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

[sunshineray]

He was allegedly going to the dump which means he likely was loading a truck or trailer with items to take to the dump. I wonder who knew he left or would be gone awhile. I also wonder about the other property where the alleged snowbirds were away. Surely someone was checking on their property from time to time. Whoever BG is IMO knew there would be no one home during the time to commit the crime. Again IMO

I would tend to agree with you if like some former FBI agents have remarked the killer actually did prepared a "lair" to bring his victims to and I'm sure investigators know the answer to that.

 

[sunshineray]

If Abby and Libby had not walked across the bridge that day would he have abducted them from a trail?
If the girls were targeted specifically I guess he would have taken them from any location he could have gotten them when they were away from other people.

I think it is possible that they were targeted and BG knew that they would be there that afternoon. But there’s no way he could’ve known they would cross the bridge and he could take them from the end of it. And, they very well could have ran into friends and been with them. Or, someone else could have been at the end of the bridge. If these girls were targeted specifically what would he have done if he could not isolate them on the bridge?...Just thinking out loud.

Taken them on the other side of the creek, through the woods to the same crime scene? Then he wouldn't have gotten wet crossing that creek.

 

[Spartygirl]

He was allegedly going to the dump which means he likely was loading a truck or trailer with items to take to the dump. I wonder who knew he left or would be gone awhile. I also wonder about the other property where the alleged snowbirds were away. Surely someone was checking on their property from time to time. Whoever BG is IMO knew there would be no one home during the time to commit the crime. Again IMO

Yes, IIRC, the snowbirds' son was checking on the home

 

[Spartygirl]

FEAR.

The locals and the LE.

They hate him but can't touch him.
I hope if/when the situation changes, he won't wait for the arrest.

I wish I could "LOVE" this post about a zillion times

 

[sunshineray]

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?

Good post! I would add, in a devil's advocate way, that online is full of strangers who stalk and prey upon many, especially young teens. 12% have a motive to single out a victim, that's a lot of acquaintance strangers, IMO.

 

[Spartygirl]

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
First, I do believe they were targeted, not random
Second- I did for a minute think "abduction" however-----
Third-- to try to abduct 2 of them ??? I can see trying for one youngster, but not trying to abduct 2 of them, in the short time BG was there. Which brings me back to -- targeted.
JMO
But I have thought about your scenario quite a few times, but I keep going back to my first instinct.

 

[Yemelyan]

Great post
First, I do believe they were targeted, not random
Second- I did for a minute think "abduction" however-----
Third-- to try to abduct 2 of them ??? I can see trying for one youngster, but not trying to abduct 2 of them, in the short time BG was there. Which brings me back to -- targeted.
JMO
But I have thought about you scenario quite a few times, but I keep going back to my first instinct.

They were abducted though.

Whenever they were removed from their intended location in order for another crime to be committed, it doesn't actually matter how far he took them.

 

[Spartygirl]

Threats and fear talked about here.

"Carter said that he believes that since the killer’s image and voice were publicized, and they have not been able to identify a suspect, someone knows who he is but is keeping quiet because of “extreme fear.”

“There is obviously someone withholding information,” added Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby. “It could very well be somewhere along the lines someone was even threatened not to reveal the identity of the killer.”

“Please, please, come forward and let us know what you know,” Carter pleaded"

'Epitome of evil': Delphi double murder still a mystery three years later | X101 Always Classic

And don't forget Tobe saying "Ive heard this voice before"

 

[rosesfromangels]

Was he even home that afternoon? Remembering all the way back to the beginning of this, I feel like he said he was out running errands including buying tropical fish?!

Interesting coincidence.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Spartygirl]

They were abducted though.

Whenever they were removed from their intended location in order for another crime to be committed, it doesn't actually matter how far he took them.

True-- but I was thinking more of abducted meaning "being taken away and then brought back to crime scene, abduction" which has been another popular opinion
I guess I didn't clarify that.
but you are correct

 

[sunshineray]

Thank you for all your insightful posts - you've been posting alot of great info and points to ponder.
The majority of us on this thread are falling in to two speculative camps: (1) - Prior contact/catfished (2) Randomly selected Victims based on proximity/availability.

I've been posting enough for folks to know that my *primary* theory falls in category (1). However, those of us who have been posting on these threads for any amount of time know that it's foolish to dig in on any one theory. We know so little about the case, and we can only make deductions based on research/stats/and the limited details we know.

As such, I want to emphasize that while I'm partial to theory (1), I do agree that there is just as good a possibility that these children were picked at random.

I learned this "random" lesson when I was following the Jane Britton thread. Jane was a Harvard doctorate candidate in anthropology, murdered in 1969. She was left in a rather bizarre arrangement of items around and on top of her. Many of us hypothesized the way Jane was found aligned with some anthropological burial rite....and our speculations only grew wilder from there. We had some pretty "interesting" theories...all very complex after hours upon hours of studies of various burial rites and rituals.

Jane's case was ice cold. Fast forward to 2017 and DNA advances. Jane's case was finally solved and those that were held in greatest suspicion were exonerated. Jane's Perp was some random guy walking past her dorm/apartment, and was fixated on her from her 2nd floor window. He climbed up the fire escape, entered her room, and murdered her. Well there went all those wild theories!!!!

So yes, we must always consider randomness. Many Perps operate at a low level of the human spectrum, focused only on the most basic of human urges.

Amateur opinion and speculation

That story is a good lesson Roses, thanks.

 

[Yemelyan]

True-- but I was thinking more of abducted meaning "being taken away and then brought back to crime scene, abduction"
I guess I didn't clarify that.
but you are correct

No, absolutely not taken away and brought back. I'm glad we are on the same page now. As soon as he either ordered or coerced them down the hill, that meets the standard of abduction. The distance from where he abducted them to where their bodies were found is NOT actually that unusual for a child abduction murder. I can look for the statistics in that report I was citing but most of the crime scenes and/or body dumps are closer to the abduction site than you'd think.

 

[Spartygirl]

If Abby and Libby had not walked across the bridge that day would he have abducted them from a trail?
If the girls were targeted specifically I guess he would have taken them from any location he could have gotten them when they were away from other people.

I think it is possible that they were targeted and BG knew that they would be there that afternoon. But there’s no way he could’ve known they would cross the bridge and he could take them from the end of it. And, they very well could have ran into friends and been with them. Or, someone else could have been at the end of the bridge. If these girls were targeted specifically what would he have done if he could not isolate them on the bridge?...Just thinking out loud.

True-- and Abby's house was not that far from the bridge,
they could have ran to her house.
I think he had a gun or something to make them go with him "down the hill"
Otherwise, why wouldn't they run right to Abby's house ???
I question that over and over. JMO

 

[Spartygirl]

No, absolutely not taken away and brought back. I'm glad we are on the sane page now. As soon as he either ordered or coerced them down the hill, that meets the standard of abduction. The distance from where he abducted them to where their bodies were found is NOT actually that unusual for a child abduction murder. I can look for the statistics in that report I was citing but most of the crime scenes and/or body dumps are closer to the abduction site than you'd think.

BBM-- correct.
I just had a different thought process going on in my head LOL
But yes, they were abducted from where they were.
Sorry, I am not explaining myself how I want to...I will blame it on working too much overtime and well, it is Monday after a long 4th of July festivities filled weekend. LOL

 

[Yemelyan]

If Abby and Libby had not walked across the bridge that day would he have abducted them from a trail?
If the girls were targeted specifically I guess he would have taken them from any location he could have gotten them when they were away from other people.

I think it is possible that they were targeted and BG knew that they would be there that afternoon. But there’s no way he could’ve known they would cross the bridge and he could take them from the end of it. And, they very well could have ran into friends and been with them. Or, someone else could have been at the end of the bridge. If these girls were targeted specifically what would he have done if he could not isolate them on the bridge?...Just thinking out loud.

He probably would have done what he did many times before....walk away and wait for another day, perhaps another trail, another victim. He would have gone home and thought about the possibilities and experienced a thrill that he came so close. Sadly to say, he probably would have learned something from the experience that would have made him a better predator next time. And the girls and everyone else on the trail that day would have gone home and never known how closely evil brushed by them. IMO

 

[Spartygirl]

If Abby and Libby had not walked across the bridge that day would he have abducted them from a trail?
If the girls were targeted specifically I guess he would have taken them from any location he could have gotten them when they were away from other people.

I think it is possible that they were targeted and BG knew that they would be there that afternoon. But there’s no way he could’ve known they would cross the bridge and he could take them from the end of it. And, they very well could have ran into friends and been with them. Or, someone else could have been at the end of the bridge. If these girls were targeted specifically what would he have done if he could not isolate them on the bridge?...Just thinking out loud.

Well, normally I would say, if the girls had not crossed the bridge, he could have taken them from the trail as it is pretty quiet there, however, knowing now how many people were there that day, he pretty much had to hope they would cross the bridge to get to them.
If not, he would have waited for another day
IMO

 

[JnRyan]

BBM
I am going to agree to disagree and I also have no evidence to support it, just my gut feeling since the very beginning.
I think they (or one) were targeted and not random
JMO

I hear you. I think if this killer really is still a local that increases the odds that they could be targeted as opposed to someone from outside the area. With almost 60K in tips (I don't know the actual amount of tips as I've lost track), I can't help but believe he didn't live in the county at the time of the murders.

That said, though, the Georgia town of Ocilla GA is about the same size as Delphi and Tara Grinstead, a teacher and former beauty queen, went missing in 2005 and the killer and his accomplice were not caught until 2017. Her killer was local at the time of the murder and when the GBI arrested him they said he had never even been on their radar. Never questioned, never a POI. Her sister - who accused Tara's former BF - said she had known the killer and his family for years and never had any reason to connect him to any part of the crime. A former girlfriend who he confessed to later on turned the killer in. He was definitely hiding in plain sight.

 

[Falling Down]

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.

Since early on a lot of folks have made it seem like this is a huge wooded area, and by that I mean from the drop-off point, down the trail, across the bridge/gorge, "down the hill", across the short land area to the creek, across the creek, then to the CS.

All of that could be walked in under 20 minutes.

I think it probably took BG 7-8 minutes to walk from the CS back to the trail after the murders.

It's such a small area, that's why I think the timeline from first sighting, maybe they even made eye contact, to him walking out of the CS was maybe an hour and 15 minutes, give-or-take.

Good post.

JMO

 

[Falling Down]

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.

He had to have known nobody was home.

From C.R. 200 you cannot see that house, I drove through there in 2017 and saw just the other house that's close to the bridge. That house cannot be directly driven to from the gorge, and does not have a clear line-of-sight to the bridge, which sets down in the gorge a bit, anyway.

I don't know how he knew, but he had to know. Maybe he asked somebody about the house, at some point previously. Did he go there at night? Possible, I've heard and read that people would go to the creek at night from the C.R. 300 side, where A&L were dropped off. I think he just did some research and figured nobody would be home that day.

JMO

 

[rosesfromangels]

He had to have known nobody was home.
JMO

Respectfully snipped and BBM.
I think it's a reasonable speculation to suggest he had some connection (if even loose) to that home or the homeowner. To effectively pull off his murderous plot it was imperative no one in that house was at home to hear what was transpiring.

*How did he know the owner wouldn't be there?*

Answer this question, and we likely can find the killer.

Amateur opinion and speculation