First, a pitch for support for this website and our sleuthing group:
People are donating lots of money to Delphi podcasters Mike Greeno and Gray Hughes, which is their right. Gray makes over $100,000/year from his podcasts, which is fine by me. I don’t agree that any of these people are grifters as everyone says. A grifter is literally a criminal fraudster and he is breaking the law.
The people paying Hughes and Greeno clearly feel that they are getting their money’s worth. But what shocks me is how little these men give their audiences in return for their purchases. Gray’s videos run to 3-4 hours and may contain five minutes of useful material if you are lucky during that time. Greeno’s videos are almost completely worthless, and group members who have spoken to him told me he has nothing new to add to the case.
Which brings me to the question, why not donate to our enterprise here? It’s a much better purchase for your money than throwing money at Hughes and Greeno, for which you get almost nothing in return. And you won’t by enriching someone who is already wealthy like Hughes. I live on a fixed income which is barely above the poverty level. Our group is clearly the best Delphi sleuthing group on the Internet by far.
Unlike any other sleuthers, we have actually determined the main suspect in the case, and we have a pretty good idea of what happened during the crime and what the crime scene looked like.
And most of what we have reported is based on solid sources such as search party members, official case documents, and LE sources close to the investigation. No one else has come close to uncovering the amount and quality of information we have, and almost the entire community rejects our findings even though they are correct.
So why waste your money on Hughes and Greeno? Why not donate to the best Delphi sleuthing team of all by donating to me, leader of a group of 230+ sleuthers who have been working on the case for four years now? How about getting your money’s worth?
As you can see in the subhead of my title, I am challenging my critics about their certainty that there was no stuffed animal left at the crime scene.
You All Sure There Was No Stuffed Animal Left at the Crime Scene?
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am looking at that damned bear or dog or whatever it is and I am thinking, “That’s a stuffed animal.” If any of you all think that’s not a stuffed animal and it’s really something else, speak up now or forever hold your tongue. How could that not be a stuffed animal? Any theories?
And that’s not even the start of the weirdness. Stuffed animals at a double murder scene are weird enough, granted. But get this. That stuffed animal is sitting right next to the body of poor Abby. And my calculations by measuring the bear and comparing it to the height of Abby (5’4?) is that that damned stuffed animal is as tall as Abby. In other words, that stuffed animal toy is over five feet tall! Ok, that’s so crazy that it’s almost impossible to believe it’s true. But there it is, sitting right there, staring us in our faces.
A Second Search Party Member Comes Forward
As usual, they do not want to be identified, but I can tell you that once again, we are dealing with a female member of the party, in this case younger than middle aged. We will refer to this new informant as SPM2 for Search Party Member 2. They had been keeping this a secret for all this time, but this secret was starting to bother her and eat away at her, so she released it to a member of my team, a woman.
The original female search party member (SPM1) also spoke independently with another member of my team, a woman. The team member said that SPM1 corroborated everything that she had told me, so she is at least consistent in her testimony.
In addition, SPM2 also reported the same dolls hanging from trees that SPM1 report. We now have two separate SPM’s both independently reporting that they saw dolls hanging from trees at the crime scene. At this point, this rumor seems like it’s proven at least to my satisfaction.
SPM2 also reported that “there were stuffed animals at the crime scene.” There was no mention of what type of stuffed animals they were or how big they were. Only that there were stuffed animals. Note that she pluralized the noun.
Stuffed animals not a stuffed animal.
In other words, it’s now proven that more than one stuffed animal was left at the scene. How many more than one? We have no idea.
Also the original SPM1 clarified via my friend that there was not just one stuffed animal but also that there were stuffed animals plural at the scene. These two SPM‘s arrived at these conclusions independently. In addition, I can see a stuffed animal in the crime scene photo. So we have three people who arrived at the conclusion independently that there was at least one stuffed animal left at the time. So that seems proven too. The two SPM‘s both reporting that there were stuffed animals plural instead of singular seems sufficient to prove that there was more than one stuffed animal at the scene.
As far as whether there was a giant 5 foot stuffed animal left at the crime scene, even though I can see that thing clear as air, that rumor is so insane that I am not going to believe unless I get some further testimony. I will agree with SPM1 who seemed to say that there was a stuffed animal toy at the scene that was so large that BG could not have been carrying it with him on the bridge. That seems proven at this point.
Search Party Members Told by LE Not to Talk about What They Had Seen
The inevitable questions arise. A very popular one is the observation that if the crime scene was this insane, it would have leaked out by now.
But now we have a response to that rejoinder. The two SPM’s discussed above have both told us that LE told them not to tell anyone what they had seen at the crime scene. I’m not sure how they phrased it of they told, ordered or threatened them to not reveal what they saw. Presumably they were told that they could wreck the case if they told people what they saw. Apparently that was enough to shut up most of the SPM‘s.