Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #103

[cluciano63]

Then this on GMA:
DC: "That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being
something between the two (sketches), is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe."
BBM
eta see post 161 for reference article.
eta "'s

This is such a mishmash (the bolded part)...did LE actually say that? Why not just say a white male under 50 at this rate...

 

[cluciano63]

Snipped:
For some reason, I don’t see BG getting a burner phone but hopefully he had a cell phone with him. MOO

Do you think it's fair to say where as cell phone tracking is one of the first things that LE uses to try and identify a suspect, and where as it's been two years now since this crime, that they have no phone evidence from the suspect?

My phone is a Tracfone...it only makes calls and sends texts. Does this mean I have a “burner” phone lol

 

[GordianKnot]

Reposted interview:

ISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation

Date of Interview: 05/16/19

Interviewer: The quiet period ends today in the Delphi murder investigation. It has been more than two years since the murders, and two weeks since the release of new clues in the case. State police said they would wait to say more until more tips came in, and give time for the families to absorb the new information.

Interviewer: Well, that time has passed now, and State Superintendent D. Car**r (DC) is here now. Good morning, Sir.

DC: Good morning, S****.

Interiewer: We've been reporting on Day Break that some 3,000 tips have come in since the release of the new information. Is any of it different? Is any of it useful?

DC: It's all useful, and it's all--the vast majority--is different. I'm thrilled with what's happened since then, and we still have a lot of work
to do, but we're not near done.

Interviewer: When we first got word--it was on Friday when we first got word that there was new information. Some of the things struck me as unusual; you invited the public to this, you weren't taking questions at that point, to wait those a little bit later. And in that briefing, it seemed like you were speaking directly to whoever did this, with the sense that this person might even be in the room. Do you think that person was in the room?

DC: I think if he wasn't in the room, he was close by, but I'm 100% convinced he was watching.

Interviewer: Why?

DC: Because of all that has happened over these last thirty months--the information that we had received, the information that we knew--and I hope to one day be able to tell that story.

Interviewer: You said something during the briefing that struck me--you feel like the investigators may have talked to him. You think that at some point, or since then, one of your guys has gotten in front of this person and asked him questions, and if so, how, at that point, did it not lead to an arrest, and how could it be moving forward?

DC: Well, I think it's likely. I think it's likely. There's a lot of opinions out there, there's a lot of subjective opinions, there's a lot of analysis
being done, which we're trying to encourage folks to not do, those kinds of side-by-side analysis. I really believe, that over time, we're gonna have an idea that we were onto something early on. Now remember, this isn't a 43-minute TV show, we have to, we have to, we have to understand that's not just science, but it's also human intelligence, what people know.

DC: Somebody knows whose body that is. Somebody knows. You take the head off that person, and you'll know, you'll recognize the body, whether it be your dad, your brother, your uncle, your friend, your neighbor, your coworker. That's the piece we're waiting on. I believe that we'll get there. There is an extraordinary group of people up there that's doing this work, and I believe they're gonna come to a successful resolution.

Interviewer: You mentioned the body. In the release of video, and this is only two or three frames of video, but it shows the movement of the person. It's been asked, and I'm sure it's been asked of you as well, why not release that sooner? You knew right away you had a picture, but a picture's different than video. Why wait that long?

DC: Yeah, a picture is different than video, and a sketch is different than a photograph. So you are right, you are absolutely correct, we'll be
able one day to tell you what we know, and why we didn't release it. We don't want to show our hand. We don't want to show the complete picture of what we know, versus what we think. We have to be very, very careful there. Remember, it's easy to give an opinion if you don't understand the factual basis for what we've done and why. I don't mean that in a critical sense. But, we have to protect the integrity of what we know. And, geez, we're gonna stay at it.

Interviewer: The sketch, and to be clear, and you did clarify this after, in case folks didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both
sketches anymore. You only want them to look at the newly-release sketch, correct?

DC: That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being
something between the two (sketches), is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe.

Interviewer: And, certainly, you've shown frustration at the killer, at the fact that it takes a long time sometimes to find this(?)
The families have gotta feel frustration as well. And, one question that occurs to me, if they are fielding rumor, that you've said you
don't like, that you could head some of that off by sharing some of the grim things that the families shouldn't have to share. Why is it
that we don't know how these girls died? Why is it that we don't know if they were sex****ly assa**ted?

DC: Because only the killer knows that. And so do we. That's why. And you're right--the frustration of the families is something I
can't even begin to fathom or understand. And, we've tried very, very hard to stay connected with them, throughout this thing, this process.
But remember, a lot of people are starved for information, particularly sensationalized events like this. We can't show our hand. We
just can't.

Interviewer: Will there be a point when things change? Because it's been two years; you've changed strategies now, you have to be
looking down the horizon, if you don't get the resolution you want, you may think it may be because people want to sensationalize things.
I've heard from people close to those families who say we're tired of answering FB posts about did this happen, did that happen.

DC: I can't begin to understand their frustration. But, we can stay connected with them. And, I can't say sensationalism in a negative sense at all. Because I'm thrilled about what you've done, what you've allowed us to do today. Because this is why we'll be successful. This is why we'll be successful. But, we can't turn this into a wide-open schematic of what we know and why. We just can't. But, I believe that one day, we'll be able to.

Interviewer: You've been involved in investigations that have lead to convictions, you've been involved in some frustrating cold cases. Do you think someone will go to trial for this case someday?

DC: Yes.

(General interview wrap-up)

SABBMFF:

Interviewer: The sketch, and to be clear, and you did clarify this after, in case folks didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both sketches anymore. You only want them to look at the newly-released sketch, correct?

DC: That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being something between the two, is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe.

Okay.

LE does not want the public to look at both sketches any more.
Focus on Sketch #2.

Got it.

But DC thinks there's a pretty strong likelihood that BG's appearance is something "between the two."

Got it.

Wait.
Hold up.

Between the 2 whats, exactly?

Is he talking about the 2 Sketches?

Because, if so, why would LE tell the public to disregard Sketch #1 and to focus solely on Sketch #2, if there's a strong likelihood that BG's actual appearance is some kind of amalgamation of 1 and 2 combined?

I really wish the interviewer had clarified what DC meant by "this being something between the two."


JMO.

 

[Miya]

Snipped:
For some reason, I don’t see BG getting a burner phone but hopefully he had a cell phone with him. MOO

Do you think it's fair to say where as cell phone tracking is one of the first things that LE uses to try and identify a suspect, and where as it's been two years now since this crime, that they have no phone evidence from the suspect?

They could have phone evidence but just phone evidence is not enough. But it would mean they probably know who he is but need more evidence. MOO.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

Are you sure he is not talking about the likelyhood between the sketch and the still picture of the killer in the video? Did he actually say between the two sketches? I thought he was also talking about the (real) picture and the sketch when he made that comment. Imo

I agree with this 100% and made a similar comment a few days ago.

I believe that the person transcribing (thank you very much for all of your efforts, @crhedBngr ) inserted the word 'sketches' in brackets as part of his/her interpretation.

Snipped and bolded by me. My quoting is acting up....

"Interviewer: The sketch, and to be clear, and you did clarify this after, in case folks didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both
sketches anymore. You only want them to look at the newly-release sketch, correct?

DC: That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being
something between the two (sketches), is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe."

JMO

 

[BlueShoe]

This is such a mishmash (the bolded part)...did LE actually say that? Why not just say a white male under 50 at this rate...

I agree that the bolded part sounds odd. If exact words, why is "(sketches)" in parentheses. This was not a written statement was it? If he actually said it, "sketches" would not be in parentheses. MOO

 

[bradfordsleuth]

I agree that the bolded part sounds odd. If exact words, why is "(sketches)" in parentheses. This was not a written statement was it? If he actually said it, "sketches" would not be in parentheses. MOO

I don't think he said the word sketches. JMO

 

[cluciano63]

They could have phone evidence but just phone evidence is not enough. But it would mean they probably know who he is but need more evidence. MOO.

I doubt they could have obtained a warrant for phone if they did not evidence against a specific person.

I am at a loss as to how anyone can think they know who the killer is, based on what has been said by LE. They sound more confused than I am. And my confidence level that the newly shown sketch is a better representation is zero. Jmo

 

[mtnlites]

My phone is a Tracfone...it only makes calls and sends texts. Does this mean I have a “burner” phone lol

Same here. I technically have a burner phone. I have a Go Phone and only put money on it when I travel. The rest of the time I live without a phone.

Burner phones are simply pay as you go. They are contractless. They're not secret government entities that can only be purchased on the Silk Road. Not sure why it's unbelievable that BG would have one. The majority of people who have them are not killers. You buy them because you don't want to be tied to a contract month after month, because you don't want an expensive cell phone bills, because you don't want someone to run a credit check on you (each time someone outside of yourself does it, your score drops)...You can pick them up at any Walmart, Dollar General, or Rite Aid (along with a plethora of other stores).

 

[SilentRogue]

Besides, just because a cellphone was in Delphi doesn’t prove the account holder was.

This speaks to the larger issue of probable cause - which is necessary to foe the cops to get a warrant for any PII, including account information.

The police couldn't get John Snow's name and information simply because he pinged off a cellphone tower along a highway between 12-5 PM on 13 February, 2017.

Unless they had reason to believe (and could provide some evidence) John Snow could be their murderer.

If they could, then why not get a warrant for every Male in Delphi, Indiana's DNA.

 

[Jax49]

I don't think he said the word sketches. JMO

VISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation

Correct. But I understood him to be referring to the sketches. Others don't. Listen about the 3:30 mark.

 

[mtnlites]

I'm really confused now. I'm seeing all these quotes about how Carter said the truth is somewhere between the two sketches, but that's not the way I understood it at all. I understood it as being somewhere between the NewBG sketch and the picture/video Libby took of BG on the bridge.

 

[Jax49]

I'm really confused now. I'm seeing all these quotes about how Carter said the truth is somewhere between the two sketches, but that's not the way I understood it at all. I understood it as being somewhere between the NewBG sketch and the picture/video Libby took of BG on the bridge.

We seem to be split about half and half on how we understand it. I linked it again, so everyone can decide for themselves.

ETA: As noted earlier, I believe he was referring to the two sketches.

 

[MsBetsy]

I agree that the bolded part sounds odd. If exact words, why is "(sketches)" in parentheses. This was not a written statement was it? If he actually said it, "sketches" would not be in parentheses. MOO

Yes, at least that's the way I have always read quotes. The word in parenthesis is not part of the direct quote, but implies what is assumed. It may have been assumed by whoever wrote the article. Imo

 

[MsBetsy]

I'm really confused now. I'm seeing all these quotes about how Carter said the truth is somewhere between the two sketches, but that's not the way I understood it at all. I understood it as being somewhere between the NewBG sketch and the picture/video Libby took of BG on the bridge.

Yes, I think that is what he meant, too. Imo

 

[bradfordsleuth]

It's very interesting how we all interpret what we hear and read in so many different ways.

The following is just my interpretation and JMO.

It is my understanding, that the original sketch was compiled from several different witnesses who saw that person on or near the trail on February 13th, and was finalized back in July 2017 when a final witness came forward to contribute to the sketch.

The second sketch was done a few days after the murders and I believe that there was only one contributor to that sketch.

This is the sketch that LE wants us to focus on. Sketch #2.
Disregard sketch #1.

I do not believe that LE wants us to try to figure out who this is by trying to combine the two sketches together with a subjective result to come up with the right person.

JMO

 

[mtnlites]

VISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation

Correct. But I understood him to be referring to the sketches. Others don't. Listen about the 3:30 mark.

I just re-listened. The interviewer said, "The sketch, and to be clear you did clarify this after for folks who didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both sketches anymore? You only want the newly released sketch, correct?"

To which Carter replies, "Correct. But remember, a sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being something that, uh, between the two is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion based upon what I believe."

So I can understand why it's subjective. In the same sentence Carter is both agreeing that he doesn't want people to look at the first sketch while also saying that it could be a combination of both. However, Carter does NOT use the word "sketch". He just says "between the two" without specifying what two things he's talking about. Within the context of that exchange it does sound like he could mean both sketches. However, since they'd just finished showing the video clip, he could also mean that.

IMO he's not referring to both sketches since the last question is the interviewer asking if people should disregard the first sketch and Carter answers in the affirmative. This would also back up similar things that's been stated in the past 2-3 weeks.

 

[GordianKnot]

I don't think he said the word sketches. JMO

Agreed. Listened to the video...DC said, "between the two" without identifying what two things he was talking about.

DC may have meant between the 2 sketches, or he may may have meant something else entirely.

The interviewer really should have done some f/u questioning to have DC clarify what he meant by that statement.

JMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

VISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation

Correct. But I understood him to be referring to the sketches. Others don't. Listen about the 3:30 mark.

He is talking about the sketches, but he also mentions how pictures and sketches differ. He says, "but remember, a sketch is not a photograph, it's something similar to a resemblance, and the likelyhood of it being somewhere between the two is probably pretty strong." I believe he was saying that the guy looks somewhere in between the picture of him and the sketch, since he made it clear that the old sketch no longer applies. Imo

 

[PaulaDC]

Very likely, they don’t have him in CODIS. They need a match of his DNA with the DNA they have. If they suspect someone, they can rule the person in, or out.

For old unsolved killers, they use CODIS or GEDMATCH.



Paula, you probably did testing in a commercial system, and that is all. Your husband’s relatives either did not get tested, or could have tested in another system. I downloaded our DNA results from the commercial systems to Gedmatch, to Geni, to MyHeritage, transferred DNA from a relative to FTDNA, and with time, closer relatives did appear. Also, there is a system, DNA.land, Columbia University asks to download DNAs there as they are studying genetics of breast cancer. Asians tested in one of our commercial systems can transfer the results to WeGene. It is not hopeless.
Commercial testing companies say that for West Europeans, especially of British origin, they can tell what county the ancestors were from.

We put him in Gedmatch too. Same results.