Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #123

[sunshineray]

.... what doesn't mean, there isn't possibly a second perp, which is "hiding" and not seen in Libby's video and not heard of in Libby's audio.

I very much agree with you. And Sheriff Leazenby has said as much fairly recently.

 

[Yemelyan]

Does anyone know if there was any DNA collected at the scene? Or if John Dale Miller (The killer of April Tinsley) was ever on the radar for the delphi murders?

LE have said there is DNA. What type, from whom, etc, they have not revealed.

If I recall from MSM articles early on, they did look into John Miller. But it's been so long since that's been mentioned, I would have to imagine he was ruled out. It blows my mind that he apparently only offended once.

 

[Tiger Stripes]

I thought the information below might be helpful for those who may not be familiar distinguishing the difference between a Signature and Modus Operandi (MO):

(Respectfully snipped)

An easy way to remember the difference is that a criminal’s MO refers to the way the crime is committed and the signature is what is beyond that it takes to commit the specific crime.

Offender’s Signature vs. Modus Operandi

Outstanding distinction, @JDough, of a crime signature vs. a crime's M. O. Thanks for posting this, and at such a timely point in the discussion in this case.

 

[MistyWaters]

Or the sketches are two different people seen by two different witnesses at two different places in the Monon High Bridge Trail area on February 13, 2017. In my opinion, the sketches are simply people LE was not able to clear on February 13, 2017. LE wants to find them to rule them out. I know a lot of people probably disagree.

I think there is so much emphasis on what police say and put out to the public that the irony in this case is it could be helping the killer escape detection. Then the only way to solve the case is to hope that someone comes along that disregards both sketches and looks solely at Liberty German's video when providing a tip. I would never have submitted a tip in this case if it had been based solely on the LE press conferences and sketches.

Let's assume LE arrests a suspect in this case. Let's also assume hypothetically that the killer is from Montana and is in their mid 50's. This person's connection to Delphi, Indiana might be for traveling for work or visiting a relative. If this case gets solved and the solution is something like what I wrote, I think many people will still be in denial. In my opinion, they will not want to believe that this is the person who killed Abigail Williams and Liberty German.

Excellent points. I totally agree with your comments, particularly this - “I think there is so much emphasis on what police say and put out to the public that the irony in this case is it could be helping the killer escape detection.”

We all would like to believe every single person would jump at the opportunity to help solve this case and put the killer behind bars. But I’m imagining a different sort of scenario - somebody who vaguely suspects another person who is closely associated to them, say a family member, boyfriend or husband. If the relationship is anywhere between satisfactory to excellent, it’d be human nature to be reluctant, to prefer to be wrong. There’s many online theories floating about, clues LE have dropped, how LE knows who the killer is, etc. So I can also imagine it’d be very easy for a potential tipster to discount their suspicions based on reading those theories enough times, breath a sigh of relief as they surely must be wrong, then put it entirely out of their mind.

 

[Ozoner]

Consider that he may have punched or slapped one or both of them as his first acts of this crime. That might cause compliance with his instructions.

What you stated is plausible, but it isn't an argument against the point that I made. Regardless of whether the girls were slapped, threatened with a gun, or whatever, gaining control of them was the biggest challenge. Their behavior could not have been predicted with absolute certainty. If there had been a second perp, that's the part of the crime that would have demanded the participation of that second perp. Odds are that BG handled the most difficult part of the crime alone because he was alone.

 

[JDough]

Outstanding distinction, @JDough, of a crime signature vs. a crime's M. O. Thanks for posting this, and at such a timely point in the discussion in this case.

My pleasure. It helps to keep things clear in my mind. Was hoping it might help someone else!

With all of the information that has come to light over the last six months or so (Scene of the Crime, DTH, news articles, etc.), it can be confusing at times. Especially when we have limited and sometimes never-before-heard statements.

 

[Ozoner]

My pleasure. It helps to keep things clear in my mind. Was hoping it might help someone else!

With all of the information that has come to light over the last six months or so (Scene of the Crime, DTH, news articles, etc.), it can be confusing at times. Especially when we have limited and sometimes never-before-heard statements.

Would you consider going after two victims part of the MO or part of the signature? I think I can see arguments either way.

 

[Falling Down]

Consider that he may have punched or slapped one or both of them as his first acts of this crime. That might cause compliance with his instructions.

Possible he used a restraint or restraints, too.

JMO

 

[somequestions]

Excellent points. I totally agree with your comments, particularly this - “I think there is so much emphasis on what police say and put out to the public that the irony in this case is it could be helping the killer escape detection.”

We all would like to believe every single person would jump at the opportunity to help solve this case and put the killer behind bars. But I’m imagining a different sort of scenario - somebody who vaguely suspects another person who is closely associated to them, say a family member, boyfriend or husband. If the relationship is anywhere between satisfactory to excellent, it’d be human nature to be reluctant, to prefer to be wrong. There’s many online theories floating about, clues LE have dropped, how LE knows who the killer is, etc. So I can also imagine it’d be very easy for a potential tipster to discount their suspicions based on reading those theories enough times, breath a sigh of relief as they surely must be wrong, then put it entirely out of their mind.

It is not out of the realm of possibility that someone who may have seen the sketches(if they are correct) or the Liberty German video, might turn the bridge guy in. Ted Kaczynski was turned in by his own brother. His brother had read parts of one of the manifestos and realized the ideas in them sounded a lot like his brother's.

In this case, if someone suspects a family member or friend, I think the first thing they are going to do is look up the case. The second sketch of the young guy who is supposed to be between 18-40, but may appear younger, may make someone think their suspicion is just speculation if indeed the real killer is not 18-40.

A sketch is not a photograph, but the negative it could leave in everyone's minds could impact how people view the man on the bridge. We do not know what LE knows about any potential suspects so we have to assume the suspect is indeed between 18-40.

I definitely agree with your last sentence: "So I can imagine it'd be very easy for a potential tipster to discount their suspicions based on reading those theories enough times, breath a sigh of relief as they surely must be wrong, then put it entirely out of their mind." That is why I stopped sending in my tip because I figured after sending in 5 times over 3 years that someone would have looked into it by now.

I still wonder about that truck driver who may have either been disabled or had a birth defect affecting his limbs. Unfortunately when you do not get a name, truck line, license plate, or anything else because you just see the person in passing, it is hard to provide any information that would help track this person down to either include or eliminate them from the investigation. So I breathe a sigh of relief that I was probably wrong and because I did what was asked-send in a tip with any information that might help solve the case.

 

[Flight154]

Possible he used a restraint or restraints, too.

JMO

I was thinking their hair.... jmo

 

[JDough]

Would you consider going after two victims part of the MO or part of the signature? I think I can see arguments either way.

I agree. We can definitely identify some from each side. And some of them may overlap a little.

From the MO side, we have the type of weapon used, such as knife, blunt object, or gun. I am fairly certain we all agree some type of weapon was used to gain control and possibly commit the murders. I struggle to believe he used his hands directly on the girls, for fear of DNA transfer. Unless, of course, he used gloves. The time of day that the offender chose to commit the crime may also be a part of his MO. We know that it was unusual for the girls to be there on that day at that time. But only because there was no school. The question is; did he already know this?

From the signature side we have the specific location chosen to commit the crime. Specifically (IMO), trapping them at the end of the bridge, and leading (or forcing) them to the crime scene. For those of us who believe a weapon was used at some point, it most likely was a specific weapon chosen to commit the crime. We also have the specific type of victims he targeted that day. He chose young girls he thought he could control and overpower.

While we don't know what other methods or signatures specific to this perpetrator may have used, we do know he used them. I am definitely in the camp that the girls did not know (or recognize) who BG was. He was counting on that.

 

[Lori Cooper]

Snipped to highlight your question.

My two cents, my personal opinion, is that LE probably have had a Parabon sketch done but have chosen not to release it publicly because they believe the sketch produced by witnesses working with the police artist is better...for now.

I'm not LE but IMO Parabon sketches are more useful when you have no other witness or physically identifying traits that are known. So when you're working with absolutely nothing but DNA, it gives you something. The problem is that many of the traits that make us look unique are above the level of what genes encode. The fact that someone is overweight or underweight, that they have a distinctive hairstyle, that they have a large mole on their face, that they were born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome....Parabon analysis is not going to pick up on any of this.

When I look at Parabon computer generated sketches they all look very similar to me in terms of actual facial structure. I think in the Delphi case LE looked at all the info they had and went with what the witness (es) gave them. If things change again down the road, who knows, we may yet see another sketch. JMO.

Parabon has worked with a a genealogist, since 2018. I am privileged to know CeCe Moore and if it is possible to generate a good dna profile, she might be the pivotal piece to capturing the person responsible.

 

[Yemelyan]

Parabon has worked with a a genealogist, since 2018. I am privileged to know CeCe Moore and if it is possible to generate a good dna profile, she might be the pivotal piece to capturing the person responsible.

Since you quoted my post I wanted to make clear that kinship analysis, the type that CeCe Moore does with Parabon, would be huge in terms of identifying a suspect. My quoted post was talking about the other service Parabon performs, the phenotype analysis that generates a computerized "composite sketch." It's the latter that I was referring to when I said IMO investigators would view it as not as good as a witness-generated composite (for now...things in the investigation may change over time).

 

[Charlot123]

.

I thought the information below might be helpful for those who may not be familiar distinguishing the difference between a Signature and Modus Operandi (MO):

RSBM- more at link

Sometimes it’s confusing for people to differentiate between a criminal’s signature versus the criminal’s modus operandi (MO) when they commit a specific crime. Are they the same? No, they are distinctly different because one feeds on emotional needs, while the other is a procedure. Modus operandi is the method that is used to commit the crime and signature behavior is what helps to serve the criminal’s emotional and psychological needs.

Here are a few examples of a criminal’s MO:

• 
  
  
  • The type of restraints used on the victim, wound patterns, and type of fiber of the restraints.
  • Type of weapon used, such as knife, blunt object, or gun.
  • Tape found on victim that was used to bind hands and cover mouth.
  • Tools used to gain entry to victim’s home.
  • Attack could be from when the victim exits their vehicle or walks through a dark parking garage.
  • Time of day that the offender chooses to commit the crime, such as nighttime or early morning.
  • Lack of fingerprints that would indicate the offender used gloves.

Here are a few examples of criminal signatures:

• 
  
  
  • Level of injury to the victim, minimal or excessive.
  • Specific location or sequence to the criminal act.
  • Ejaculation, urination, and/or defecation at the crime scene.
  • Specific type of weapon used.
  • Personal items taken from victim.
  • Specific type of victim targeted that refers to age, race, occupation, or other physical characteristics.
  • Anything specifically left at the crime scene, such as a note or object.

An easy way to remember the difference is that a criminal’s MO refers to the way the crime is committed and the signature is what is beyond that it takes to commit the specific crime.

Offender’s Signature vs. Modus Operandi

Thank you.

Can I explain it, to myself, that a MO (that refers to many actions) is the way I approach my car to get into it, and a signature would be leaving cups of unfinished coffee in it, or checking that it is locked twice? (And not necessarily it requires cutting on the window or leather seats?)

In other words, both are habits, but one is what many other people would do, too, and the other one would be more typical of me specifically?

 

[Lori Cooper]

Since you quoted my post I wanted to make clear that kinship analysis, the type that CeCe Moore does with Parabon, would be huge in terms of identifying a suspect. My quoted post was talking about the other service Parabon performs, the phenotype analysis that generates a computerized "composite sketch." It's the latter that I was referring to when I said IMO investigators would view it as not as good as a witness-generated composite (for now...things in the investigation may change over time).

Just my not knowing if you were aware of their other capabilities. Sorry

 

[Yemelyan]

.


Thank you.

Can I explain it, to myself, that a MO (that refers to many actions) is the way I approach my car to get into it, and a signature would be leaving cups of unfinished coffee in it, or checking that it is locked twice? (And not necessarily it requires cutting on the window or leather seats?)

In other words, both are habits, but one is what many other people would do, too, and the other one would be more typical of me specifically?

Yes, the former things you would do because they are the most utilitarian way to do what you want (walking to your car and getting into it). The latter (the signatures) would be the things you almost could not control yourself from doing, because they arise from deep psychological fantasies or needs/desires that are specific to you. However, the way you express those desires could change over time and then you might have slightly different habits (signatures).

 

[Yemelyan]

I wanted to bring up a thought on the timeline of the crime itself. I have seen a lot of posters say things like "BG didn't have a lot of time with them" and then going on to speculate about what the short time period between when they probably encountered him on the bridge and the time that the crime was completed means. I've seen speculation like "he killed them quickly, so they must have tried to escape," "he didn't have time to do what he planned to do." Did you know that a major study in child abduction murders showed that in a typical abduction/murder of a child, the time between abduction and murder is very, very short? The study I read analyzed 733 cases and almost 70% of the time, the victim was murdered within 1 hour from the moment they encountered their abductor. In almost 1/4 of these 733 cases, the victim was murdered within the first half hour. I had been thinking the short time frame was an oddity about the Delphi case but actually it is fairly typical, especially for a sexually motivated child abduction and murder.

 

[JDough]

If you believe that DNA was left at the scene, what reason could LE have for not using it to generate a Parabon generated snapshot of the killer? The sketch released on April 22, 2019 was drawn by a police sketch artist and if they have his DNA, why not use it to their advantage to yield a more accurate representation that actually shows his hair colour, eye colour, etc.?

JMO and thoughts

My two cents, my personal opinion, is that LE probably have had a Parabon sketch done but have chosen not to release it publicly because they believe the sketch produced by witnesses working with the police artist is better...for now.

I'm not LE but IMO Parabon sketches are more useful when you have no other witness or physically identifying traits that are known.

When I look at Parabon computer generated sketches they all look very similar to me in terms of actual facial structure. I think in the Delphi case LE looked at all the info they had and went with what the witness (es) gave them. If things change again down the road, who knows, we may yet see another sketch. JMO.

DNA is such a fascinating subject. Especially in this case.

My belief (and I could absolutely be wrong), is that perhaps the Parabon sketch looks nothing like the two sketches that have already been released. Rather than releasing a third sketch (which would further confuse the public), LE may be holding onto it.

 

[Betty P]

I wanted to bring up a thought on the timeline of the crime itself. I have seen a lot of posters say things like "BG didn't have a lot of time with them" and then going on to speculate about what the short time period between when they probably encountered him on the bridge and the time that the crime was completed means. I've seen speculation like "he killed them quickly, so they must have tried to escape," "he didn't have time to do what he planned to do." Did you know that a major study in child abduction murders showed that in a typical abduction/murder of a child, the time between abduction and murder is very, very short? The study I read analyzed 733 cases and almost 70% of the time, the victim was murdered within 1 hour from the moment they encountered their abductor. In almost 1/4 of these 733 cases, the victim was murdered within the first half hour. I had been thinking the short time frame was an oddity about the Delphi case but actually it is fairly typical, especially for a sexually motivated child abduction and murder.

Yes, I read the same thing at the Klaas Foundation's web site. They have some really good resources there.

Missing Child Statistics

Law Enforcement

Stranger abductions are rare, but it happens fast. The kidnapping also usually happens outdoors.

 

[MistyWaters]

This article is 2 years old now. Reading it once again, it’s possible Leazenby is dodging the fact a full and complete DNA profile wasn’t obtained.

Familial DNA search might unlock Delphi killer's identity