was getting at though, Captain, is here you have a situation where if you do have DNA of this guy and
00:14:38
he is not in the system, he has not committed any offenses that he's been caught for to the point where he would
00:14:43
be in the system. Now you're going, you know what? Let's drop that from the narrative because we wouldn't mind
00:14:49
terribly if he goes out and commits an offense and gets caught for it, right? I mean, we're nobody's saying nobody's
00:14:57
suggesting, hey, go out and and murder somebody so we can catch this guy. Well, what we're what we're you're hoping for
00:15:03
is could he get picked up for a DUI? Could he could he do something dumb? You know, anything that would warrant a
00:15:10
felony arrest from my understanding in Indiana. Now, you were forced to submit your DNA. So, you get this guy driving
00:15:18
drunk home from from from a bar one night, right? Right. You might end up catching your guy. But let's be clear
00:15:24
about that. So, every state is different. But in the state of Indiana, if you are arrested with something that
00:15:31
you can be charged a felony for, you don't have to actually be charged. You don't have to actually go through the
00:15:37
process and and be found guilty. But when you're arrested, they'll swab your DNA and they're going to take your
00:15:42
fingerprints and all that. That's how they enter you into the system. Yeah. And I And I think you were saying that
00:15:47
that didn't pass until 2017 and and then they don't implement it until 2018 or whatever. That Yes, that's my
00:15:55
understanding of of the way that it's going down in Indiana. And as you said, it gets difficult for us to remember.
00:16:01
There's 50 states and they're all kind of doing that stuff a little different from from state to state. Here's the
00:16:07
other thing though. Paul Eder is in fact we we know that they went after his DNA.
00:16:15
According to the words that they chose to use and made it sound like it was shortly after he killed himself. So now
00:16:20
we're looking at a month ago. You would think if he is the guy, he's not alive for you to even bother talking to him,
00:16:28
right? Be trying to gather more information. That's true. Just because we've not heard does not mean he's not
00:16:33
the guy. But do you think he makes a good suspect? Because the initial the the thing I jump to immediately is yes,
00:16:40
Paul Eder is a a horrible individual. Uh he abducted and raped a woman, but he let her go. We're looking
00:16:48
for a killer, not a not necessarily just a rapist. And we don't know the the mounds of
00:16:56
possibilities are are endless. And and and that gets a little um it can make everything convoluted.
00:17:03
But I think what we we have here is an individual that possibly could look like bridge guy. I mean, we're only seeing
00:17:12
just like a head shot of this individual, but you go, okay, here's this guy that has uh committed crimes
00:17:18
before, violent crimes, sexual in nature. Is it possible that he he did this uh double murder and then uh kind
00:17:27
of went on a spree if you if you will that or or ha had a you know weird universe uh the universe puts um for
00:17:37
lack of a better word prey right by his house and or early morning he attacks her for whatever reason maybe he knows
00:17:46
that this has gone too far. We've seen this with other killers, with other attackers where they uh where afterwards
00:17:53
they'll say, "I'm never doing this again." Or or they take their own life. Maybe he knew he was going to take his
00:17:59
own life. And for whatever reason, it's like, "Okay, I did this double murder that's been on my mind. Now I did this
00:18:06
this basically torture is what it was. Um this sexual assault, rape, torture. I'm going to take my own life."
00:18:15
And maybe that's why he let her go. and and then he takes his own life. I mean I
00:18:20
mean I understand that there's a five hour standoff, but we we can't know for sure what was going through this guy's
00:18:26
head, but it that's a possibility. So when people say, "Well, he let this other uh victim go and he didn't let you know
00:18:37
that that rules him out in so pe so many people's mind." And I'm like, I don't think that rules out anything because we
00:18:43
don't know what's going on in this sick individual's mind, right? I agree. I I but I tend to lean
00:18:51
toward I I don't know that I'd make him the top suspect. Partly in part just because he did let that future victim
00:19:00
go. And from the way I'm I'm viewing this thing, it looks to me like he may have got away with that. And I hate to
00:19:07
say this out loud, he may have got away with that whole attack and rape if he had not let her go. And it's just the
00:19:17
Well, and the other thing that makes me question it, too, is his age. Well, and that's what I wonder because he had to
00:19:24
have some knowledge that she had knowledge of where he was from and maybe she didn't know that area that well, but
00:19:31
where she broke down. And so by letting her go, it's almost like you you're setting free the person that is going to
00:19:39
basically be your downfall and the reason why you get captured. But again, if your vehicle breaks down in front of
00:19:47
this guy's house and he comes walking out or in front of his property and he he very clearly comes walking out and
00:19:54
you go, "Well, he must have lived there." I mean, that's probably the first thing you're going to say. You
00:19:57
might not know the the numerical of the address that that you broke down in front of, but you're going to go, "Hey,
00:20:03
I was on on uh I such and such street." Yeah. Last week I had the note I had the
00:20:08
street name in my notes, but yeah, you could go I was right around this area on such and such street. Guy comes out of
00:20:15
his house 4:00 in the morning. Yeah. And um and then you can identify the guy. And what's interesting to me about the
00:20:23
whole connection with with Eder is um he kind of has a bulbous nose. Would you say it's bulbous?
00:20:31
Yeah. And I've actually Yes. Well, and I'm I'm using that term uh uh in this case because I've actually
00:20:41
seen several videos where they're doing new profiles of Bridgeman and they start
00:20:46
talking about that he has a a characteristic that we haven't noticed in the past. And I've actually seen this
00:20:55
from at least two individuals where they're saying it has a character that we didn't notice, but now we notice he
00:21:01
has a bulbous nose. Mhm. And I wonder if that is these online armchair detectives, if this is their way of them
00:21:11
shifting the narrative. Okay. Well, we have this guy in custody. Is he a perfect match for a
00:21:17
bridge guy? No. Uh like you said, logically, he attacks one uh attacks two individuals,
00:21:25
kills them, lets another one go. that doesn't seem to line up really, but um he's he's 55 and yeah, which would be
00:21:37
past the actual age range that they they gave us, right? From Yeah, from the most
00:21:42
recent press conference, the the big one that kind of blew everything up in April, they're saying 18 to 40 is the
00:21:52
age that they believe that they're looking for. And so even, you know, even two years ago, Paul Eder would have been
00:21:59
53. Now, I am sitting here looking at a mug shot of his from 2012. I'm not I don't have a full understanding of what
00:22:09
his charge would have been back then, but it appears to be a mug shot from 2012, right? So, seven years ago, he
00:22:17
would have been 48. I will I will say this about Paul. He could probably Now, mind you, this is a very small sample
00:22:24
size. He's bald. If he had hair, it would help quite a bit more, but I I could maybe see him passing for 43 in
00:22:34
this picture. Yes. And he would be about 48. So, he does look younger or appear younger than what he is, which that's
00:22:41
also part of what they said in their release that we're looking for someone probably between the ages of 18 and 40
00:22:49
who may appear younger than their actual age. Right. But the tricky thing here though is didn't they also claim in this
00:22:58
description that the that the perpetrator bridge guy had, you know, kind of a reddish hair.
00:23:06
Well, in the first sketch, yes, the first sketch that was released, it appears to be reddish hair. I What were
00:23:13
they saying about the second sketch? Did they give a hair color for that one as well? I thought that's the one that they
00:23:17
said reddish. Okay. And so that that makes me question. I mean, when people still bring up Logan because the girls
00:23:24
were found on Logan's property. Again, clearly Logan has gray hair. Clearly Eder has, you know, salt and pepper
00:23:34
hair, I would say, but leaning more gray. So, I don't know. Uh, unless unless that I I have some
00:23:44
issues and I think anybody should have issues with the idea that you have a you have two sketches that they claim were
00:23:51
happened at the same time. They went with one over the other. They look like two different individuals to me. I'm
00:23:57
having a real hard time the more um we dive into this case. I'm having a hard time actually believing any of this as
00:24:05
far as eyewitnesses go. Well, I think I think somebody that's still of very big interest to me is Thomas Bruce, who is
00:24:16
thankfully in jail waiting on something to happen with his current case, right, where he is facing
00:24:24
a murder charge and sexual assault and rape charges. He's the one that went into the Catholic
00:24:31
supply store for and ordered the women to the back of the the the establishment,
00:24:39
right? And attacked and assaulted and killed one of them there. the way that this thing goes down and I can't
00:24:46
remember I know we went through his timeline somewhat, but he left the store at one point under the guise of going
00:24:54
out to get a credit card from his car, which he returns. And I I'm assuming that's when he went out and got the gun
00:25:02
from his vehicle. And this guy is weird, too, because again, the age is wrong with him. The the difference between him
00:25:10
and Paul Eder is we know Thomas Bruce to be a killer. The thing that also I find
00:25:16
fascinating about Thomas Bruce is it doesn't appear that he's been in any kind of trouble before this strange
00:25:25
attack, right, that results in the murder. And I I don't know. I I'm I'm not saying that Thomas Bruce is the guy.
00:25:34
I'm just saying on the on the outside looking in, he looks a little more like the guy to me in a sense that it seems
00:25:43
like he committed a crime of opportunity that maybe when he did enter that store the first time, I mean, look,
00:25:52
we know he left the store and came back. So, there was something in his plan that
00:25:56
he needed from the vehicle or something that he needed to readjust before he carried out the attack or he wasn't 100%
00:26:04
planning on attacking the place when he first walked in there. Yeah. How many individuals were in there? I think it
00:26:10
was three women were in there. And and again, so logic would tell you, okay, well, so Eder attacks a single
00:26:18
female and then obviously Libby and Abby being two females, but in this other case with Bruce, then you go, well, he
00:26:26
he had no problem going, hey, there's three people. I can control this in his brain, right? And so that's the same
00:26:34
scenario as Libby and Abby. So, you're out in a park, you see these two girls walking, and you think that's an
00:26:42
opportunity. And I I really think that that narrows down the individual quite a bit because there's a lot of individuals
00:26:51
that they're not going to try to control two two victims. They're not going to try to to tell most of these
00:27:00
perpetrators that's too big of a situation. Mhm. And so, you know, logic would tell you that that's a good match.
00:27:08
Yeah. And the other thing, too, is Thomas Bruce was even, let's say, he did not plan on attacking those women at the
00:27:16
Catholic supply store until after he went in there the first time. He obviously was prepared to do
00:27:23
something like that in some form or fashion, even just to the point where he needed to go out to his vehicle and get
00:27:30
something possibly. And that's what I think he I think this dude had a had a kill kit, rape kit in
00:27:37
his vehicle. Yeah. And he saw an opportunity or maybe he was planning on maybe he was watching and casing the
00:27:45
place and saw his opportunity and right he goes and retrieves the kill kit, rape
00:27:52
kit from from the vehicle. Right. Again, same type of thing though is you don't know who's going to be on the trails.
00:27:57
You don't know who's going to be at the park that day, but you just bring the stuff with you, but you were prepared to
00:28:03
do something if if an opportunity presented itself, right? Which again, same as the first attack. So, let's talk
00:28:11
about the suspect's age. One thing that I find and the sketches as well. So, one
00:28:16
thing that I find completely fascinating, like like you were saying, when you see these two sketches, they're
00:28:22
completely different from one another and and that's frustrating as hell, right? In a whole bunch of ways,
00:28:29
they're completely different from one another. And then we have the statement of the suspect. We believe we're looking
00:28:35
for a guy between the ages of 18 and 40 who may appear younger than what he is. Well, what's the population on people 18
00:28:44
to 40? I mean, that's a that's 22 years that we're spanning. And then, okay, so we've been told that those sketches,
00:28:52
both sketches were developed by eyewitnesses that saw a man matching that description, whether it be sketch A
00:29:00
or sketch B, that day near the bridge or on the trails that day. Right. So, again, it's it's it's weird that we have
00:29:10
two completely different sketches. And then on top of that, here's here's one thing that I really wonder about the age
00:29:16
range here because you should be able to look at somebody's face. If you're going
00:29:21
to describe them to the point where somebody can draw a sketch, you should be able to answer the
00:29:27
question of does he look 18 or does he look 40 rather than I couldn't decide if it was 18? Could have been as late as
00:29:34
40. What I wonder here is because we have the two sketches and they're two so different from one another,
00:29:44
are they not ruling out the possibility of either sketch being correct and and police are thinking
00:29:51
that he looks younger in one sketch than he does in the other and therefore now we have a a range of 20 to 22 years for
00:30:00
the possibility. Well, see, I just wonder at first um based off of eyewitness, based off of the video
00:30:08
footage that they had, if they just went, you know what, this this eyewitness gave us this this um drawing,
00:30:15
we were able to look at that drawing, look at Bridgeman, look at the the video footage that we have because we're
00:30:22
assuming that they have more video footage. The rumor is they have a lot more footage. Um, I could not get that
00:30:30
confir. I I have a weird situation where I do have a contact that actually worked
00:30:37
the case. I can't get into that too much. Uh, but some of the information that I have passed along to them just to
00:30:44
see if they can confirm or deny. Uh, sometimes I don't want to I don't know how to say this, but I I think sometimes
00:30:54
it's almost like if they can confirm it, like they just won't. Um, not they're not trying to be jerks
00:31:01
or anything, but it's it's so it's almost like uh you know like oh I heard they have a lot more footage. Can you
00:31:08
confirm or to deny that? And then it's like no answers, but it's really like basically they're confirming what I'm
00:31:14
saying. So I think they have a lot more footage um than than what they're leading on to believe. And so what what
00:31:22
if it's just this simple? I saw this guy on the bridge. Okay, he looks like this.
00:31:26
Okay, we do a drawing. That drawing kind of looks like bridge guy kind of looks like this grainy video footage we have
00:31:33
of the individual. You get the next eyewitness. They give you a whole different person. You kind of compare
00:31:40
that with bridge guy. Your gut feeling tells you no. You that's why you went with the first drawing.
00:31:47
My argument is that we have all these people coming forward, or not all these people, but we have a handful of people
00:31:53
saying, "Well, we saw these this guy on on the path." That doesn't mean that they actually saw the killer. They just
00:32:01
saw a guy on the path, right? And that's what I can't get over because I believe this
00:32:10
uh where he took them to to go down by roughly by that service road keep going down cross the
00:32:22
river. I think that was all by design and I think it's more than likely it was either to take them to a more
00:32:34
remote situation. But even if that was the case and there was no vehicle down there, I
00:32:41
either think he was trying to take them to a remote situation and that's where his getaway
00:32:46
was or it was let me take him to this remote situation and then whatever happens happens. But then when I'm
00:32:56
leaving, I think this individual knew that area so well that they didn't have to leave back on that path.
00:33:03
So then I question, are these are these eyewitness accounts even of the murderer?
00:33:13
Well, we don't know. What we do know is that they tell us that the what we're seeing in the video, the the man in the
00:33:20
video, bridge man, is is the killer. And then we're getting these two sketches of
00:33:26
people that were seen in the area on the paths. And the the sketches to me are fascinating in the sense of thinking
00:33:36
about it this way as well. So let's assume in this situation, right, you would assume that you would
00:33:46
have one person that you wouldn't know who they are. That's the killer. the killer is not going to come forward and
00:33:53
say that was me on the path there that day. We find that highly unlikely. Okay, not that it would never happen, but we
00:34:00
know it probably has not happened to this point. But it let's say both of these people and multiple people that offered
00:34:11
up this this person that they claim to have seen that day. If we're to believe all of them, then we
00:34:20
have two persons, at least two people that don't look anything like each other. So, I'm
00:34:25
going to go ahead and say two people, right, that are unknown to us at this time when we should only have
00:34:31
one. And so, then you and I were talking about this and you brought up a good point and I countered it with a with a
00:34:38
another good point. You said, "Well, then it also make now that makes me wonder how many other people you have
00:34:45
that you're that are unknown to you." Yeah. It's not like you walk into the park and you check
00:34:50
in, you know, or there there's some like camera that you have to go buy and then
00:34:56
we can go, well, we know that there was 100 people there that day and and 98 of them are accounted for or 99 of them are
00:35:02
accounted for. One thing I question in this though, is there a chance that we that there's a person that's been made
00:35:09
up that there dive into that further? So what I mean by that is where where we're
00:35:16
sitting here going okay if both of these sketches are correct then we have two people that have not come forward two
00:35:21
people that are unknown to us right and then you brought up the good point that well if you got two then maybe you have
00:35:30
more and I I agree with that possibility as well. I also think about the idea of
00:35:35
maybe we don't have two people that were there. What if one of these people is just a bad description of of a person
00:35:43
that's already come forward, right? What What if for whatever reason somebody look, they had the best of intentions,
00:35:50
they're trying to help. They're misremembering and they're describing somebody that they didn't really see.
00:35:56
They saw somebody else instead or it's a mashup of multiple people that they saw
00:36:00
that day. Right. And we we also don't know when we're getting these reports. And so we do know at one point, you
00:36:07
know, the we know, okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but we do know that that the father was there looking for the girls.
00:36:18
Yeah, Dererick was there. We know he was there because he he was in charge of picking them up that day. And I I could
00:36:24
see, you know, somebody giving a bad description and saying that bridge guy kind of looks like him. Kind of see
00:36:31
that. I I think uh the grandfather looks more like bridge guy number one. The drawing again is are there are these
00:36:40
people searching? Are they asking for eyewitnesses? Did somebody come forward a week later and say, "Yeah, I saw this
00:36:47
guy." And give you a a bad description and all they saw was um you know Derek looking for the girls. From my
00:36:56
understanding, both of those sketches, and I'm just going off of words that, and mind you, they're choosing their
00:37:01
words very carefully, but from press conferences and from interviews that police and investigators
00:37:09
and state police have done with with the public and the media, those two sketches, from
00:37:16
everything I've seen, were developed within 48 hours of the girls going missing.
00:37:22
Right. And and both were both They came up with both sketches because they were eyewitness statements and and accounts.
00:37:29
And look, you have was that there's like a meat packing place pretty close by. A
00:37:35
lot of sex offenders there. There's a lot of sex offenders in the area. It It's very possible that somebody was
00:37:42
just taking a hike, not doing anything bad, uh, but has a record or has a kind of a dark history that is just not going
00:37:50
to come forward. I just don't see And again, we don't know because it's not that that information hasn't been
00:37:59
put out there. They're not saying that this eyewitness saw the person coming back through an entrance or exit. So, we
00:38:07
don't know where they actually saw this individual, right? Well, I mean, probably know, right? The
00:38:14
police know. I can't say for certain, but the the things that I'm seeing, reading,
00:38:20
hearing is okay. So, we talked a little bit about the flannel shirt man. The flannel shirt man is believed to be one
00:38:27
of the witnesses to seeing one of these individuals in the sketch, and I believe I think the
00:38:34
general thought is that Flannel Shirt Man saw what he described to be the first sketch that came out. Okay. So the
00:38:42
slight the the older looking of the two in my opinion. And the thing is, the way that this has
00:38:49
been described is that this man, based off of his timeline, would have seen the bridge guy
00:38:58
on the trail on the 501 trail walking away from the Monen High Bridge and he's believed, it's believed
00:39:09
that bridge guy was leaving at that time, leaving the area in the process of doing such. So, we know from Derek's
00:39:18
statements as well, Derek saw the flannel shirtman when he arrived around 3:15 to pick up his daughter.
00:39:28
So that that would put Flannel shirtman and Derek at the intersecting trails at 505 and 501 around 3:14 3:15 p.m. Now
00:39:41
flannel shirt guy is going to say that he saw bridge guy around this same time. Mhm. But he also saw Derek. So we we
00:39:50
have a general marker and place marker for where bridge guy may have been around three. Let's back it up and say
00:39:57
310 to maybe 320. And the the thing that I would love to see the most in this guy's statement
00:40:05
and flannel shirt guys statement is is it police saying that bridge guy was leaving at that time just basing
00:40:14
everything off of the known facts of the case and and their timeline? Or was that that dude's
00:40:21
statement? He was leaving. Why would he know if the guy's coming or going or anything different? Mhm. That seems a
00:40:28
little strange to me. I would love to know if that's if that's flannel shirt guys or if that's the investigator's
00:40:34
words because that would be about the time he should be leaving. Right. We know they were alive and well at
00:40:42
207 and then we have statements from the family saying that around 3:30 or so the phone was going straight to
00:40:50
voicemail. It wasn't even ringing anymore. The thing is we have a very a very small
00:40:56
window. Things happened very fast that day once they started going wrong. Right? We're talking th this attack and
00:41:05
murder and everything happened between 207 and 3:30. And you can even whittle that down faster if you believe some of
00:41:15
the other known statements. Right? So let's go through this real quick. 207 that picture's taken. There's no bridge
00:41:22
guy on the bridge at that time. They say that it would take 7 minutes for somebody to walk that bridge. Now,
00:41:30
that's if you're walking, you're very mindful of your steps. You're you're you're watching your steps as you go
00:41:36
along. You're being very safe, cautious. I actually think Bridge Guy moved a lot faster than that. Wasn't so
00:41:44
cautious. I think that's what probably alerted the girls that this dude is weird. that he's something is up, right?
00:41:53
Or scary, right? I think they look back on the bridge and all of a sudden this guy's on the bridge and he's moving and
00:41:59
he's moving at a good pace. He's not running. You can't run on that bridge, but he's moving at a good pace. And not
00:42:05
only is he moving at a good pace, he's he's watching his steps and he's turning and he's checking behind him every now
00:42:11
and then to make sure nobody is behind him, nobody's behind him. They're and they're thinking,
00:42:18
"Yeah, what should this guy care if nobody's behind him? And why is he moving so fast?" Well, again, so he
00:42:24
doesn't want to be seen. So then I then I question because did he try to make the girls
00:42:31
cross the water or or did they actually make a run for it? You know, uh I heard somebody say that they think that it was
00:42:40
his idea for them to cross, but that's probably where he lost control of them and that's why they, you know, he took
00:42:47
their lives on the other side. But, you know, we don't know the details of how he took their lives other
00:42:57
than they we believe there was a weapon involved. So, we know that, but then we also know
00:43:04
that there's a a very good possibility, right? What almost at least 100% chance that he was wet on some level. And so,
00:43:14
again, he would he would have to be at some point that day. He he he was in the water, right? And that's again what
00:43:21
makes me believe that he didn't backtrack. Okay, now this is done. Let me get back on that main trail.
00:43:29
Uh, I know I don't know those trails that unless he had to. You know what I mean? I I get what you're saying. I I'm
00:43:35
fully with you because of the bridge, right? So, it when I look at this thing, if you were going to try to plan this
00:43:41
out and make it go down without any problems at all. Here's how it goes down. You You see them a little bit
00:43:49
after 207. And And this is the thing. You would actually go down trail 505. the less traveled trail. The 501
00:44:01
leads to the Monen High Bridge. Okay. But on the 505, when you walk down there and you get creek side, I'm wondering if
00:44:11
there's a spot down there because what happens is picture a V, right? That the trails start off together and they don't
00:44:19
when I say intersecting, it's not an X. It's more of a of a thin V where one goes off to to one side a little bit,
00:44:29
but you're basically walking these trails and and and a friend of yours could walk on the other and and and
00:44:35
really you just have a small tree line separating you for a while and then it extends it extends. It extends and you
00:44:41
get a little further and further from one another. But what I'm getting at is somebody could sit there, could post up
00:44:48
on the 505 down there near the creek and you could spot people coming. I'm guessing
00:44:56
cuz I've never been there, but I would think that you might be able to see people approaching the bridge from your
00:45:03
viewpoint. And if you see what you think to be your possible victims there, it's
00:45:10
just two people. There's nobody else with them. and there's nobody else around or on the bridge at that time.
00:45:16
That's when you you don't have to go back out to that main trail. You could cut across and really you're going to
00:45:21
end up right at the front of the bridge. And so at 207 they're fine. Let this guy didn't take 7 minutes
00:45:30
to move across that bridge. He moved across that bridge in in five or four. He he was faster. He was
00:45:37
moving faster than if somebody was watching their steps. Mhm. He scooted across that bridge. That puts us at 12
00:45:47
after two. And then he is, if we're to believe that the eyewitness statement is correct and it is in fact bridge guy,
00:45:56
then that puts him back at that intersection of the trail an hour 1 hour later. So, a lot of things have happened
00:46:04
during that time. And I'm with you though, Captain. If you were to plan this thing out perfectly, once you see
00:46:09
them get to the other side of the bridge, they're completely compromised now. You go, "Well, all most likely
00:46:16
anybody that could help them or anybody could that could view what I'm doing, they're on the back. They're on this
00:46:22
other side of the bridge, right? The girls are on the opposite side of the bridge. That's where I'm going to get
00:46:28
them. That's where I'm going to take control." If you I mean you just watch the words and you you map out a quick
00:46:34
little location of where they were found, you can see down the hill across this little uh driveway that that
00:46:41
actually looks like a road and then it's down the hill more across the creek and
00:46:46
then they're found right there. Both of their bodies are found right there. If you were to plan this out perfectly, you
00:46:54
probably would have parked your vehicle in the graveyard where there are little roads that go back by the trees. You
00:47:01
could have put your vehicle over there and after killing them, you could have walked through the woods up to the
00:47:07
graveyard, never going on a trail again. Mhm. The only trail you have anywhere near you on that opposite side of Deer
00:47:15
Creek are the horse trails for Ron Logan's farm. But those aren't those are horse trails. They're not traveled by
00:47:23
the the people that are visiting the bridge or the park. So that would be if you wanted to to not be seen after the
00:47:31
attack, that would be your where you would really want to park your car. Now the issue could be though he he didn't
00:47:39
know that. He didn't know exactly where he was going to do this attack or exactly how it was going to go down and
00:47:47
maybe his vehicle was left elsewhere beforehand. Mhm. And one thought is the the vehicle that was parked at the
00:47:55
abandoned building, which that would have required him to go back up that trail in the
00:48:01
opposite way. You would probably try to walk off the trail as much as possible, but at some point you might have to pop
00:48:07
back onto that that trail. Well, it's getting hard to kind of visualize some of this stuff because like the entrance
00:48:15
where the girls were dropped off at, I believe they have like a new gate there. So, that looks different than the day of
00:48:23
of the murders. And then where the abandoned car was, there's no aband or well where the car was by the abandoned
00:48:33
building, there's no abandoned building anymore. So, um, but it kind of looks like a
00:48:39
little service road in between like a highway where that car would be parked and then it would be facing depending on
00:48:46
where you're parking, you'd be looking right at the Freedom Bridge. Yeah. So, you have Yeah. You have the What was
00:48:53
that? Highway 25 is right there on your on to your left. Here's an interesting thing to
00:49:02
think of though, too. Okay, so if that was his car at parked at the abandoned building, he would have had to walk back
00:49:12
up the 50 the 501 trail, the the most heavily traveled trail and make his way up that way most
00:49:21
likely. I'm sure there's probably ways to do that, but keep in mind you have the Mir's farm. A lot of this property
00:49:28
right here are the is belongs to the Mir family or Mir's family. And remember you
00:49:33
you mentioned that Mike Patty looks something like the bridge guy in your opinion. He he might not have been able
00:49:41
to been mistaken for bridge guy because given the timeline we have, he would not
00:49:47
have been at the park or near the bridge at the time that the witness saw bridge
00:49:53
guy. But their statement in the press conference from 4:22 of this year, their exact words, police were, "We are
00:50:03
seeking the public's help to identify the driver of a vehicle that was parked at the old
00:50:11
CPS/DCS welfare building in the city of Deli that was abandoned on the east side
00:50:17
of County Road 300 North next to the Hooser Hartland Highway. That's also Highway 25. between the hours of noon to
00:50:25
5 on February 14th, 2017. And then it says in this presser, uh, note it has been updated. That date was misspoken.
00:50:35
It should have been February 13th, which was the day the girls went missing. So,
00:50:39
this CPS DCS welfare building was a um like a like a child support building at one time, right? And
00:50:50
so it was like a government city building, but it was abandoned at the time on February 13th, 2017. They're
00:51:00
asking for the driver of a vehicle. And it makes you wonder, are they just going, "Okay, we we saw this
00:51:09
vehicle, nobody in it, or saying, hey, uh, we want to identify the driver of this vehicle." Are they saying that
00:51:17
there's a there was a driver in it at that time? Um I I don't know. It's not clear
00:51:25
enough. No. Right. And so that changes the whole dynamic. Right. We're looking for this driver that was in the car.
00:51:33
That changes the whole dynamic. Right. If you were parked there or know who because they're saying the driver if you
00:51:40
were parked there or you know who was parked there. It's like were you in the car? Well, yeah. car didn't kill the
00:51:46
girls. They're they're looking for an individual. Well, no, but what I'm saying is that, you know, they're not
00:51:51
saying we're we're looking for the owner of the car. No, they're saying the driver of the
00:51:57
car, right? Somebody put that car there, somebody moved that car later, right? That's who they're looking for. Saying
00:52:04
if going on to say if you parked there or know who was parked there, please contact the officers at the command post
00:52:11
at the Deli City Building. But again, that doesn't mean that that that is your killer. But that's a very
00:52:20
quick way to go when you start going, "Okay, well, where did he park?" Because that's that's a really big question that
00:52:25
nobody usually gets to when they start talking about Deli, in my opinion, is this guy left some way. He left the area
00:52:34
somehow. He fled the area after the attack. We don't know what time he got there. We can assume I would assume he
00:52:43
probably arrived before the girls did. He may have arrived long enough before where he was he's waiting this thing out
00:52:50
and looking for a victim. I don't I don't feel like it's highly likely that he just arrives and immediately spots a
00:52:59
victim. That doesn't seem likely to me. There were other people there that day. He didn't choose some of them in my
00:53:08
opinion. Right. Right. Well, and I I think that's why if this is premeditated like in the
00:53:15
sense that they this killer knew going in going to this park, going to these trails that he's going to do this, you
00:53:23
know, the the service road by the bridge, you know, down the hill like like we said, whether it's a driveway or
00:53:29
service bridge or a service road or or Well, it's it's a road that becomes a a driveway to a residence, right? And then
00:53:37
but then there's also once you cross the water a little bit further down I believe there's some access there
00:53:45
further down. I believe that the if the person knew this killer goes there knowing they're going to try to do this
00:53:54
that their truck or car is going to be parked somewhere there. Not so much at an entrance or at
00:54:01
a where people could see this individual. That's my gut feeling. Oh, yeah. No, I agree 100% with you. That's
00:54:09
why I said he would have been parked in the the graveyard would be the right would be the most likely spot. I mean,
00:54:15
and the the problem with parking so so where you would put your vehicle if you wanted to park closest.
00:54:24
All right. It would be the whole thing the whole thing's a crime scene, right? The whole place is a crime scene. from
00:54:29
the minute he stepped on the ground to the moment he left. Yeah. Every everything that his feet touched is a
00:54:35
crime scene. However, if you were to plan this out in great detail and everything go your
00:54:41
way, then ideally you would park you would want your vehicle, I believe, to be as close to the ending point of your
00:54:50
crime scene, right, than the beginning point of your crime scene because you're going to, if this is a messy
00:54:58
murder, there's any number of ways that you can look different at the end of this crime than you would walking step
00:55:06
stepping foot onto the crime scene for the first time. Yeah, you know, we already talked about his jeans likely
00:55:11
were wet. He he went through the water at some point that day. We There's no question about that. Unless he unless
00:55:18
this [ __ ] can hover, he went through the water that day. Okay, that would make a good shirt. And then on top of
00:55:25
that, he very likely could have had blood on his person or on his belongings somewhere.
00:55:32
And either of those are giant red flags. Keep them. They were looking for missing
00:55:35
girls that day. They weren't looking for murdered girls that day. They were looking for missing girls that day. They
00:55:40
weren't looking for a murder suspect that day. He got away. He fled pretty undetected. Whether he was seen by the
00:55:50
flannel shirt guy or not, he fled pretty undetected. So if if you were to map this thing out and carry it out the
00:55:56
exact way that you would want to, ideally you want to put your vehicle as close to the ending point of the crime
00:56:05
in the crimes in the crime scene as possible. Well, right. And instead of just having it on a residential drive or
00:56:13
or some other road that that would stick out like a sore thumb. But if you park at the at the graveyard,
00:56:21
right? Yeah. If you park at the Here's the problem with that very spot. You could park at the graveyard and be okay.
00:56:28
I would think the other the areas that are as close to you as the graveyard, mind you, we're going from right where
00:56:35
the bodies were found. The other areas that you could park that would be close to you at that point, that's private
00:56:42
property. That that belongs belongs to Ron Logan. That belongs to the Mirs family.
00:56:48
That seems quite a bit more risky to me than parking at the graveyard. Yeah, unless unless you
00:56:56
know, you know, Logan's whereabouts or you know the family. But still, again, if you're going there with
00:57:06
the idea that you're going to commit a crime, if you know these individuals, you don't want them to be able to say,
00:57:12
"Oh, yeah. I saw I saw this guy's vehicle on on my property that day." I think the graveyard makes the most
00:57:18
sense, too, because it's like there had to be some other visitors, right? So, it's not so suspicious if you have a
00:57:26
car that's, you know, there's I can't see anybody here. Oh, they might have parked and walked down to a grave and
00:57:33
and and spending a little time at the grave. I mean, the graveyard was it was it a working graveyard?
00:57:42
Um, it seems to be, right? I I I I I know what you mean. I and I sorry for laughing there, but I I do think that
00:57:49
yes, you that it's still spots are available is what I think you mean by that. And if you look
00:57:57
at it on Google Map, there is a picture a rectangle. Okay. And right off of the road, I thought you going somewhere else
00:58:05
with that. The road west 300 north. Mhm. So, if you look off of 300 North, you have the graveyard right there on
00:58:14
one side of the road. Now, the graveyard is lined out like a big rectangle, which
00:58:19
it has a a a drive. You can drive in, go all the way to the back of the property,
00:58:24
and I believe at the tree line, you can actually go across the tree line, and then then head back out the other way.
00:58:32
So, you have two running roads or drives from 300 North that basically encompass
00:58:40
this graveyard. There's places to drive. And what I'm getting at here, too, is you could you could drive a fair
00:58:47
distance away from the road and put your vehicle back by by the tree line. And there's also a little center crossing uh
00:58:56
section as well that you can drive on. Now, I don't know how the width of those if they're, you know, two lanes both
00:59:03
ways or if it's just a single lane. Usually with the in a graveyard type setting, usually it's just a single lane
00:59:09
to make it easier for people to access different parts of the graveyard to to visit uh people. But here's another
00:59:18
really interesting thought, Captain. We have an eyewitness, several eyewitnesses
00:59:26
actually, saying that they saw an individual who's not come forward. We don't know who either of them are. It
00:59:32
could just be one person, could be two. Um, I don't want to mix words here. I don't think that there's two killers. I
00:59:39
think there's one killer. Well, I think the cops would know that based off the the audio and video footage. Yeah. And
00:59:45
but here's the thing. With there being no vehicle description, police love a vehicle
00:59:52
description. They would rather have a vehicle description than a person description. They love it. It's easier
00:59:59
to find the car. It's easier to find the car. It's harder to harder to hide the car. We don't have one here. So, I
01:00:08
wonder a little bit. Did this guy arrive on foot and leave on foot? Now, it seems
01:00:13
a little confusing maybe to people that are not from the area, but if you do a type up some some maps, you know, bring
01:00:23
up any map and look at the maps and you you bring up some directions and you play around with it. One thing I found,
01:00:30
you could walk, you actually the distance is shorter walking than it is driving because the way that the roads
01:00:36
are laid out in this particular area. So you could walk from the middle of the Monen High
01:00:44
Bridge and you could be at East Main Street Deli and it's a 1.2 mile walk. You would
01:00:55
have to go over the Freedom Bridge for the shortest route, but that would be the direction that it's believed that
01:01:01
bridge guy, if in fact he was the killer. Mhm. But the the flannel shirt man says that he saw bridge guy on the
01:01:10
501 trail heading toward the Freedom Bridge at about 310 to 320. Somebody could walk. That's crazy.
01:01:20
Somebody could walk from the middle of the Mon High Bridge to East Main Street, Deli be in
01:01:27
Deli at 1.2 miles, right? So about 15 to 17 minutes. Yeah. 15 to 20 minutes. Well, let me tell you a little
01:01:38
story to open up some possibilities. I I I'll make it quick. So, I I was interned
01:01:44
for a long time as a recording engineer at this point. Like I I I didn't do a lot of sessions. I didn't I I had
01:01:52
knowledge of this stuff, but I I I have never done it myself other than like maybe bringing in some of my buddies to
01:01:59
record. So they said, uh, my boss says to me, "Hey, there's a night session. Do you want to do it?" And of course, I was
01:02:09
nervous. I said, "Nah, I don't really want to do it." He goes, "Well, no. I'm going to set it up. It's easy. Two
01:02:15
microphones on this piano. All you have to do is hit record and stop." The guy, he's he's from
01:02:23
Athens, Ohio. What's that? About an hour and a half away. Yeah, roughly a drive. Mhm.
01:02:31
He's from Athens. He's a great kind of jazzy bluesy piano player. We had this great piano, but it wasn't tuned and we
01:02:41
had some rattles in the low end, but the guy didn't really care. It was just demo. And so, my boss was giving him a
01:02:48
discount because the piano wasn't working perfectly. So, we go and record three or
01:02:56
four tunes. And after after two or three songs, this guy's just playing live. He'd come back in and listen. This guy's
01:03:03
very scruffy. He has um a book bag with him and a guitar case, you know, that you would wear as book bag. So I go out
01:03:11
to make some coffee and then I go out to my car and I realize he has no car there. And I'm thinking, well, this is
01:03:20
strange. So we we're almost done with the session and I see he has this guitar case. So, I unzipped the guitar case cuz
01:03:28
I just want to see what guitar he has in the back, right? Um I shouldn't have done that, but I did. Anyways, there was
01:03:36
um I see um a gun. Mhm. And at this point, I'm freaked out in my mind. So, in the session, uh I I I I'm
01:03:49
back in the day, I had have to make a CD for him. Here you go. Take this with you. And I said, "Uh, is somebody coming
01:03:56
to get you?" Uh, and he said, "Yeah." So, he get uh he leaves, pays, I clean up the studio, go to leave.
01:04:05
Probably 5 minutes after him, I start driving. I don't see him anywhere around. You you know, remember the
01:04:12
studio is really far back. Mhm. Five minutes later, I'm I am driving pro on 33 and I see him
01:04:22
walking. This guy walked all the way from Athens, set up a recording session, walked all the way from
01:04:32
Athens, played his songs, took paid me, took the CD, and started walking back. Mhm. Now, I don't know if he was meeting
01:04:42
somebody somewhere, but he was walking on the freeway. My point of this long story is cuz one, I I was thinking about
01:04:51
that gun and how much how freaked out I was. But the point of this story is this
01:04:57
individual could have walked from really far away. And and I I hate to be the guy
01:05:06
that to say there's so many possibilities, but this guy booked a session, walked an hour and a half,
01:05:15
played five or six songs, and then took off walking back. It's not out of the realm of possibilities. Well, and not
01:05:22
only that, in this situation, I'm I'm bringing this up for a couple different reasons. One, East Main Street,
01:05:30
Deli, one mile 1.2 two miles from the bridge. 15 20 minutes. Yeah. So, this guy I mean there's there's plenty of
01:05:40
houses over there. This guy could have lived in a neighborhood near there and just walked home. He could have parked
01:05:46
anywhere really within 1.2 miles of the bridge. He could have parked in any of these neighborhoods that are a mile and
01:05:54
a half from the bridge. Yeah. And so he doesn't necessarily have to be parked at
01:05:59
the abandoned building or parked in the graveyard or parked on Ron Logan's property. He very likely could have been
01:06:06
parked in an area that nobody would found to have been suspicious at all because it's a a heavy heavily traveled
01:06:12
area. It's it's an area where there's a lot of cars parked on the side of the road or he parks in a in a busy parking
01:06:18
lot somewhere. But you have to be careful of those areas because if it's a busy parking lot, then you have the
01:06:24
possibility of being seen if you're covered in blood, mud, or water. So, right. You know, so I I get what you're
01:06:33
saying and and and that's what's so frustrating about this case, though, is as every time I'm I'm looking into it, I
01:06:41
start feeling like I'm getting somewhere and then the doors of the possibility just are blown open. And and I
01:06:50
wonder I I wonder if it's going to be another situation where if we don't hear anything in in 6 months to a year if
01:06:58
they're going to have to keep putting out information that they know cuz they have to be getting a lot of leads. I
01:07:05
mean this case is highly covered on YouTube. I mean there's seems like there's a million armchair detectives
01:07:13
working on this case like solely working on this case. not like, hey, we covered
01:07:17
this case and and we moved on to another case the following week. Like people that are
01:07:22
just like that's all they're doing. Well, and that's why I think it's important to examine the possibilities
01:07:27
and the reasons why this has not been solved. [Applause]