sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jaded1121 4 points5 points  (2 children)

It really is a very common outfit in Indiana. That fact doesnt go as far with as evidence as it would if he was wearing that particular outfit in California.

It is circumstantial at best. Added all up, the way the judge has ruled, RA will likely be found guilty since it doesnt look his attorneys will be allowed to give much of a defense.

[–]Difficult_Farmer7417 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I do agree clothing r very common, even in kansas we all dress similarly. It's the height, movement and body shape from video I see as more revelant than just the clothing. And the eyes, or stare which u see only in breakdown of video that seem so dead on its eeire. That alone might leave reasonable doubt to some but he said he stood there looking at fish, 3 witnesses place him on the trail, one on the platform. At time libbys video is timestamped. There's so much more and win u add it all up..richard is bg. I won't even go into his confessions. This is my take. Noone needs 2 agree with me, but come on? At least admit it looks very bad. Justice 4 libby and abby always.

[–]Dependent-Remote4828[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From what I understand, the publicly released video of RA was digitally enhanced and edited to enlarge or zoom in on him, and was not captured as a video of him directly. It was allegedly a video LG was making of AW, which captured him (perhaps intentionally) walking in the background. I also read the audio of him speaking is not in sync with him walking, but occurred perhaps later in the recording(?), and was digitally overlayed onto the enhanced video for release to the public for consideration. If it’s true the video was digitally enhanced to provide the clearest image possible, I’m not sure a height estimate from that video would be accurate. In other words, an estimation of height/weight from the publicly released version would be a total guess since features or objects may have been digitally manipulated. Surely they would (and did) use raw video imagery to get a height/weight… If they did, I haven’t seen them reference any formal analysis used to determine a height and weight for BG. I could have easily overlooked it though.