Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #113

[tresir2012]

Wait...how could we place BG there at the same time? Did FSG say when he saw the couple there? Did he give a time? Do we even know exactly when BG was there? Again, ive read FSG allegedly said he saw then in 3 different places....a poster in one place will say under, another on, another beside...

We dont know exactly what FSG said he saw, do we? So how exactly does one work out a timeline and put BG there at the same time as this phantom couple? I just feel like this particular claim/suggestion starts with a kernal of truth (BG encountered FSG) and then spreads to more and more wild speculation, that spreads misinformation more than it does credible theory.

It is my understanding that everyone (including the couple) has come forward, except for BG. That, and the recording of his voice, is why he is the suspect. But of course, BG could be any of the people at the trails that day, in disguise.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

It is my understanding that everyone (including the couple) has come forward, except for BG. That, and the recording of his voice, is why he is the suspect. But of course, BG could be any of the people at the trails that day, in disguise.

That, the recording of his voice, and I would add evidence that we are not privy to, is why he is the suspect. I could be wrong, but think there is likely more cementing him as the lone suspect. Mere speculation on my part, mind you.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

Yes

Yes, I realize BG + 2 Girls = 3 but am sure what someone thought of as a "couple arguing" could just have easily been 3, perhaps one out of sight or not speaking.

I disagree. It couldn't have easily been 3. A couple implies 2 and roughly the same age. You don't describe an adult male with a 13/14 year old as a couple. Ive never looked across a park, seen and adult and young teenager and thought "aw look at that couple over there."

Imo u r twisting things to fit a pretty nothing theory. If FSG says he saw a couple, then isnt that what he saw? If he wasnt sure, he wouldn't have used that word. I think we all have an understanding of what we (and i dare say most) would describe as a couple, or what we would have seen in order to describe a set of people as a couple.

 

[scadagirl28]

I guess I am wondering if the couple saw anything relevant as far as evidence ? ( scanner thread page 10 and 11 ) They may been to engrossed in their argument . It could also mean the killer was still there disposing of items and went out the exact way he came in ?? Moo

 

[Cutiekitty]

Well BG and the girls isnt a couple....its a trio. And one would think a difference could be made between an adult male arguing with a young teenage girl, and that of a peer. And while its possible it COULD have been...it could just be that....2 others arguing that day.

Lets unpack the suggestion at hand...for someone to hear a couple arguing and it be BG and the girls, again, a couple is 2 people. That would mean:

- one of the girls was incapacitated.

- the other girl was calm enough to argue. She wasnt hysterical or crying, despite her friend's inability to also have a voice.

- BG, who naturally would try to control the situation, is engaging in an argument loud enough to be heard by others

So I wouldnt get too caught up in the speculation as to whether or not it is possible it was BG and the girls....because it really doesnt matter. We cannot know for certain, and even if we did, so what?

The suggestion that FSG was aware of a couple under the bridge was actually based on statements not provided by LE. I believe it came from an interview with the family where they said DG was told this by FSG during DG’s search for the girls. From what I remember DG said he was looking for a couple of girls and FSG said something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge. A couple of girls? A romantic couple? Who knows?

While a couple does imply only 2 people, the fact that three people (possibly LG, AW, and BG in some combo) might have been there cant be completely ruled out based on the way the response was allegedly phrased. Maybe FSG didn’t actually see all three people and he only saw two because one was out of his line of sight. Maybe FSG didn’t hear three people because one wasn’t speaking. I don’t think it was specific whether he saw or just heard the couple.

I’m still processing this info TBH. Part of me dismisses it because it’s not from LE. Part of me gives it some credence because it came from the family. In the big scheme of things it doesn’t matter what websleuths members, or members of any other site, thinks. We don’t know what actually happened. If we knew it wouldn’t matter because we aren’t LE. But what is the actual harm in speculating?

 

[Cutiekitty]

I'm impressed. That was clever. You have also answered another query for me. I kept thinking BG was approaching from the opposite side of the bridge because of the angle. Thanks for that

Thanks, but don’t be impressed. Selfie mode has been stated from the get go. I just didn’t “get” how they came to that conclusion.

Your theory could be correct even if the video doesn’t support it - It’s possible BG came from the south end of the bridge and doubled back when captured on video. The video only shows BG’s path at the moment of videoing. Nothing he did before, if captured, has been made public.

 

[Falling Down]

The suggestion that FSG was aware of a couple under the bridge was actually based on statements not provided by LE. I believe it came from an interview with the family where they said DG was told this by FSG during DG’s search for the girls. From what I remember DG said he was looking for a couple of girls and FSG said something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge. A couple of girls? A romantic couple? Who knows?

While a couple does imply only 2 people, the fact that three people (possibly LG, AW, and BG in some combo) might have been there cant be completely ruled out based on the way the response was allegedly phrased. Maybe FSG didn’t actually see all three people and he only saw two because one was out of his line of sight. Maybe FSG didn’t hear three people because one wasn’t speaking. I don’t think it was specific whether he saw or just heard the couple.

I’m still processing this info TBH. Part of me dismisses it because it’s not from LE. Part of me gives it some credence because it came from the family. In the big scheme of things it doesn’t matter what websleuths members, or members of any other site, thinks. We don’t know what actually happened. If we knew it wouldn’t matter because we aren’t LE. But what is the actual harm in speculating?

Agreed, none of it has been released publicly, been verified and then been released publicly by LE, etc.

Good points.

My take is there were people around the area of the bridge from roughly 2:45 to 4PM, but just a handful of folks. None of them witnessed anything pertaining to the awful crimes that day, and I'd argue that CE's good pictures back that up.

BG is the day time phantom. Slipped in, murdered, slipped out.

JMO

-FD

 

[ScumbagTrav]

The suggestion that FSG was aware of a couple under the bridge was actually based on statements not provided by LE. I believe it came from an interview with the family where they said DG was told this by FSG during DG’s search for the girls. From what I remember DG said he was looking for a couple of girls and FSG said something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge.

You are going off recollection on what someone was recollecting, but you cant recollect exactly where you heard it. Not a strong place to start speculating imo.

A couple of girls? A romantic couple? Who knows?

Are u suggesting that by "couple" FSG might have meant a couple of girls? Isnt that EXACTLY what DG was looking for? Because above your recollection was that DG asked FSG if he had seen a couple of girls...and FSG said no, but had seen a couple under the bridge...yet now your raising into question that by "couple" he might have meant "couple of girls" which is what DG asked about, but by ur own recollection, FSG said he hadnt seen?

While a couple does imply only 2 people, the fact that three people (possibly LG, AW, and BG in some combo) might have been there cant be completely ruled out based on the way the response was allegedly phrased.

Im sorry, but you listed something as "fact" immediately followed by "possibly" and "might have." I mean, its also a fact that "possibly" BG was a method actor in a performance that "might have" gone wrong, doesnt mean its likely. I would imagine most would agree on what we would describe as "a couple." And if we saw 2 teenage girls, we wouldnt call them "a couple." If we saw an adult with a young teenage girl, we wouldnt call them "a couple." I mean, if u saw a 14 and 13 year old girl, and adult male combination you brought up, arguing under the bridge, someone asked u if you saw 2 girls...would you describe what you saw as "a couple?" No, you wouldnt.

Maybe FSG didn’t actually see all three people and he only saw two because one was out of his line of sight. Maybe FSG didn’t hear three people because one wasn’t speaking. I don’t think it was specific whether he saw or just heard the couple.

Your recollection is that FSG said "something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge." But now you are questioning whether FSG heard them...or saw them...or both? I'd add another "maybe" to your list:

Maybe FSG saw exactly what you recollect he says he did: a couple arguing under the bridge. Any twisting and manipulating of what he meant by "couple" is useless and irresponsible imo. Because by your recollection he didnt say he saw 3 people. Nor did he say he saw 2 girls. Nor did he say he saw a man and a girl. Something he saw lead him to believe they were a couple. So any speculation beyond that...doesnt make a lot of sense.

I’m still processing this info TBH. Part of me dismisses it because it’s not from LE. Part of me gives it some credence because it came from the family.

If u give it credence, then dont change or question what DG allegedly says FSG told him. Accept what he allegedly said: he didnt see 2 girls. He saw a couple.

In the big scheme of things it doesn’t matter what websleuths members, or members of any other site, thinks. We don’t know what actually happened. If we knew it wouldn’t matter because we aren’t LE. But what is the actual harm in speculating?

No harm in speculating. But harm in spreading misinformation. If your not sure where you got the info, or even exactly what the info was/is....but post it here and speculate off of that, its careless and can spread misinformation.

 

[tresir2012]

I disagree. It couldn't have easily been 3. A couple implies 2 and roughly the same age. You don't describe an adult male with a 13/14 year old as a couple. Ive never looked across a park, seen and adult and young teenager and thought "aw look at that couple over there."

Imo u r twisting things to fit a pretty nothing theory. If FSG says he saw a couple, then isnt that what he saw? If he wasnt sure, he wouldn't have used that word. I think we all have an understanding of what we (and i dare say most) would describe as a couple, or what we would have seen in order to describe a set of people as a couple.

Witnesses get things wrong all the time. If this couple were under the bridge, where was the witness? On the bridge? a long way away? It is very possible only two out of a group were seen, if others were hiding or incapacitated or doing something illegal.

 

[tresir2012]

You are going off recollection on what someone was recollecting, but you cant recollect exactly where you heard it. Not a strong place to start speculating imo.



Are u suggesting that by "couple" FSG might have meant a couple of girls? Isnt that EXACTLY what DG was looking for? Because above your recollection was that DG asked FSG if he had seen a couple of girls...and FSG said no, but had seen a couple under the bridge...yet now your raising into question that by "couple" he might have meant "couple of girls" which is what DG asked about, but by ur own recollection, FSG said he hadnt seen?



Im sorry, but you listed something as "fact" immediately followed by "possibly" and "might have." I mean, its also a fact that "possibly" BG was a method actor in a performance that "might have" gone wrong, doesnt mean its likely. I would imagine most would agree on what we would describe as "a couple." And if we saw 2 teenage girls, we wouldnt call them "a couple." If we saw an adult with a young teenage girl, we wouldnt call them "a couple." I mean, if u saw a 14 and 13 year old girl, and adult male combination you brought up, arguing under the bridge, someone asked u if you saw 2 girls...would you describe what you saw as "a couple?" No, you wouldnt.



Your recollection is that FSG said "something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge." But now you are questioning whether FSG heard them...or saw them...or both? I'd add another "maybe" to your list:

Maybe FSG saw exactly what you recollect he says he did: a couple arguing under the bridge. Any twisting and manipulating of what he meant by "couple" is useless and irresponsible imo. Because by your recollection he didnt say he saw 3 people. Nor did he say he saw 2 girls. Nor did he say he saw a man and a girl. Something he saw lead him to believe they were a couple. So any speculation beyond that...doesnt make a lot of sense.



If u give it credence, then dont change or question what DG allegedly says FSG told him. Accept what he allegedly said: he didnt see 2 girls. He saw a couple.



No harm in speculating. But harm in spreading misinformation. If your not sure where you got the info, or even exactly what the info was/is....but post it here and speculate off of that, its careless and can spread misinformation.

Respectfully this is wrong. Speculating is what we do. We have actually heard BP explaining this point. It is fairly straightforward. DG asked old guy have you seen a couple of girls on the trails ? Old guy says no but I saw a couple under the bridge. So DG headed that way and not the other. As DG was asking about girls, did old guy mean he saw a couple of girls under the bridge? That is the assumption but it could be a wrong assumption or old guy could be mistaken. We have to speculate to fill in blanks and unknowns. The couple could have been A & L with BG out of sight, BP said she didnt ask DG if he saw and spoke to the couple. There are a lot of missing pieces.

 

[tresir2012]

I guess I am wondering if the couple saw anything relevant as far as evidence ? ( scanner thread page 10 and 11 ) They may been to engrossed in their argument . It could also mean the killer was still there disposing of items and went out the exact way he came in ?? Moo

Hmmm. Hadn't thought of that but it is a very good point.

 

[tresir2012]

As the "arguing" couple has again been mentioned, can anyone provide a link to the 'arguing' ? I am only aware of the couple link which is GH channel (page 1 of the thread) "Derrick's path" youtube.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

You are going off recollection on what someone was recollecting, but you cant recollect exactly where you heard it. Not a strong place to start speculating imo.



Are u suggesting that by "couple" FSG might have meant a couple of girls? Isnt that EXACTLY what DG was looking for? Because above your recollection was that DG asked FSG if he had seen a couple of girls...and FSG said no, but had seen a couple under the bridge...yet now your raising into question that by "couple" he might have meant "couple of girls" which is what DG asked about, but by ur own recollection, FSG said he hadnt seen?



Im sorry, but you listed something as "fact" immediately followed by "possibly" and "might have." I mean, its also a fact that "possibly" BG was a method actor in a performance that "might have" gone wrong, doesnt mean its likely. I would imagine most would agree on what we would describe as "a couple." And if we saw 2 teenage girls, we wouldnt call them "a couple." If we saw an adult with a young teenage girl, we wouldnt call them "a couple." I mean, if u saw a 14 and 13 year old girl, and adult male combination you brought up, arguing under the bridge, someone asked u if you saw 2 girls...would you describe what you saw as "a couple?" No, you wouldnt.



Your recollection is that FSG said "something along the lines of, he didn’t see them, but there was a couple under the bridge." But now you are questioning whether FSG heard them...or saw them...or both? I'd add another "maybe" to your list:

Maybe FSG saw exactly what you recollect he says he did: a couple arguing under the bridge. Any twisting and manipulating of what he meant by "couple" is useless and irresponsible imo. Because by your recollection he didnt say he saw 3 people. Nor did he say he saw 2 girls. Nor did he say he saw a man and a girl. Something he saw lead him to believe they were a couple. So any speculation beyond that...doesnt make a lot of sense.



If u give it credence, then dont change or question what DG allegedly says FSG told him. Accept what he allegedly said: he didnt see 2 girls. He saw a couple.



No harm in speculating. But harm in spreading misinformation. If your not sure where you got the info, or even exactly what the info was/is....but post it here and speculate off of that, its careless and can spread misinformation.

( Pops head into Main Thread )

Re FSG/DG recollection.

The reference in CK's post to the Family member relating a version of the FSG/DG interaction is, I believe, Becky Patty addressing James Renner in the Renner series of Intvws ( That Tricia allowed as a postable reference source)

You are still correct, in the sense that BP was relating her recollection of what DG had told her.

I cant think of another source off the top of my head

From approx 8m 45s. Go fullscreen and scroll vid with fingers as you would streetview for eg as shot in 360°



ETA link and timestamp

 

[Thelastleg]

As the "arguing" couple has again been mentioned, can anyone provide a link to the 'arguing' ? I am only aware of the couple link which is GH channel (page 1 of the thread) "Derrick's path" youtube.

GH Derricks path at around 10. 30. I heard it as "Derrick asked the man if he had seen 2 girls. He said no. He saw a couple ON the bridge" Derrick then took a different path thinking the girls would have left the bridge by then. And as we are allowed to speculate, I am open minded as to whether FSG is indeed an innocent passer by or was he someway involved and gave misleading information. The word couple does mean 2 but in a brief exchange if someone was not wanting to engage in a long conversation it may have been used unintentionally. As LE have not disclosed where FSG was when he saw the couple, we can only speculate

 

[tresir2012]

GH Derricks path at around 10. 30. I heard it as "Derrick asked the man if he had seen 2 girls. He said no. He saw a couple ON the bridge" Derrick then took a different path thinking the girls would have left the bridge by then. And as we are allowed to speculate, I am open minded as to whether FSG is indeed an innocent passer by or was he someway involved and gave misleading information. The word couple does mean 2 but in a brief exchange if someone was not wanting to engage in a long conversation it may have been used unintentionally. As LE have not disclosed where FSG was when he saw the couple, we can only speculate

TY. I"ll check it out again as I thought DG did head in the couple's direction. No link for an "arguing" couple still.

 

[tresir2012]

TY. I"ll check it out again as I thought DG did head in the couple's direction. No link for an "arguing" couple still.

I listened again to Renner at approx 8.45 and BP deffo says under the bridge and that witness had come from the bridge so DG headed down there and no-one was there. So wonder where that couple went?
Will check out GH Derrick's path now at 10.30.

 

[tresir2012]

I have copied this from Foreigner's post in the media thread showing likely timeline based on sources. This may help with "couple" discussions.

2:49
CME (female witness) walked the bridge, saw a man before that and a couple under the bridge, did not see or hear the girls or the possible suspect at the bridgearea.
2:52
"Flannel Shirt Man" (older man mid to late 70's, a witness) sees a man ( possibly the suspect) leave the area just few meters north of the meeting point.


3:02
Possible suspect is seen at Freedom Bridge (not sure by whom?).
3:11
Derrick, Libby's dad call Libby while passing Wilson Bridge, no answer, he leave message at voicemail; he is almost there.
3:14
Derrick, Libby's dad call Libby again saying he has arrived at the meeting point,
no answer just voicemail, so he walk towards the trailhead, didn't see anybody.
Derrick walk further and meet an older man (the old FSM man witness?), coming from the high bridge, and ask him if he had seen the girls, but he had not but tell Derrick that there
was a couple (a man and a woman) under the bridge. Derrick then take the trial leading down to the creek to see if the couple was there, but Becky (Libby's grandmother), who is telling all this, does not remember if Derrick saw the couple or not.
Derrick then walk back to the meeting point.
3:30
Derrick call Becky telling her that Libby's not answering her phone and now the calls goes straight to voicemail.
3:30
Becky calls and sms Libby, but no answer.
3:35
Derrick walk down to the Freedom Bridge and on his way he meet the older man again (the FSM witness ?).


4:00
Derrick has walked back to the meeting point.

ETA my comment on this is that presumably DG did not see the couple or he would have spoken to them and asked them too if they had seen the girls. Note that this "under the bridge" is at the north end where the bridge goes over the creek, not the south end where the private drive goes under the bridge opposite the crime scene.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

I listened again to Renner at approx 8.45 and BP deffo says under the bridge and that witness had come from the bridge so DG headed down there and no-one was there. So wonder where that couple went?
Will check out GH Derrick's path now at 10.30.

It's always been a muddled point for me. We arent privvy to DG's original conversation with FSG, or with the subsequent conversation between DG and BP as neither presumably were recorded in real time!! Therefore in this source (BP/JR) we only have BP's relaying of the conversations.
For me, It centres on whether it is normal vocab useage in that area to use 'couple' as meaning 'Two ( of anything) and/or 'Two people in a relationship' ,also, so much depends on intonation and stress of the sentence, and in the exact context of the sentence.

So BP's reply and intonation is in the context of the JR question, his intonation and vocab. DG's orig conversation witH FSG will be in the context of conversation obviously..etc etc.

As I dont know about vocab, dialect, accent of the region or locale etc, I cant be sure of meaning. Even without the differences in context added in.

Therefore unless we could ask BP, DG, FSG directly to recreate or clarify exactly the conversations, Im not sure it doesnt hinder our understanding rather than help? Moo

 

[tresir2012]

This is Derrick's Path video. And in this version the old guy witness says he saw the couple on the bridge so this is different to the Renner interview when Becky says it was under the bridge. Both versions say DG went down to the creek though.

So we have a discrepancy in the telling of where the witness FSG saw the couple. Someone has got it wrong in those two sources, but I would rather go with BP actually speaking in the Renner interview and saying under the bridge, rather than GH referring to notes of his convo with family. This is a vital witness we are talking about here because he also supposedly saw BG. What do posters think about this?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I read elsewhere recently that BP clarified that bridge stuff. According to rumor (because it's not an official source), she misunderstood what DG said and that the couple was on the bridge and not under it.