Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #106

[BelleIsle]

“The new audio clip is a slightly extended version of the original, which was released days after the girls were murdered and includes the word "Guys" followed by "Down the Hill."
"Please keep in mind that the person talking is one person and is the person on the bridge with the girls" Carter said. "This is not two people speaking. Please listen to it very, very carefully."...”
ISP says new audio, video and sketch shows Delphi killer

I hadn't listened to the extended audio until now. The voice sounds middle-aged or younger, and the way he speaks to them casually, "Guys..." is how a parent might speak to friends of their own kids. Or even how a coach might speak. He had an "I got you" condescension to his tone. That's all I have. IMO MOO

 

[kkdj]

I hadn't listened to the extended audio until now. The voice sounds middle-aged or younger, and the way he speaks to them casually, "Guys..." is how a parent might speak to friends of their own kids. Or even how a coach might speak. He had an "I got you" condescension to his tone. That's all I have. IMO MOO

YES! He knew he had control!

 

[BelleIsle]

YES! He knew he had control!

Hi kkdj! *waves* Yes! Just had Mr. Isle listen and he said nearly the same thing. It comes across as familiar and in a position of authority. There would be no reason to address them in this manner, "(Well) guys, here I am...(now you're in trouble)...down that (the) hill..." As if he knew/knew of them. No one was around, no need for false familiarities. He's a bossy son of a gun, makes my skin crawl. Those poor girls.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Just I stumbled over this (and I have no idea of it and I'm not a user), maybe it's interesting?

Snapchat Is About to Become Much Easier to Use
BY LISA EADICICCO
JANUARY 13, 2017
Snapchat has often been criticized for being confusing to first-time users, but parent company Snap Inc. is looking to change that with a forthcoming update.

The popular ephemeral messaging app will be getting a new search bar aimed at making it easier to message friends and find content. The new search bar has already arrived for a limited number of Android users, but will be rolling out broadly to all iPhone and Android users in the coming days.
.....
Teenage Girls Went Missing After Posting Cryptic Snapchat Messages
BY ZAMIRA RAHIM
FEBRUARY 15, 2017

 

[Jim_M]

I just searched it, because I was fascinated/horrified. The linked HLN video has it. Maureen O'Connell, the former FBI specialist, says it twice. Go to about 4:08.

If this link is not allowed I apologize; please remove.

edited to add time

She hesitated as she said those words, then quickly added 'a gun' to her examples.

We need a body language expert to offer insights on the exchange. IMO and speculation.

ETA Stuff of nightmares would seem to cover this. Horrible.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Hi kkdj! *waves* Yes! Just had Mr. Isle listen and he said nearly the same thing. It comes across as familiar and in a position of authority. There would be no reason to address them in this manner, "(Well) guys, here I am...(now you're in trouble)...down that (the) hill..." As if he knew/knew of them. No one was around, no need for false familiarities. He's a bossy son of a gun, makes my skin crawl. Those poor girls.

What you just said, reminds me of a story in my (long) life. Don't know, why exactly. In any case, it's not your fault !
When I was relative young (but already married with children), I worshiped an actor a little bit, whom I knew as an actor on TV. One day, I was invited to attend a theater performance in a city 60km away (1h driving time). On stage - I didn't know at all, that would happen - I heard a voice, which I knew from somewhere (like the Sheriff in case Abby/Libby re the audio). After some time (in the dark of the auditorium) I found the name of the "voice" within the playbill: excitingly, the voice belonged to my worshiped actor!
When back at home, within the next days I wrote a nice letter to him/the "voice", because I now finally had an address (address of theater in the city) and I confessed my admiration to him.
Some time later, it was a Saturday at noon, my doorbell was ringing and my husband went opening the door. I just had hair curlers all over the head and looked stupid and ugly. In this condition, I heard "the voice" at my door and looked down the stairs, overwhelmed and also ashamed by this visitor.
Short end of story: my husband invited him to come in and the worshiped actor, I only knew from TV and one single theater performance, sat on our couch for coffee and conversation. As he told, he had gotten my letter of admiration via his theater address and thought, when he had time, he would like to drive to my town exploring, which woman had such an admiration for him.
With distance to this event, I later thought, it was certainly an advantage to have a husband at home and to have an ugly look at the first glance (hair curlers on head). Who knows, what the actor's interest had been originally.
Transferred to the sad story of sweet Abby/Libby:
Maybe, they had had contact to someone, they admired. The contact wouldn't have been per letter of course, but per Internet somehow. What, if this object of admiration (BG) had evil things in his mind (maybe, because it was a 13th of month or day before Valentin) and had ordered the girls to meet him, then surprised the girls with his appearance in an (ugly?) "disguise".
Perhaps that day he had a business meeting at a nearby town/plant/company; he had spare time between two appointments; he has a preference for remote areas and has excessive geographic knowledge; he has a preference for not age-appropriate adventures.
So, BG appeared on the bridge and when he came near to the girls, he said "Guys ....", because he knew, they were expecting him (with a different look) and he is verrry used to have people expecting him to appear.
WHY murder - I don't know and I will not understand forever.
All IMO MOO and thoughts.

 

[Owl4]

What you just said, reminds me of a story in my (long) life. Don't know, why exactly. In any case, it's not your fault !
When I was relative young (but already married with children), I worshiped an actor a little bit, whom I knew as an actor on TV. One day, I was invited to attend a theater performance in a city 60km away (1h driving time). On stage - I didn't know at all, that would happen - I heard a voice, which I knew from somewhere (like the Sheriff in case Abby/Libby re the audio). After some time (in the dark of the auditorium) I found the name of the "voice" within the playbill: excitingly, the voice belonged to my worshiped actor!
When back at home, within the next days I wrote a nice letter to him/the "voice", because I now finally had an address (address of theater in the city) and I confessed my admiration to him.
Some time later, it was a Saturday at noon, my doorbell was ringing and my husband went opening the door. I just had hair curlers all over the head and looked stupid and ugly. In this condition, I heard "the voice" at my door and looked down the stairs, overwhelmed and also ashamed by this visitor.
Short end of story: my husband invited him to come in and the worshiped actor, I only knew from TV and one single theater performance, sat on our couch for coffee and conversation. As he told, he had gotten my letter of admiration via his theater address and thought, when he had time, he would like to drive to my town exploring, which woman had such an admiration for him.
With distance to this event, I later thought, it was certainly an advantage to have a husband at home and to have an ugly look at the first glance (hair curlers on head). Who knows, what the actor's interest had been originally.
Transferred to the sad story of sweet Abby/Libby:
Maybe, they had had contact to someone, they admired. The contact wouldn't have been per letter of course, but per Internet somehow. What, if this object of admiration (BG) had evil things in his mind (maybe, because it was a 13th of month or day before Valentin) and had ordered the girls to meet him, then surprised the girls with his appearance in an (ugly?) "disguise".
Perhaps that day he had a business meeting at a nearby town/plant/company; he had spare time between two appointments; he has a preference for remote areas and has excessive geographic knowledge; he has a preference for not age-appropriate adventures.
So, BG appeared on the bridge and when he came near to the girls, he said "Guys ....", because he knew, they were expecting him (with a different look) and he is verrry used to have people expecting him to appear.
WHY murder - I don't know and I will not understand forever.
All IMO MOO and thoughts.

Great thoughts! 6 months into following this case I thought possible a softball coach maybe the girls possibly had at some point? Praying an hoping justice comes soon for those poor sweet angels in Heaven.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Re: the PC asking if anyone had seen the car to phone in....makes sense to me. I am very aware of “odd” or out of the ordinary occurrences in my community and transit routes. It is possible someone saw that car parked and thought it out of place but didn’t think yet to contact LE.

My thoughts to the car/driver:
Maybe, it was a strikingly stylish car/vehicle, rarely seen in the Delphi area - AND a man, wearing a disguise like OBG (blue jeans, blue crammed jacket, some hat/hoody/both, visually striking shoes) got out of the car. If I had been a witness, maybe I would have wondered about this and saved in my mind. Now, later on in the afternoon the same strikingly stylish car/vehicle (still parked at the abandoned building) was driven away by an attractive young man, dressed in all black perhaps. If the same witness saw this quite different man, she would have needed time to comprehend, what she just saw on that day. Possibly the witness days after that had a feeling, she better had to report her observation to LE. Maybe she even had recognized the young man, whereas she didn't know the "older man" in blue clothing. LE perhaps didn't take it that serious, because the young man, the witness had recognized, was too well-known and too "out of competition" so-to-say.
All IMO MOO

 

[Deleted member 102539]

That video has a gold mine of information... but only if the right person actually knows what they're supposed to be looking for!

LE seems to think that if the right person is paying attention, that they will notice his 'mannerisms' and it'll click in someones mind that it is 'Joe Blow'.

The thing is.... will that right person clue in that putting your hands in your pockets while walking, or slightly hunching your shoulders forward while walking, or stuffing your pockets and jacket full of stuff can be considered mannerisms? Can they be considered mannerisms?

I don't see him spitting, smoking, or having any facial tics in that brief clip. I do see him favouring that right leg/knee of his when he steps ever-so-slightly though! I also see him wearing a hat with a hooodie on top! Is that a mannerism?

Maybe LE releasing one more detail that isn't a mannerism, like his shoe size (if they know it) could make the difference between the right person calling or not calling in that tip.

bbm bbm
Worth for repeating it once more ....

 

[Deleted member 102539]

You makes some excellent points and I am glad you mentioned this!

The transcription does appear to be disjointed without knowing what the questions were that were posed to Riley.

It would be easy to read something and sort of 'fill in the blanks' as to what the questions are in your head, but in this case that could be dangerous.

I was interpreting ...the person apparently gave the investigating officers the information they were looking for ... we have to trto go back and check on the information that we have received."
as the information that someone provided regarding the car needs to be verified, but who that person is unknown (to us.)

Without the full proper context (knowing the questions, as well as Riley's answers) then we will never be able to determine the accuracy of what Riley's intentions were with each response.

My interpretation is therefore more than likely, way off.
JMO

I would have interpreted this sentence (bbm by you) as follows:
In 2017 there was a person, who gave information (NOT truthfully) about another person (maybe a non-existent person), and that info was, what the officer/s meant, they wanted to hear at that time of day. A certain point, the officer/s did investigate, seemed done then. The officer/s turned away from this person, who gave info, and they cared for the investigation into a quite different direction.
Now after 2 years, LE comprehended because of a new detail coming up, it wasn't the right answer 2 years ago and the point of investigation wasn't done but they were blinded by something special.
Now they have to unravel the muddles. Hopefully, they are able to do that within the next weeks!
IMO MOO

 

[Cutiekitty]

But they know....don't you think?

I do. I just don’t know how and there are so many variables that I couldn’t even try to guess.

 

[Cutiekitty]

Google Image Result for https://lookaside.fbsbx.com/lookaside/crawler/media/?media_id=338779153197064

My understanding from various msm reports is that she uploaded the photo taken on her phone to her Snapchat. If so, the phone photo in the phone photo directory listing has a time stamp. There also appears to be a relative timestamp on the original SC photo, perhaps as part of the upload.

If she uploaded it from her camera roll into SC the pic would say from camera roll on it. This looks like it was taken with SC and posted. If she took the pic with SC and saved it to her memories then uploaded it later it would say from memories on it. If it’s allowed I’ll screen shot a pic and post it just so everyone can see. If anyone is actually interested I’ll ask if it’s ok.

The only way I can think of that this could’ve originally been from a photo taken with her phone then uploaded is if she took a picture of the picture with SC then uploaded it. I’ve done that before and the pic looked just like I took it with SC and uploaded it. Not sure why she’d do that and it would require 2 phones. Were two phones found?

Couldn’t be exif data from the friends screen shot because of the 7 hours ago at the top of the pic. It was screen shotted between 7 hours and 7hours 59 minutes after it was posted.

The SC aspects of this case are very interesting to me.

Edit: she could’ve had her SC set to save pics to camera roll and then they’d have the info I’m guessing. The only problem is i think the friend posted the screen shot before they were found. I can’t find the original post - think it’s been deleted.

I could be totally wrong about this and maybe someone else saw the pic immediately after it was posted, noted the time and just told the friend about it. That seems kind of weird though - they weren’t considered missing at 2:07. It WAS a nice pic and maybe someone took a screen shot.

 

[Angelcat13]

That was irresponsible of her to state that. If she is actually involved with the case she’s broadcasting what’s going on. If she’s not involved with the case she has no idea what LE is doing or what they’ve got and is talking just to talk. I can not stand it when former LE does that.

Agree. A couple of weeks ago Good Morning America (I think) had a segment about the Delphi murders and they had John Douglas on. I do really like John Douglas, respect his years of experience and have read several of his books.

However, I didn’t like some of his comments on GMA in which he seemed very critical of the involved LE and I felt like some of his profiling comments were too stereotypical. I don’t mean to come off sounding like I have even a shot glass-full of his knowledge, but I think that time, technology, internet access to all kinds of bizarre people/information, etc has helped evolve and blend some of the old profiles.

We see time and again a killer come to light that doesn’t fit a preconceived profile and as I listened to John Douglas I felt like his criticism of LE didn’t take these changes into account.

 

[Angelcat13]

Do any of you think that having the video of the BG is possibly making this harder to solve in some way? The video image is so poor that you cannot tell what the person looks like, so your brain fills in the missing details with inaccurate details (most likely). I think most people have an image of an older man with a hat on similar to the guy in the first sketch they released. People are trying to recall someone they know that wears a blue jacket like the BG. There is a good chance that the jacket is something that he rarely (if ever) wore before so it wouldn't be familiar to his friends/family. Residents of Delphi have racked their brains looking for someone that day that was wearing that outfit. After the crime was committed, the man probably disposed of the blue jacket and hoodie. If the suspect is actually much younger (as sketch 2 suggests) then he could have walked around town in jeans and a t-shirt after the crime and nobody would have suspected a thing because he looked nothing like the man in the video. Someone probably saw something suspicious that day in Delphi but since it didn't match the image in the video, they discounted it.

Also the BG's gait in the video is probably quite different than it would be while walking down the street since he is crossing an old railroad bridge that requires him to sidestep holes and watch his footing carefully. His everyday "street gait" would be very different and wouldn't trigger people to think he's the man in the video.

Having a photograph or video of a perpetrator is invaluable if it provides hair color, weight, eye color, straight/crooked teeth, nose shape, etc. Unfortunately, the image of BG from the video doesn't provide any of that information. I think the only thing that most people can agree on is that he is wearing jeans and a blue coat/jacket.

Very good post!

 

[Angelcat13]

Yes! Riley was on one of the panels I saw, sitting right beside Mike, and they both discussed what good friends they had become throughout this tragedy, and I witnessed the camaraderie! It was absolutely heartwarming (while heartbreaking) to see, and any doubts I had about Mike's character have completely changed. He was so sincere and totally put himself out there in front of 1000s of people to be judged, and I think that takes not only balls, but it tells me he is willing to risk anything and everything to help find this killer. ( I mention this bc, honestly, I questioned him as a possible suspect, and that WAS mentioned in both of the lectures I attended with Mike present). He (and both families) were also asking people to buy and please wear t-shirts with the girls photos and the tip line number on them and made it very clear he did not care about the money, he only wanted people to buy them for more exposure to the case. There was no doubt in my mind about his sincerity in that statement. They all seemed to truly feel like they are just one tip away from catching this guy, so using the t-shirts as walking billboards was a focal point for them at CrimeCon (and beyond.)

Wonderful, yet so sad.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

That was irresponsible of her to state that. If she is actually involved with the case she’s broadcasting what’s going on. If she’s not involved with the case she has no idea what LE is doing or what they’ve got and is talking just to talk. I can not stand it when former LE does that.

I disagree with you completely. I don't feel she was in any way irresponsible. I am posting the video so you can see her exact comment in the proper context. @1:45

 

[TL4S]

I'm afraid I don't agree. They are now saying he got around quickly. If it's not connected to the crime then why are they interested in it ? If it is one vehicle they have not been able to pin down, or they ruled out incorrectly too quickly, then that's got to be of interest in the crime. If they have not connected it to the suspect then they would know who he is surely?

I've shared your thoughts here, but MistyWaters has some very valid points. Somewhere somebody posted a quote by LE that said something to the effect that the vehicle is important because it led them to think BG got around quickly and is local (paraphrased by me, of course).

At first, I read that like the vehicle was linked to BG, but let's say somebody in that vehicle noticed a 4-wheeler parked, or somebody riding one across a field right after the murders. Someone riding a 4-wheeler is more than likely local, and it allowed him to leave the area quickly. That's just an example.

But the more I think about it, I agree with MistyWaters that if LE truly thought the vehicle was directly linked to BG, they would have said so.

 

[Deleted member 278]

“We have a witness,” Carter went on. “You made mistakes. We are coming for you and there’s no place for a heartless coward like you to hide.”

Other than Libby's phone being a "witness," where exactly do you think the witness saw the killer? (I dislike the use of "BG" because that makes him sound less lethal than he was.)

What mistakes do you think the killer made? I don't think being recorded was a mistake in terms of him doing something wrong. If he didn't know he was being recorded, it wasn't a mistake on his part, IMO. Not taking Libby's phone could have been a mistake but only if he knew she had one. Was leaving DNA one of the mistakes? Probably, but it's not unusual to find a killer's DNA at a crime scene. Can you think of any other kinds of mistakes the KILLER made?

 

[tresir2012]

I've shared your thoughts here, but MistyWaters has some very valid points. Somewhere somebody posted a quote by LE that said something to the effect that the vehicle is important because it led them to think BG got around quickly and is local (paraphrased by me, of course).

At first, I read that like the vehicle was linked to BG, but let's say somebody in that vehicle noticed a 4-wheeler parked, or somebody riding one across a field right after the murders. Someone riding a 4-wheeler is more than likely local, and it allowed him to leave the area quickly. That's just an example.

But the more I think about it, I agree with MistyWaters that if LE truly thought the vehicle was directly linked to BG, they would have said so.

Understand both points are valid. However, knowing how much LE are keeping back, I don't think they would tell us. They know but the specifics eg. was the driver BG, was the passenger BG, were the occupants alibis of someone, were they witnesses? - will not be released IMO. (integrity of the investigation)

 

[ilovechili]

I hadn't listened to the extended audio until now. The voice sounds middle-aged or younger, and the way he speaks to them casually, "Guys..." is how a parent might speak to friends of their own kids. Or even how a coach might speak. He had an "I got you" condescension to his tone. That's all I have. IMO MOO

I agree.

I don't comment on this case much because I have as many theories as most others and I mostly just read and do not have a lot to add that has not been said, well maybe a few thoughts, for another time.

The "guys" remark has been discussed in depth. I read along but do not think I commented.

I will say now though as you have said as have others, that I agree that there is condescension and/or authority in the voice and delivery of "guys".

I like others have said would say myself, if a friendly exchange, "Hey guys, how are ya doing?" Or--"Are you guys ready for dinner yet?" Or really casual, possibly, "You guys ready to go yet?" I would never start out with "guys" without a word in front of it, unless angry, or as a teacher, coach, someone who uses that and needs to possibly address that way and maintain control, even a parent who is upset, "Guys, you are so grounded". It eliminates the friendliness of the remark and shows a seriousness.

Every time I listen to it I wonder what comes after and why they cannot release more to truly help those that know the person to recognize the voice.

There must be a reason.

Jmo.