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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
And now, to question myself:

If LE has the make/model or possible Indiana state plate (or number), how could they not have already tracked down the owner? There are thousands of cars in that county, but only so many that would match up with a specific description. Maybe LE interviewed all the owners of vehicles like this, and alibi's checked out? Or BG wasn't the owner of the vehicle and the owner is covering or wasn't aware he had it at the time?

With LE asking for a description and owner, maybe they are trying to disprove an alibi? Maybe I've already had WAY too much coffee this morning?
I think it is like the perps vehicle in the Jayme Closs case. Maybe a fleeting description but no plate number. In fact in that case they discovered perp had put false plates on it anyway. Does Indiana require a front and rear plate be displayed?
 
How would they decipher that particular phone from the hundreds of others driving by without being able to pin a number to it?
Which carrier would be checking the history?
Should’ve elaborated (sorry) they could’ve received a call. Could even be one of those annoying text from the carrier. If the phone is on there are so many possibilities. If not everything we’ve been discussing is invalid. Let’s hope he had a phone and it was on.
 
Respectfully, that is my point. If all the signals for cell phones in that area were either moving through the area with a purpose, ie. driving down the freeway, what if there was a triangulation of a burner phone in the area of the DCS parking lot, they wouldn't have the phone number, just the signal triangulation for a period of time, along with a vehicle sighting from that day from that parking lot, and they are trying to match that unknown phone location/triangulation to that vehicle??
Ha. Great minds think alike. I don't think JP had a phone with him. He took many precautions not to be tracked yet passed/yielded to the cops rushing to answer the 911 call.

ETA, I am actually answering your previous post that Misty replied to rather than this one I have quoted. Sorry for any confusion.
 
How about the possibility of the car seen at the abandon building being a "company" or government agency car. If there aren't records kept on who has each car on each day, isn't it possible they are trying to track down the driver for that particular day? Just a thought.b
 
Can anyone remind me if JP in the Jayme Closs case had a cell phone with him the night he took Jayme? I remember he had taken other precautions like shaving his head, and removing the license plate IIRC. I also remember we had talked over there prior to JP arrest about cell phone's and location tracking...

Asking because some of us here (me) are wondering about triangulation and location tracking in regards to BG and vehicle information asked for by LE.

If LE is aware a suspect has a cellphone my understanding is it’s far easier to determine which cell towers that specific cellphone pinged to because the cellphone’s unique identifier code is known. In the Closs case the kidnapped was not a suspect.

Otherwise cell tower searching must be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Imagine even just one cell tower, literally thousands of different cellphones pinging to it at all times including motorists on the highway, phones being turned on and shut off, then LE having to prove to a Judge there’s grounds to serve subpoenas to service providers to obtain thousands of names and addresses. And even then, what would that prove? Not much. JMO
 
Inevitably, in cases like this one, the question of identifying a cell phone to a tower ping and a user always comes up. The short answer is that through an arduous, massive undertaking, this is theoretically possible through a process of elimination. Newer technologies such as AI and Machine Learning are accelerating gains in this area.

However, today, it’s still a massive undertaking, even with the most clever engineers who can develop algorithms to identify phones that stand out with an “abnormal” profile.

This being said, technology is bit one piece of this. There is another massive legal undertaking to obtain warrants to examine that data.

Technology is moving very fast in this area, and we can expect major advancements in the near future. Privacy data and the legal aspect is a whole other consideration. Theoretically, you may give permission to have your phone data traced if necessary, but if others don’t, it would be hard to make that data relational, and comprehensively/definitively useful.

Big, hairy, complex issue.
However, features like find my phone etc. are certainly helpful for basic geo-location capabilities.

Amateur opinion and speculation
 
Should’ve elaborated (sorry) they could’ve received a call. Could even be one of those annoying text from the carrier. If the phone is on there are so many possibilities. If not everything we’ve been discussing is invalid. Let’s hope he had a phone and it was on.
Again, I am not sure myself, but the way it was explained to me is, you need some sort of imput/output from your phone. That determines signal strength, and the strength allows the 3 towers to triangulate and pinpoint location.
Imput/output could mean switching to wi-fi, downloading an app, or making/receiving a call.... some type of activity.
This is second hand information, and JMO.
 
It is my understanding that initially, they had just DNA, and no knowledge, no suspicions. Then it took them quite a while to present the code in the format that they could use for Gedmatch - that was the programmers’ job, as I understand. And then they found a match in Gedmatch, and using the trees, narrowed it down to about four people. I never heard about the relative in the nursing home, how did they find him? Maybe he was one of four suspects? Then it was quite a different phase. Very interesting.

You are right, the man Oregon nursing home was a suspect until being cleared by a swab. He shared a rare marker with DeAngelo. Eliminating him then moved detectives forward.
 
How about the possibility of the car seen at the abandon building being a "company" or government agency car. If there aren't records kept on who has each car on each day, isn't it possible they are trying to track down the driver for that particular day? Just a thought.b

Any government vehicle parked for five hours straight would attract attention, considering the visible location and no obvious reason for it to be at an abandoned building. That’s be a huge red flag right from day one, not two years later IMO.
 
How about the possibility of the car seen at the abandon building being a "company" or government agency car. If there aren't records kept on who has each car on each day, isn't it possible they are trying to track down the driver for that particular day? Just a thought.b
Agencies assign GOV vehicles to all agents/investigators in the field. They remove the GOV plates and put regular plates on. (Most but not all agencies do this) If the plate # is searched (GOV or regular plate) it will show the agency and main office where the plate is registered. The agency/office knows exactly which GOV is assigned to each person. They know whether that person telecommutes from home or reports to an office.
 
“If somebody knows something, they need to tell us. I think they’re afraid too,” he told ABC News. “Somebody knows who that person is.”

I find this statement interesting because Carter starts off very vague and uncertain ("If somebody knows something...") but ends with confidence ("Somebody knows who that person is"). It makes me think LE believes that somebody should be able to recognize BG from the sketch/video/voice sample but that somebody might not have any information related to case. For example, somebody might think 'hey, that guy kinda looks like and sounds like my old roomate from college but we haven't been in touch for a few years, so I have no idea where he is or what he's up to'.


Carter believes it is possible that a family member or a friend “knows something happened after that day.” Authorities have not revealed how the girls were killed.

This statement would be more hopeful without the word 'possible'. Anything is possible. I am intrigued though by the part "knows something happened after that day". Does he mean right after the day, as in BG did something significant on Feb. 14th, like help with the search? Or does he mean in general, after the murders, like he sold a vehicle or disposed of a gun?

BBM
 
Any government vehicle parked for five hours straight would attract attention, considering the visible location and no obvious reason for it to be at an abandoned building. That’s be a huge red flag right from day one, not two years later IMO.
Most GOV vehicles have regular plates so they would look like any other car.
 
https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-e...opaths-brains-differences-structure-function/

Quotes from link:

The study showed that psychopaths have reduced connections between the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC), the part of the brain responsible for sentiments such as empathy and guilt, and the amygdala, which mediates fear and anxiety.

"The combination of structural and functional abnormalities provides compelling evidence that the dysfunction observed in this crucial social-emotional circuitry is a stable characteristic of our psychopathic offenders," Newman says.

This is some very interesting research, thank you for the link, Miya.
I was wondering if Bundy’s brain had been donated to research, but according to this his ashes were scattered in the Cascades where several of his victims died... wow.
When killers die ‘we store their brains’
Apologies for getting sidetracked, I’d better get back OT before I get a TO.:oops:
 
I can't believe BG was out there for @5hours and wasn't noticed by more people. I am a people watcher and if I was there and it there weren't a crowd of people I would have taken note of everyone I saw. Especially someone who seemed oddly dressed in ill fitting clothing to warm for the day. From the video it appears as if he was trying to be as non descriptive and hidden as possible which I would think is sketchy and take even more notice of him.

I wonder if he didnt have somewhere he went to change when he spotted the girls and then after the murder. That way he would have blended in with everyone else better.
 
Respectfully, that is my point. If all the signals for cell phones in that area were either moving through the area with a purpose, ie. driving down the freeway, what if there was a triangulation of a burner phone in the area of the DCS parking lot, they wouldn't have the phone number, just the signal triangulation for a period of time, along with a vehicle sighting from that day from that parking lot, and they are trying to match that unknown phone location/triangulation to that vehicle??

You're expecting them to file discovery against whoever owns cell towers in/around Delphi, Indiana, for their private user information...

The outlook is grim.
 
Okay, sorry then I must be missing the point. What connection is there with a government vehicle being parked there as opposed to a privately owned vehicle ?

Can't say for sure what this person is referring to, but I've seen optimistic speculation that they've identified the vehicle as a city owned vehicle but can't identify which employee drove it on that day.
 
If LE is aware a suspect has a cellphone my understanding is it’s far easier to determine which cell towers that specific cellphone pinged to because the cellphone’s unique identifier code is known. In the Closs case the kidnapped was not a suspect.

Otherwise cell tower searching must be like looking for a needle in a haystack. Imagine even just one cell tower, literally thousands of different cellphones pinging to it at all times including motorists on the highway, phones being turned on and shut off, then LE having to prove to a Judge there’s grounds to serve subpoenas to service providers to obtain thousands of names and addresses. And even then, what would that prove? Not much. JMO

It could put a suspect in the area and possibly dispute an alibi. It could also identify potential witnesses. I’m sure they can narrow down a time frame (12-5) which reduces the amount of people to look at. The highway there would increase numbers though. If a judge said it was okay for them to get tower info there probably would be no problem with him/her agreeing to issue subpoenas. It’s all based on the same purpose. It would be a lot of info and labor intensive, but A really good thing to do IMO.
 
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)
 
Last edited:
Again, I am not sure myself, but the way it was explained to me is, you need some sort of imput/output from your phone. That determines signal strength, and the strength allows the 3 towers to triangulate and pinpoint location.
Imput/output could mean switching to wi-fi, downloading an app, or making/receiving a call.... some type of activity.
This is second hand information, and JMO.

I was talking about something totally different I think - general tower info not triangulation. Sorry - totally my fault.

EDIT: trying to do too many things at once. I was trying to say they can get the number from a tower if there was one contact (in or out) then they could work from there to try to ID who the user is. I don’t know a lot about triangulation TBH. Could they not triangulate if they made or received only one call/text? Do they need more than one or a combo of phone and data activity? If your source will tell you that would be great. I’m curious now.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
2,726
Total visitors
2,828

Forum statistics

Threads
599,925
Messages
18,101,689
Members
230,955
Latest member
ClueCrusader
Back
Top