Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #125

[SMK777]

I've read this several times, and I don't have a clue what the poster is trying to say.

Thanks, because I thought there was something wrong with me that I couldn’t make heads nor tails of it.

 

[Blue Amethyst]

So what could be different from the official version that could allow this happen? Or, what could provide the killer with an “obvious” alibi? Being one of the group? Being one of the search group? Being a person officially repairing the bridge?

Is that a possible version? That he could be one of the group,

I have thought of this so many times. JMO but was he there all along. Was he one of the kids there? Was he then a searcher? He was there all along and never left. It wasn’t a stranger but like you said...one of the group.

I just hope they went through the whole group there with a fine tooth comb. Maybe that is how he was hiding in plain sight...just one of the group.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I have thought of this so many times. JMO but was he there all along. Was he one of the kids there? Was he then a searcher? He was there all along and never left. It wasn’t a stranger but like you said...one of the group.

I just hope they went through the whole group there with a fine tooth comb. Maybe that is how he was hiding in plain sight...just one of the group.

Whoever it is, they knew the homes in the immediate proximity to the crime scene would be vacant at the time of the attack. How did he know RL's schedule? The other home had been vacant for awhile if I have my facts right.
Was RL's trip that day random or routine?

He had this attack very well planned, and most especially as it related to RL not being at home/within ear shot or eyesight. How did he know RL Wasn't going to be at home!?

Who had been checking on/caretaking the vacant property near the crime scene? Who worked on, or has stayed at RL's property and knew his routines?

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[somequestions]

It has to be volunteer maintenance. This is not a big production. It is not a park. It is an empty trail system.

As always I want to be the absolute under on this. I don't mind being totally alone down there. In fact, this case would be phenomenal for "Action Points" under. That's wagering where the margin dictates the payoff. For example, wagering under 10 people at the bridge area in a given time frame would pay off higher at 5 or 6 than at 9, compared to standard wagering where the payoff is the same regardless of how far away from the established over/under number. The reward is greater the more you are correct, like 5 paying higher than 6. Of course, the penalty is more harsh the other way, if the result turned out to be 15 and not 11.

I would be shaking in anticipation all night if I could wager "Action Points" under on a Harvey Carroll number.

I think that even though Harvey Carroll has not solved the case, I do think he will be correct that the sketches will end up looking nothing like the actual man on the bridge. His enhancements have at the very least showed that the police are wrong about who they are looking for, but are not clear enough to distinguish any one person who is bridge guy. This is my opinion.

Everything is based on opinion, but my bet is that Harvey Carroll is right that bridge guy does not look like either sketch. But a sketch is not a photograph. Just like the bridge guy may have a hat or he may not have a hat. Or he may have curly hair or he may not have curly hair. Or he will be a combination of someone who is 50, but may look like he is 18. If I made the statement that bridge guy is between the ages of 18-70, I think most people would agree with me.

 

[somequestions]

I've read this several times, and I don't have a clue what the poster is trying to say.

They are pay tables for betting. Certain combinations are better than others thus increasing your odds of winning if you play the same strategy and make the same bet over a period of time. I think the person who made the post has been to the Monon High Bridge area and is using betting as a metaphor for what they think is correct about the area, in this case the amount of people who may or may not have been around the Monon High Bridge trail that day.

 

[Charlot123]

I think that even though Harvey Carroll has not solved the case, I do think he will be correct that the sketches will end up looking nothing like the actual man on the bridge. His enhancements have at the very least showed that the police are wrong about who they are looking for, but are not clear enough to distinguish any one person who is bridge guy. This is my opinion.

Everything is based on opinion, but my bet is that Harvey Carroll is right that bridge guy does not look like either sketch. But a sketch is not a photograph. Just like the bridge guy may have a hat or he may not have a hat. Or he may have curly hair or he may not have curly hair. Or he will be a combination of someone who is 50, but may look like he is 18. If I made the statement that bridge guy is between the ages of 18-70, I think most people would agree with me.

And it concerns me. The age range of 18-40 spans a generation. From what I understand, very few people saw the CS. And maybe, just maybe, if an 18-year old saw it, it would stir up something, that a 40-year old would totally miss. Or vise versa. Even knowing what music BG likes, whether he is a gamer or not, is a lot of information. All profilers that speak about crimes are on the “40th” end; not a problem if the BG is older, and might be an issue if he is younger. (Maybe the strategy of consulting criminals like JP could help?).

I am thinking that if people discussing this case are spread between, say, Gen X and Gen Y, and BG is Gen Z, none of us might even understand where he bought his jacket, or what disguise he used. Or many other things.

This width of age group is concerning and doesn’t help with POIs.

 

[Charlot123]

I've read this several times, and I don't have a clue what the poster is trying to say.

This is what I am thinking about. I understand that it is about betting, but I never bet. (I must use similar strategy for multiple choice tests). But since neither of us two is in betting group, we might guess the meaning of the post, but not truly understand. Likewise, I don’t “feel” the Delphi story, it makes no sense to me. I suspect there are many glitches in what we know. Starting with the official timeline.

 

[Charlot123]

So it sounds like volunteers and not employees. That would make it less likely that there would be a list. Somehow, I have a hard time seeing this killer doing this volunteer work. (But, of course, one doesn't really know what goes on inside the mind of some persons. Maybe this killer has a great fondness for trails and hiking.) I would imagine LE did contact the organizers/leaders of such work efforts have been contacted as well as frequent participants in these efforts. Sketches shown and persons asked about maybe someone who might have matched. Who knows some of the tips may have come from some of these volunteers.

I think BG has fondness for bridges and is quite able-handed. All of it does not explain why he killed two kids, of course.

 

[sleuth782]

I've read this several times, and I don't have a clue what the poster is trying to say.

Agree it's unclearly written . However, I think the intent was along these lines. There is not some cut-off number like 10 people, where over 10 people is suddenly very risky for BG, but under 10 people is suddenly good.

In the eyes of BG, 9 people being on the trail that day is better than 10; 8 is better than 9; 7 is better than 8, etc. The risk to BG incrementally decreases with fewer people on the trail, and there is not some distinct number below which the outcome for him suddenly changes. Risk gradually declines with fewer people in the area.

This contrasts with the concept of an over/under bet in gambling, where slightly over and slightly under the threshhold result in very, very different outcomes, where one is a clear win and the other is a clear loss.

 

[stattlich1]

Agree it's unclearly written . However, I think the intent was along these lines. There is not some cut-off number like 10 people, where over 10 people is suddenly very risky for BG, but under 10 people is suddenly good.

In the eyes of BG, 9 people being on the trail that day is better than 10; 8 is better than 9; 7 is better than 8, etc. The risk to BG incrementally decreases with fewer people on the trail, and there is not some distinct number below which the outcome for him suddenly changes. Risk gradually declines with fewer people in the area.

This contrasts with the concept of an over/under bet in gambling, where slightly over and slightly under the threshhold result in very, very different outcomes, where one is a clear win and the other is a clear loss.

This is a good post. It caused me to think about whether this killer was actually gambling.....or not.

For me, it would be a gamble to NOT know if there were people under that bridge, or down the hill at the end of that bridge, or in the wooded area below, or even in the cemetery across the the creek.

It would be a gamble to HAVE people rather near on those trails, and risk either of those two girls screaming.

It also would be a gamble to KNOW there were people on those trails, and NOT have a definitive escape route/plan, so as to get out of there undetected.

All three lead me to suspect the killer was very familiar with the area, the terrain, the properties, the creek, and even knew the whereabouts of any persons present that day.

I do have a piece of me that sees the possibility of these girls being bound and gagged, forced in to a car, driven to that cemetery, marched down that hill to the actual crime scene. One may have attempted to flee across the creek, back toward the bridge. Articles of clothing could have been moved by the killer, or wildlife.

All speculation on my part.

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Whoever it is, they knew the homes in the immediate proximity to the crime scene would be vacant at the time of the attack. How did he know RL's schedule? The other home had been vacant for awhile if I have my facts right.
Was RL's trip that day random or routine?

He had this attack very well planned, and most especially as it related to RL not being at home/within ear shot or eyesight. How did he know RL Wasn't going to be at home!?

Who had been checking on/caretaking the vacant property near the crime scene? Who worked on, or has stayed at RL's property and knew his routines?

Amateur opinion and speculation

Or? BG lived nearby or his family lived nearby and he was stalking the bridge. Along come two angels, no one is watching, and he takes the hunters’ inclination to strike when opportunity presents itself. Quiet as mice ( under threat of gun?) they descend the hill out of view. MOO

 

[Cryptic]

Whoever it is, they knew the homes in the immediate proximity to the crime scene would be vacant at the time of the attack. How did he know RL's schedule?

Was RL's trip that day random or routine?

I don't think he knew RL's schedule.

Likewise, I don't think say, military level planning went into preparing for the crime. Rather the perpetrator(s) relied on a combination of local knowledge of the area, the area's relative isolation on a day by day basis and a certain amount of luck.

As for RL's trip that day, my guess is that it was closer to impulsive than routine. Though RL apparently routinely broke is probation rules, my bet is that most of the rule breaking was impulsive and based on spur of the moment decisions.

And it concerns me. The age range of 18-40 spans a generation.

The police have put out different information on the sketches:

- The older BG sketch is accurate
- BG might be a blend of the "Old BG" and the young BG sketch.
- Old BG and young BG are two different individuals. Old BG is thought to be the murderer, but the police are very interested in identifying young BG.

The last possibility raises the possibility of the younger BG being an accomplice to the older individual and thus might explain the apparent range of possible ages.

 

[Justice101]

Yeh, what if new Sketch#2 guy was an accomplice for BG by being a look out:

That is, Sketch#2 guy stays at or near the north end of the bridge waiting for BG to get to the girls at the south end of the bridge. BG turns back around when he past the girls, looks to the north and gets a wave from Sketch#2 guy that the coast is clear.

BG then pulls a gun and leads them down the hill and that allows Sketch#2 guy to traverse across side of the hill on the north river bank and meet up with BG at the crime scene after he and the girls crossed the creek to get there? Imagine that! ???

IF THIS HAPPENED, this would be evidence of an even more despicable and diabolical plan.

 

[Ozoner]

I don't think he knew RL's schedule.

Likewise, I don't think say, military level planning went into preparing for the crime. Rather the perpetrator(s) relied on a combination of local knowledge of the area, the area's relative isolation on a day by day basis and a certain amount of luck.

As for RL's trip that day, my guess is that it was closer to impulsive than routine. Though RL apparently routinely broke is probation rules, my bet is that most of the rule breaking was impulsive and based on spur of the moment decisions.


The police have put out different information on the sketches:

- The older BG sketch is accurate
- BG might be a blend of the "Old BG" and the young BG sketch.
- Old BG and young BG are two different individuals. Old BG is thought to be the murderer, but the police are very interested in identifying young BG.

The last possibility raises the possibility of the younger BG being an accomplice to the older individual and thus might explain the apparent range of possible ages.

BBM
But that isn't what they've said at all, at least not lately. They've said that young BG is the murderer and the old BG is no longer a person of interest. They give the impression that they've already identified and cleared old BG.

 

[rosesfromangels]

And it concerns me. The age range of 18-40 spans a generation. From what I understand, very few people saw the CS. And maybe, just maybe, if an 18-year old saw it, it would stir up something, that a 40-year old would totally miss. Or vise versa. Even knowing what music BG likes, whether he is a gamer or not, is a lot of information. All profilers that speak about crimes are on the “40th” end; not a problem if the BG is older, and might be an issue if he is younger. (Maybe the strategy of consulting criminals like JP could help?).

I am thinking that if people discussing this case are spread between, say, Gen X and Gen Y, and BG is Gen Z, none of us might even understand where he bought his jacket, or what disguise he used. Or many other things.

This width of age group is concerning and doesn’t help with POIs.

You are raising some excellent points.
I tend to believe the Perp is at the higher end of the age range because he apparently wasn't clued in to the cellphone.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Charlot123]

You are raising some excellent points.
I tend to believe the Perp is at the higher end of the age range because he apparently wasn't clued in to the cellphone.

Amateur opinion and speculation

I think the killer was at the higher end, but whoever he left to create the CS was younger.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

And it concerns me. The age range of 18-40 spans a generation. From what I understand, very few people saw the CS. And maybe, just maybe, if an 18-year old saw it, it would stir up something, that a 40-year old would totally miss. Or vise versa. Even knowing what music BG likes, whether he is a gamer or not, is a lot of information. All profilers that speak about crimes are on the “40th” end; not a problem if the BG is older, and might be an issue if he is younger. (Maybe the strategy of consulting criminals like JP could help?).

I am thinking that if people discussing this case are spread between, say, Gen X and Gen Y, and BG is Gen Z, none of us might even understand where he bought his jacket, or what disguise he used. Or many other things.

This width of age group is concerning and doesn’t help with POIs.

I totally agree with you. That age span is very problematic. To me, it’s proof positive that LE has no idea who the killer is. They are not dotting “i”s and crossing “t”s building a case against someone.

 

[margarita25]

Question, iirc, there’s reference somewhere that says they think BG was still in the area when they were first searching (sorry need quote).

This has puzzled me a bit because I tend to imagine that he had an exit route planned and high-tailed it out of there immediately after the murders.

Thoughts?

I just don’t see him sticking around.

 

[moonriverfarm]

And yet here, with only a grainy video, the perp is arrested within 24 hours.

Canada -Woman, 50, found critically injured & assaulted, Whitby,Ont, 29 July 2020

 

[MistyWaters]

And yet here, with only a grainy video, the perp is arrested within 24 hours.

Canada -Woman, 50, found critically injured & assaulted, Whitby,Ont, 29 July 2020

You’re mirroring my exact thoughts when I read about the quick arrest in the Whitby case. The release of the photo and audio in this Delphi case should’ve also been enough to ID the killer. If LE made mistakes, IMO one resembled NIMBY by them not strongly emphasizing the high likelihood of the killer’s connection to the Delphi community, recent past or present. This shouldn’t have become a big ‘ah ah moment’ more than 2 years later. JMO