Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #124

[Justice101]

Checking from time to time. Can't wait for news of an arrest and/or a hastily called news conference.

 

[Charlot123]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this Charlot.

He would attack some pairs of adult woman. But he'd have zero chance with an adult woman who would have Libby's character traits.

 

[Charlot123]

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this Charlot.

He would attack some pairs of adult woman. But he'd have zero chance with an adult woman who would have Libby's character traits.

 

[TexLil]

Checking from time to time. Can't wait for news of an arrest and/or a hastily called news conference.

Same here. I've never forgotten Abby and Libby and I know some day they will receive justice. If April Tinsley's murderer could be identified and convicted decades after his crime I know justice is coming for the Delphi too. Someone has to know something.

 

[Yemelyan]

For @stattlich1 and others who want to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks the Delphi murders was a crime perpetrated by a stranger/not targeted in advance: the first thing that you'd need to see/agree on with me is that this crime was one of a unique subset of murders called a child abduction murder. If you don't agree with this basic premise, then I think you'd have trouble seeing my perspective.

Child abduction murders occur when a victim or victims under the age of 18 are transported ANY distance for the purpose of the commission of a crime. So I believe the murders of Abby and Libby meet this definition.

Child abduction murders are statistically quite different from regular child murders. Regular child murders, without the abduction component, are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a family member or intimate. When abduction is involved, family is only responsible for the murder about 14% of the time. Strangers and acquaintances are about equally responsible for the rest of the cases (strangers account for about 44% of child abduction murders). However, the age of the victim heavily skews this data. Victims age 1-5 are mostly abducted and murdered by acquaintances. As the age of the victim goes up, strangers account for the majority of offenders.

Acquaintances are likely to abduct from the victim's home or another residence. Strangers account for most abductions from public places.

Now you might be seeing how I'm determining that Abby and Libby's case looks more like a stranger child abduction murder than an acquaintance one. But you might be wondering where I'm getting my information. In 2006 a very comprehensive study of child murder was published. You can find this online, it runs about 103 pages and it's the definitive manual used by law enforcement to investigate these types of crimes. It was linked in the previous thread by @margarita25 . The whole purpose of this study, which took 3 and 1/2 years and comprised almost 800 solved cases, was to show that 1. Child abduction murders are very different than regular child murders, and 2. To dispel common misconceptions held by law enforcement that was preventing them from making good decisions when investigating this type of case.

According to this study, child abduction killers overwhelmingly choose their victims because the opportunity presented itself. They rarely choose based on physical characteristics or prior knowledge of the victim. These types of killers had a motive to murder a specific victim in just 12% of cases.

Here is a quote from the Child Abduction Murder Study: " There is a misconception that child abduction murder killers are looking for a child with a certain appearance. Contrary to murders in general, CAM killers were much less likely to select a victim based on a personal characteristic."

The data DO support that CAM killers have a higher likelihood of using the same MO across multiple offenses and that there is a greater predisposition to serial offending. What this means is that child abduction killers are MORE like serial killers - even if they've only committed one offense - than like "regular" murderers.

Also like serial killers, child abduction killers have an overwhelming sexual component in their motivation to kill. 70% of child abduction murders involved a sexual component, compared to 5% of all murders and 14% of non-abduction child murders.

It is rare for what happened to Abby and Libby to happen at all. Only about 1 out of 10,000 reports of a missing child end up with the outcome they had. However, if it DOES happen - then it is slightly more likely than not that a stranger was involved, and it's highly likely that the victim selection was not based on appearance or prior knowledge of the victim. So that's how I reached the conclusions I do. Anything COULD be, as this crime isn't solved, but I'm looking at what history tells us is more likely than not.

Thoughts?

 

[Justice101]

For @stattlich1 and others who want to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks the Delphi murders was a crime perpetrated by a stranger/not targeted in advance: the first thing that you'd need to see/agree on with me is that this crime was one of a unique subset of murders called a child abduction murder. If you don't agree with this basic premise, then I think you'd have trouble seeing my perspective.

Child abduction murders occur when a victim or victims under the age of 18 are transported ANY distance for the purpose of the commission of a crime. So I believe the murders of Abby and Libby meet this definition.

Child abduction murders are statistically quite different from regular child murders. Regular child murders, without the abduction component, are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a family member or intimate. When abduction is involved, family is only responsible for the murder about 14% of the time. Strangers and acquaintances are about equally responsible for the rest of the cases (strangers account for about 44% of child abduction murders). However, the age of the victim heavily skews this data. Victims age 1-5 are mostly abducted and murdered by acquaintances. As the age of the victim goes up, strangers account for the majority of offenders.

Acquaintances are likely to abduct from the victim's home or another residence. Strangers account for most abductions from public places.

Now you might be seeing how I'm determining that Abby and Libby's case looks more like a stranger child abduction murder than an acquaintance one. But you might be wondering where I'm getting my information. In 2006 a very comprehensive study of child murder was published. You can find this online, it runs about 103 pages and it's the definitive manual used by law enforcement to investigate these types of crimes. It was linked in the previous thread by @margarita25 . The whole purpose of this study, which took 3 and 1/2 years and comprised almost 800 solved cases, was to show that 1. Child abduction murders are very different than regular child murders, and 2. To dispel common misconceptions held by law enforcement that was preventing them from making good decisions when investigating this type of case.

According to this study, child abduction killers overwhelmingly choose their victims because the opportunity presented itself. They rarely choose based on physical characteristics or prior knowledge of the victim. These types of killers had a motive to murder a specific victim in just 12% of cases.

Here is a quote from the Child Abduction Murder Study: " There is a misconception that child abduction murder killers are looking for a child with a certain appearance. Contrary to murders in general, CAM killers were much less likely to select a victim based on a personal characteristic."

The data DO support that CAM killers have a higher likelihood of using the same MO across multiple offenses and that there is a greater predisposition to serial offending. What this means is that child abduction killers are MORE like serial killers - even if they've only committed one offense - than like "regular" murderers.

Also like serial killers, child abduction killers have an overwhelming sexual component in their motivation to kill. 70% of child abduction murders involved a sexual component, compared to 5% of all murders and 14% of non-abduction child murders.

It is rare for what happened to Abby and Libby to happen at all. Only about 1 out of 10,000 reports of a missing child end up with the outcome they had. However, if it DOES happen - then it is slightly more likely than not that a stranger was involved, and it's highly likely that the victim selection was not based on appearance or prior knowledge of the victim. So that's how I reached the conclusions I do. Anything COULD be, as this crime isn't solved, but I'm looking at what history tells us is more likely than not.

Thoughts?

Sounds like common sense to me. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Falling Down]

For @stattlich1 and others who want to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks the Delphi murders was a crime perpetrated by a stranger/not targeted in advance: the first thing that you'd need to see/agree on with me is that this crime was one of a unique subset of murders called a child abduction murder. If you don't agree with this basic premise, then I think you'd have trouble seeing my perspective.

Child abduction murders occur when a victim or victims under the age of 18 are transported ANY distance for the purpose of the commission of a crime. So I believe the murders of Abby and Libby meet this definition.

Child abduction murders are statistically quite different from regular child murders. Regular child murders, without the abduction component, are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a family member or intimate. When abduction is involved, family is only responsible for the murder about 14% of the time. Strangers and acquaintances are about equally responsible for the rest of the cases (strangers account for about 44% of child abduction murders). However, the age of the victim heavily skews this data. Victims age 1-5 are mostly abducted and murdered by acquaintances. As the age of the victim goes up, strangers account for the majority of offenders.

Acquaintances are likely to abduct from the victim's home or another residence. Strangers account for most abductions from public places.

Now you might be seeing how I'm determining that Abby and Libby's case looks more like a stranger child abduction murder than an acquaintance one. But you might be wondering where I'm getting my information. In 2006 a very comprehensive study of child murder was published. You can find this online, it runs about 103 pages and it's the definitive manual used by law enforcement to investigate these types of crimes. It was linked in the previous thread by @margarita25 . The whole purpose of this study, which took 3 and 1/2 years and comprised almost 800 solved cases, was to show that 1. Child abduction murders are very different than regular child murders, and 2. To dispel common misconceptions held by law enforcement that was preventing them from making good decisions when investigating this type of case.

According to this study, child abduction killers overwhelmingly choose their victims because the opportunity presented itself. They rarely choose based on physical characteristics or prior knowledge of the victim. These types of killers had a motive to murder a specific victim in just 12% of cases.

Here is a quote from the Child Abduction Murder Study: " There is a misconception that child abduction murder killers are looking for a child with a certain appearance. Contrary to murders in general, CAM killers were much less likely to select a victim based on a personal characteristic."

The data DO support that CAM killers have a higher likelihood of using the same MO across multiple offenses and that there is a greater predisposition to serial offending. What this means is that child abduction killers are MORE like serial killers - even if they've only committed one offense - than like "regular" murderers.

Also like serial killers, child abduction killers have an overwhelming sexual component in their motivation to kill. 70% of child abduction murders involved a sexual component, compared to 5% of all murders and 14% of non-abduction child murders.

It is rare for what happened to Abby and Libby to happen at all. Only about 1 out of 10,000 reports of a missing child end up with the outcome they had. However, if it DOES happen - then it is slightly more likely than not that a stranger was involved, and it's highly likely that the victim selection was not based on appearance or prior knowledge of the victim. So that's how I reached the conclusions I do. Anything COULD be, as this crime isn't solved, but I'm looking at what history tells us is more likely than not.

Thoughts?

^^^^Great post and stats, thank you.

 

[Justice101]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and what others have recently posted. Seriously not trying to be critical, just trying to further understand the reasoning.

BG is familiar with the bridge and it's surroundings?

BG had a plan to kill, but his potential victim would be random, he may go for two if the opportunity presented itself.

BG acted alone? He had no prior contact with the girls? He didn't know them?

Do you think he had been lying in wait, all geared up, at that bridge previously, maybe on various days, awaiting the opportunity?

As though he knew eventually someone would walk down that path, cross that bridge, and fall in to the trap? At a time nobody else would be around?

Or did this all come together for him on this day alone?

And then, on that day, Abby and Libby randomly walk that path, and it is by a total stroke of bad luck that they walk right in to his trap? All the pieces line up, and an hour or so later his deed is done?

The fact that school was out that day has nothing to do with it?

I'm posing the questions in sincerity.

I think if he had been laying in waiting several days he would have been reported to LE before that. I have called the police multiple times over the years when a creep was seen creeping around. You can tell by the body language they are up to something mischievous.

I personally think he was walking there one day (with knife and/or gun in hand) and there they were.. 2 teenage girls walking alone heading towards a dead end on a bridge with nowhere else to go. The thought and plan came instantly to him since he knew the area.

The keys to the case to me are:
1) LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION: Knows the area very well. Probably from childhood since people would be suspicious of him coming out of the woods up to the graveyard. He knew that little depressed section of land on the north side of the river very well from his childhood. (When I was a kid, I spent a couple of weeks every summer at my grandmothers house. I got so bored that I explored all around in the woods. Found some cool places.)

2) HE IS NOT NOW LOCAL. He WAS once local (as in, maybe he visited for the summer as a teenager, etc.). If he actually lived there even years ago as an adult, I think he would have been identified early on).

3) LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS VERY LITTLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: He might have just dispatched them quickly and left without doing anything further. (Let's hope).

That's my speculative 2 cents' worth.

 

[Justice101]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and what others have recently posted. Seriously not trying to be critical, just trying to further understand the reasoning.

BG is familiar with the bridge and it's surroundings?

BG had a plan to kill, but his potential victim would be random, he may go for two if the opportunity presented itself.

BG acted alone? He had no prior contact with the girls? He didn't know them?

Do you think he had been lying in wait, all geared up, at that bridge previously, maybe on various days, awaiting the opportunity?

As though he knew eventually someone would walk down that path, cross that bridge, and fall in to the trap? At a time nobody else would be around?

Or did this all come together for him on this day alone?

And then, on that day, Abby and Libby randomly walk that path, and it is by a total stroke of bad luck that they walk right in to his trap? All the pieces line up, and an hour or so later his deed is done?

The fact that school was out that day has nothing to do with it?

I'm posing the questions in sincerity.

Yep. Wrong place at wrong time in my opinion. An act of opportunity.

 

[Confusion]

My intention wasn't to offend anyone. But if you saw yourself in what I wrote about decent people....I was trying to say that it's normal to try to "normalize" these acts of extreme evil. You may be one of the people who are thinking, if I can figure out the "why Abby, why Libby" then I can protect myself/my loved ones from this type of horrible scenario.

Let's say they were killed because they investigated and were about to expose a sex ring in Carroll County. To me this is absolutely preposterous but to some, it's a "better" answer than the alternative, which is that there is a really evil person out there who killed only to appease his own desires and used two other basically randomly chosen humans in the most depraved of ways.

I'm still confused, but I guess that's part of why I chose this name. What I said was that I consider myself to be a decent person; however, I don't fit your description of one. I don't wonder "why Abby, why Libby?", I wonder "why anybody?" I don't see much sense in trying to normalize the case because I don't think there's anything normal about it. I tend to think that coming up with a scenario that seems to fit can help to understand the thinking of the person, and therefore, may make it slightly easier to identify him.

Some examples are: If his plan was to get them onto the bridge from the start, it's highly unlikely that he has any fear of heights, and may be very comfortable with them. This could suggest several occupations that involve working in high places. If he didn't have a gun, he would most likely be in reasonably good physical condition. My thinking on that is that he would have to be fit to catch 2 girls if they decided to run, and if he looks somewhat athletic, it seems like the girls would be less likely to try to run. There are many characteristics that can be determined, somewhat accurately, by thinking about what type of person could and would choose a certain scenario. These, in addition to the list on my other post, are what make me go through different ways a crime could have been committed.
MOO

 

[Falling Down]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this, and what others have recently posted. Seriously not trying to be critical, just trying to further understand the reasoning.

BG is familiar with the bridge and it's surroundings?

Yes. Probably been there several, if not many, times previously.

BG had a plan to kill, but his potential victim would be random, he may go for two if the opportunity presented itself.

Planned.

Random, yes.

BG acted alone? He had no prior contact with the girls? He didn't know them?

Alone, no previous contact except that day, he saw them on the trail. Probably saw them being dropped off. I believe he was near where the trails intersect, which is feet away from where the girls were dropped off. Perfect vantage point to see people coming and going.

We would know if they knew him.

Do you think he had been lying in wait, all geared up, at that bridge previously, maybe on various days, awaiting the opportunity?

He would have had to have visited the bridge area previously to do his recon, observe people, walk the path(s) involved, get accustomed to the bridge and its surroundings, etc.

Possibility he was "geared up" there before. I think he "scoped out" other locations in Indiana, previously.

MHB fit his fantasy well. Foot traffic would be sporadic. No cameras around.

As though he knew eventually someone would walk down that path, cross that bridge, and fall in to the trap? At a time nobody else would be around?

Yes that had to be his plan.

Or did this all come together for him on this day alone?

He figured he'd hit the jackpot when A&L were dropped off, and then he saw them walk to the far end of the bridge. The rest is history.

And then, on that day, Abby and Libby randomly walk that path, and it is by a total stroke of bad luck that they walk right in to his trap? All the pieces line up, and an hour or so later his deed is done?

Yes.

If not the girls, then someone else would have been his victim or victims.

The fact that school was out that day has nothing to do with it?

I'm posing the questions in sincerity.

I think he paid attention to when Delphi and maybe other nearby schools had days off around that time of year. It was the 2nd of two mild winters here in IN, nobody would be at the bridge area on a typical cold February day, where it might be 10F or even colder, with some snow on the ground.

He picked the place, the time of year, and I think he chose that day because unaccompanied juveniles would be in the bridge area.

BG would not have done his deeds there during the warmer months when the area along the creek is overgrown with vegetation.

It's possible he visited in, say, November, December, January, and early that February. Maybe he waited to kill the day before Valentine's Day, who knows...

I remember we had a nasty cold snap in December, but other than that it was relatively mild in northern IN from November of '16 up to the murders.

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

I'm still confused, but I guess that's part of why I chose this name. What I said was that I consider myself to be a decent person; however, I don't fit your description of one. I don't wonder "why Abby, why Libby?", I wonder "why anybody?" I don't see much sense in trying to normalize the case because I don't think there's anything normal about it. I tend to think that coming up with a scenario that seems to fit can help to understand the thinking of the person, and therefore, may make it slightly easier to identify him.

Some examples are: If his plan was to get them onto the bridge from the start, it's highly unlikely that he has any fear of heights, and may be very comfortable with them. This could suggest several occupations that involve working in high places. If he didn't have a gun, he would most likely be in reasonably good physical condition. My thinking on that is that he would have to be fit to catch 2 girls if they decided to run, and if he looks somewhat athletic, it seems like the girls would be less likely to try to run. There are many characteristics that can be determined, somewhat accurately, by thinking about what type of person could and would choose a certain scenario. These, in addition to the list on my other post, are what make me go through different ways a crime could have been committed.
MOO

I consider myself a decent person and I'm not trying to "normalize" it either. I understand that sometimes evil is just evil. There doesn't have to be a "motive" beyond that he has a sexual urge to murder someone, for example. You don't have to be in either group of posters I'm talking about.

I'm saying if you find yourself thinking why them? And having to come up with scenarios like "maybe they witnessed a crime!" You might be a nice person, who wants this to be solved, and who is reaching for "normal" reasons that murder occurs. My point is that child abduction murders are not normal murders. They are statistical outliers that have very unique characteristics.

Now if this doesn't describe you, it doesn't mean you're not nice or decent. But a lot of nice people take this approach. It's a wrong approach IMO though.

 

[Falling Down]

I think if he had been laying in waiting several days he would have been reported to LE before that. I have called the police multiple times over the years when a creep was seen creeping around. You can tell by the body language they are up to something mischievous.

I personally think he was walking there one day (with knife and/or gun in hand) and there they were.. 2 teenage girls walking alone heading towards a dead end on a bridge with nowhere else to go. The thought and plan came instantly to him since he knew the area.

The keys to the case to me are:
1) LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION: Knows the area very well. Probably from childhood since people would be suspicious of him coming out of the woods up to the graveyard. He knew that little depressed section of land on the north side of the river very well from his childhood. (When I was a kid, I spent a couple of weeks every summer at my grandmothers house. I got so bored that I explored all around in the woods. Found some cool places.)

2) HE IS NOT NOW LOCAL. He WAS once local (as in, maybe he visited for the summer as a teenager, etc.). If he actually lived there even years ago as an adult, I think he would have been identified early on).

3) LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS VERY LITTLE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: He might have just dispatched them quickly and left without doing anything further. (Let's hope).

That's my speculative 2 cents' worth.

I believe all of this that @Justice101 shared. Possible that BG knows the gorge from his younger years, but he's not a family member of anyone who lives in the immediate area.

I've had conversations with people who know that gorge from their childhoods. Yet they did not live in that area as children, they had family in Delphi or near to that small city, folks who knew the bridge and how to get to it. They don't live there now, but still have connections to Delphi.

Very strong possibility BG fits that same profile. Knows the gorge from his childhood, may even know RL's property closest to the creek, but is not related to nor really knows RL.

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

Yes. Probably been there several, if not many, times previously.



Planned.

Random, yes.



Alone, no previous contact except that day, he saw them on the trail. Probably saw them being dropped off. I believe he was near where the trails intersect, which is feet away from where the girls were dropped off. Perfect vantage point to see people coming and going.

We would know if they knew him.



He would have had to have visited the bridge area previously to do his recon, observe people, walk the path(s) involved, get accustomed to the bridge and its surroundings, etc.

Possibility he was "geared up" there before. I think he "scoped out" other locations in Indiana, previously.

MHB fit his fantasy well. Foot traffic would be sporadic. No cameras around.



Yes that had to be his plan.



He figured he'd hit the jackpot when A&L were dropped off, and then he saw them walk to the far end of the bridge. The rest is history.



Yes.

If not the girls, then someone else would have been his victim or victims.



I think he paid attention to when Delphi and maybe other nearby schools had days off around that time of year. It was the 2nd of two mild winters here in IN, nobody would be at the bridge area on a typical cold February day, where it might be 10F or even colder, with some snow on the ground.

He picked the place, the time of year, and I think he chose that day because unaccompanied juveniles would be in the bridge area.

BG would not have done his deeds there during the warmer months when the area along the creek is overgrown with vegetation.

It's possible he visited in, say, November, December, January, and early that February. Maybe he waited to kill the day before Valentine's Day, who knows...

I remember we had a nasty cold snap in December, but other than that it was relatively mild in northern IN from November of '16 up to the murders.

JMO

100% yes to all of this post. Especially that he has probably scoped out other locations previously and since.

I would also add that until the moment he saw them and confirmed they were heading to the end of that bridge, he probably did not even know himself whether he would attempt the crime he had long fantasized about.

If you are familiar with the work of forensic psychologist David Canter, you will know that he believes the investigative unraveling to the time BEFORE the crime is critical. Because before the offender commits, he might not even be sure himself whether the crime will go down the way he planned. And because he doesn't know if the right opportunity will come, he may not be as careful to disguise what he was doing before, as he was after.

 

[JnRyan]

No, if an ex-military, he must have been involved in some operations related to people. Execution and planning. It worked.

How dis it affect him? In the Soviet Union, after WWII, few men came home alive. My grandpa did. He never spoke about the war, except for comparing military qualities of different Axis member groups. But about daily war? Not a word. My grandma told me how he got his awards.

In fact, this was the way to sort out real military men from intelligence or others who did not fight. People who would be boastful, likely, never sniffed the real war, they used to say.

But at the same time, it tells me all military men came back from the war with major PTSD. And they knew human life did not cost much. Neither the soldiers nor the civilians.

All of them were ex-military were exceptionally good to their families and kids.

But maybe today, with the Inet, ex-military who came from combat, either medicate their PTSD with drugs, or in some minuscule percent of cases, it turns into ugly situations like this?

Just a thought.

Having much older relatives, teachers and a neighbor who came back from WWII, I've seen up close how they went through their daily lives. One of these was my father who spent over two and a half years in combat in the south Pacific. I wouldn't go so far as to say they all end up with PTSD. HOWEVER, based on what my father's relatives told me about Dad before and after the war it did affect him. We did have one relative who was in and out of mental hospitals for the remainder of his life. At the time we didn't make the connection to combat but thinking back now many of us believe had PTSD and it wasn't treated very well. I would say ALL who see combat are affected and even changed by it. But after seeing my father and reflecting on how he went through life and my uncles as well, my personal belief is that process that change determines whether or not they end up with PTSD and even to what degree they have it.

 

[Falling Down]

100% yes to all of this post. Especially that he has probably scoped out other locations previously and since.

I would also add that until the moment he saw them and confirmed they were heading to the end of that bridge, he probably did not even know himself whether he would attempt the crime he had long fantasized about.

If you are familiar with the work of forensic psychologist David Canter, you will know that he believes the investigative unraveling to the time BEFORE the crime is critical. Because before the offender commits, he might not even be sure himself whether the crime will go down the way he planned. And because he doesn't know if the right opportunity will come, he may not be as careful to disguise what he was doing before, as he was after.

From what I've read, most people who go to the MHB walk to the bridge, them turn around and go back the way they came. It's a short trail. Maybe some folks walk both trails, I know i would have previous to that day.

BG knew he had to get his prey to the end of the bridge in order for his abduction and murder fantasy to play out, I don't think he could have done it at the other end of the bridge and thus through the woods on the north side of the creek. Too risky.

The CS cannot be seen from the bridge, even in February. He knew this from his previous visits. He also knew how to get to the CS from the SE end of the bridge, taking the path they took gave him some concealment.

Except for one thing, and it's a big thing...

The house along the creek. He had to have known nobody was home, and in fact may have known the occupant is not there that time of year.

I've mentioned "variables" over the last almost three years here about this case. So many variables had to be thought about by BG before he even got to the trails that day. Some of those variables had to be in his favor in order for him to finally strike, as in choice of victim(s). Another huge variable, the house by the creek, which had a clear line-of-sight with where they crossed the creek.

JMO

 

[Maplesyrup]

For @stattlich1 and others who want to understand the viewpoint of someone who thinks the Delphi murders was a crime perpetrated by a stranger/not targeted in advance: the first thing that you'd need to see/agree on with me is that this crime was one of a unique subset of murders called a child abduction murder. If you don't agree with this basic premise, then I think you'd have trouble seeing my perspective.

Child abduction murders occur when a victim or victims under the age of 18 are transported ANY distance for the purpose of the commission of a crime. So I believe the murders of Abby and Libby meet this definition.

Child abduction murders are statistically quite different from regular child murders. Regular child murders, without the abduction component, are overwhelmingly likely to be committed by a family member or intimate. When abduction is involved, family is only responsible for the murder about 14% of the time. Strangers and acquaintances are about equally responsible for the rest of the cases (strangers account for about 44% of child abduction murders). However, the age of the victim heavily skews this data. Victims age 1-5 are mostly abducted and murdered by acquaintances. As the age of the victim goes up, strangers account for the majority of offenders.

Acquaintances are likely to abduct from the victim's home or another residence. Strangers account for most abductions from public places.

Now you might be seeing how I'm determining that Abby and Libby's case looks more like a stranger child abduction murder than an acquaintance one. But you might be wondering where I'm getting my information. In 2006 a very comprehensive study of child murder was published. You can find this online, it runs about 103 pages and it's the definitive manual used by law enforcement to investigate these types of crimes. It was linked in the previous thread by @margarita25 . The whole purpose of this study, which took 3 and 1/2 years and comprised almost 800 solved cases, was to show that 1. Child abduction murders are very different than regular child murders, and 2. To dispel common misconceptions held by law enforcement that was preventing them from making good decisions when investigating this type of case.

According to this study, child abduction killers overwhelmingly choose their victims because the opportunity presented itself. They rarely choose based on physical characteristics or prior knowledge of the victim. These types of killers had a motive to murder a specific victim in just 12% of cases.

Here is a quote from the Child Abduction Murder Study: " There is a misconception that child abduction murder killers are looking for a child with a certain appearance. Contrary to murders in general, CAM killers were much less likely to select a victim based on a personal characteristic."

The data DO support that CAM killers have a higher likelihood of using the same MO across multiple offenses and that there is a greater predisposition to serial offending. What this means is that child abduction killers are MORE like serial killers - even if they've only committed one offense - than like "regular" murderers.

Also like serial killers, child abduction killers have an overwhelming sexual component in their motivation to kill. 70% of child abduction murders involved a sexual component, compared to 5% of all murders and 14% of non-abduction child murders.

It is rare for what happened to Abby and Libby to happen at all. Only about 1 out of 10,000 reports of a missing child end up with the outcome they had. However, if it DOES happen - then it is slightly more likely than not that a stranger was involved, and it's highly likely that the victim selection was not based on appearance or prior knowledge of the victim. So that's how I reached the conclusions I do. Anything COULD be, as this crime isn't solved, but I'm looking at what history tells us is more likely than not.

Thoughts?

Excellent post and considering no one has been arrested for the murders and we are almost 3 1/2 years in, I'd say you have hit the nail on the head.

 

[JnRyan]

You know why many think he is from the military? Army teaches people to be physically organized, to rapidly gather their stuff. Maybe what we view as mental IQ is his good physical organization.

I believe the military is one possibility, but specifically Army or Marines. I was Navy and the few times I was in a joint environment I found that even the lowest ranking soldier or marine is confident in their ability in the field. At the same time I saw senior enlisted Navy and USAF personnel who were obviously struggling despite their best efforts and these were otherwise highly competent military personnel in an office or shipboard environment. I did well enough but I had years from my pre-teens to early 2o's in the woods hiking or with my father scouting for hunting spots and hunting. So for me it was an extension of my premilitary experience and had absolutely nothing to do with my military training.

Organization is only one aspect here - for me anyway. Another is what I perceive as a comfort in an outdoor environment. In addition to military, those that spend time playing paintball acquire this ability if they are successful at playing that game. Hunters are another group. I've never been to the trails, but looking at the trails it is not an extensive forest environment. Anyone who has spent time on military exercises, hunting trips or playing paintball in MUCH more vast wooded areas would not have to spend much time to be acquainted with the area. Those that do extensive hiking on trails like the Appalachian Trail, maybe. Maybe. Trail hikers, in my experience, become very organized in their preparation, but even the more experienced ones rarely deviate from a well established trail. This killer went off the trail and did it quickly. He was either very lucky or very confident in where he was going that day. But that is just my take on it.

Don't get me wrong as this only one theory I have here. I still believe it is very likely that it is possible that this killer doesn't necessarily have extensive field experience but rather extensive experience with this particular set of trails. Perhaps in middle or high school years either as a prior resident or frequent visitor in the past.

 

[Maplesyrup]

From what I've read, most people who go to the MHB walk to the bridge, them turn around and go back the way they came. It's a short trail. Maybe some folks walk both trails, I know i would have previous to that day.

BG knew he had to get his prey to the end of the bridge in order for his abduction and murder fantasy to play out, I don't think he could have done it at the other end of the bridge and thus through the woods on the north side of the creek. Too risky.

The CS cannot be seen from the bridge, even in February. He knew this from his previous visits. He also knew how to get to the CS from the SE end of the bridge, taking the path they took gave him some concealment.

Except for one thing, and it's a big thing...

The house along the creek. He had to have known nobody was home, and in fact may have known the occupant is not there that time of year.

I've mentioned "variables" over the last almost three years here about this case. So many variables had to be thought about by BG before he even got to the trails that day. Some of those variables had to be in his favor in order for him to finally strike, as in choice of victim(s). Another huge variable, the house by the creek, which had a clear line-of-sight with where they crossed the creek.

JMO

Great post. I do wonder if he had been in the woods overnight the previous night watching the house to be sure there was no activity. If they have timers set to control the lights... he may have monitored the lights going on and the lights going off. Maybe there were no timers on lights in the house and it remained dark all through the evening and all night. Remember in February it gets dark pretty early and it would stand to reason that if someone was home, there would be lights on for them to see while indoors. He would know there was no human activity outside and may have been brave enough to peep in windows if afforded the opportunity at night under cover of darkness. Once he knew the house was empty, he was safe to proceed.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I think the poster was referring to files that are downloadable by anyone. If you check out a website mentioned in the article of the judge Stepping down you will see the downloads.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought that might be the case. I have seen some of the files. Guess I need to check them again.