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

[ScumbagTrav]

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.

Ive read this too. And is exactly my issue despite @tresir2012 suggesting speculation is what we do. I understand that and dont disagree, but like I have said before, this is speculation on speculation based on a rumor. Trying to determine what FSG meant by "couple" without even finding a source where the claim originated (which would give us a starting point) isnt speculation, its fan fiction.

Im simply trying to reel in some of the wild speculation and find us a more definite/reasonable starting place. Because forming a theory on hearsay and rumor alone is pretty weak. But some users here would disagree with me if i said the sky was blue.

Let's find an interview, a source, SOMETHING more credible than a fellow users alleged timeline, to go off of. Before we dissect what DG said FSG stated, let's find what DG's words on the matter actually were, then discuss/ speculate. Because theorizing without it, cements and normalizes the rumor, and it gets accepted as fact. Ive been guilty of this too.

 

[tresir2012]

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.

We can't accept that as it is rumour unfortunately.

 

[tresir2012]

Ive read this too. And is exactly my issue despite @tresir2012 suggesting speculation is what we do. I understand that and dont disagree, but like I have said before, this is speculation on speculation based on a rumor. Trying to determine what FSG meant by "couple" without even finding a source where the claim originated (which would give us a starting point) isnt speculation, its fan fiction.

Im simply trying to reel in some of the wild speculation and find us a more definite/reasonable starting place. Because forming a theory on hearsay and rumor alone is pretty weak. But some users here would disagree with me if i said the sky was blue.

Let's find an interview, a source, SOMETHING more credible than a fellow users alleged timeline, to go off of. Before we dissect what DG said FSG stated, let's find what DG's words on the matter actually were, then discuss/ speculate. Because theorizing without it, cements and normalizes the rumor, and it gets accepted as fact. Ive been guilty of this too.

The approved source of BP stating couple were seen under the bridge (Renner interview previously posted) is the correct one to use obviously, unless she comes out stating differently on another approved source. The poster's timeline is based on approved sources. Doesn't matter what rumors state. The "arguing" is rumour, not the couple under the bridge. Speculation on the meaning of the quotes based on those sources is allowed.
BTW the sky is grey on a cloudy day.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

The approved source of BP stating couple were seen under the bridge (Renner interview previously posted) is the correct one to use obviously, unless she comes out stating differently on another approved source. The poster's timeline is based on approved sources. Doesn't matter what rumors state. The "arguing" is rumour, not the couple under the bridge. Speculation on the meaning of the quotes based on those sources is allowed.
BTW the sky is grey on a cloudy day.

I never said it wasnt allowed. I question whether this line of speculation is reasonable. And imo, it isnt.

So we are going off what BP said DG said FSG said...and speculating that by couple it was a trio...it was a couple of girls...etc? Again...unreasonable. take off the creative writing cap and take a more journalistic approach.

Several of us here have also read (could be misinformation) the DG has clarified this, and they werent under the bridge, tho i havent been able to locate a credible source on that either.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

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.

Witnesses get things wrong...sure. but how often do then confuse 3 people with 2? If he said he saw a couple, there is a general understanding of what that means. And it isnt an adult with a young teenager. And it isnt 2 teenage girls. He allegedly said he saw a couple. Not a couple of girls. Not 2 people. Not 4 people. Not a couple people. He saw a couple.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Have you seen a couple of Girls around here?

No, but I saw a couple on the Bridge

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Have you seen a couple of Girls up near the Bridge?

No, but I saw a couple on the Bridge.

 

[tresir2012]

I never said it wasnt allowed. I question whether this line of speculation is reasonable. And imo, it isnt.

So we are going off what BP said DG said FSG said...and speculating that by couple it was a trio...it was a couple of girls...etc? Again...unreasonable. take off the creative writing cap and take a more journalistic approach.

Several of us here have also read (could be misinformation) the DG has clarified this, and they werent under the bridge, tho i havent been able to locate a credible source on that either.

I don't know what you are referring to by stating you never said it wasn't allowed. But yes., we are speculating a couple were seen, perhaps there were more unseen. A couple on the bridge and a couple under the bridge too maybe. So two couples possibly. A couple of girls disappeared, a couple were seen on or under the bridge so that's two couples. It's not clear what couple old guy saw. It could have been the girls, two men, a man and a woman or two women. Hence we speculate, but we are not speculating on rumour but on hearsay. (she said that he said that he said) We don't have anything more so anyone who doesn't like that speculation or thinks it is unreasonable should just scroll on by. MOO.

ETA good luck finding DG saying anything.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Have you seen anyone who looks like my Daughter and her friend?

No, but I saw a couple on the Bridge.

Well Thanks for that but I havent got time for you to list random people youve seen, they dont relate to my enquiry.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

I don't know what you are referring to by stating you never said it wasn't allowed.

This:

Speculation on the meaning of the quotes based on those sources is allowed.

We don't have anything more so anyone who doesn't like that speculation or thinks it is unreasonable should just scroll on by. MOO.

ETA good luck finding DG saying anything.

If you dont like my response, perhaps you should take your own advice and keep scrolling? JUST MOO. I know that will be difficult for you. Im in ur crosshairs.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

Have you seen anyone who looks like my Daughter and her friend?

No, but I saw a couple on the Bridge.

Well Thanks for that but I havent got time for you to list random people youve seen, they dont relate to my enquiry.

Bingo

 

[ScumbagTrav]

Dbm

 

[tresir2012]

...scroll

 

[Cutiekitty]

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.

A lot of this was addressed in the responses of others in the thread and I agree with what they posted. No need for me to respond when they’ve said exactly what I would’ve.

I will address this statement from your post: “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:”

You actually brought up arguing in the post I was responding to in the “unpacking portion”. You had a bullet that said “BG, who naturally would try to control the situation is engaging in an argument loud enough to be heard by others”

I didn’t remember BP stating that DG was told the “couple” was arguing. Your statement actually made me doubt my recollection of the interview, which is why I addressed a possible audio encounter with FSG to cover all bases.

It was too late for me to try to find the interview and rewatch it, but I did this morning and BP says: DG passed a guy and he said “Hey, did you see a couple of girls?” And he (the guy) said “No, but there’s a couple under the bridge.” BP goes on to say that since the guy was coming from the bridge and said there was no one there DG went down the hill to look to see if they were down there.

To me this sounds like the witness is referring to a couple of girls and not a romantic couple, but I keep an open mind.

 

[Cutiekitty]

The approved source of BP stating couple were seen under the bridge (Renner interview previously posted) is the correct one to use obviously, unless she comes out stating differently on another approved source. The poster's timeline is based on approved sources. Doesn't matter what rumors state. The "arguing" is rumour, not the couple under the bridge. Speculation on the meaning of the quotes based on those sources is allowed.
BTW the sky is grey on a cloudy day.

It was purple where I live after Hurricane Dorian.

 

[tresir2012]

I think it likely there was a meth gang hiding under the bridge in the woods but only a couple of them were seen, possible lookouts. I think the girls could have walked into the middle of something and someone out of his head on meth slaughtered them. I think the other members of the illegal activity may remember something happened but not be fully aware of exactly what. I think that is why there has been few witnesses because people are scared of who were around that day.
AJMO of course.

 

[tresir2012]

It was purple where I live after Hurricane Dorian.

I have seen red sky too of course. Shepherds warning or delight.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

It was too late for me to try to find the interview and rewatch it, but I did this morning and BP says: DG passed a guy and he said “Hey, did you see a couple of girls?” And he (the guy) said “No, but there’s a couple under the bridge.” BP goes on to say that since the guy was coming from the bridge and said there was no one there DG went down the hill to look to see if they were down there.

To me this sounds like the witness is referring to a couple of girls and not a romantic couple, but I keep an open mind.

Thank you for the direct quotes! Do u have the link you found this at? One question tho...

How do you get the witness is referring to a couple of girls, when by your account DG asked "hey did you see a couple of girls," and the witness replied "no..."

?

 

[ScumbagTrav]

I did find an alleged screenshots of a Q&A with Tara and Becky that was from a FB Group...anyone know the credibility of this?

 

[scadagirl28]

So couple could have been on bridge . No argument . Got it ! Just putting witnesses where they may have been and thinking about how long BG was actually at the trail. I am thinking Trav this means with you , no woman with a dog discussion either ?! Lol