Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #128

[Ekliptika]

[QUOTE="Awsi Dooger, post: 16613856, member: 201486"
Unfortunately nobody saw the months and months of behind the scenes material and discussion that led to the younger sketch being adopted. Everyone saw Carter behind that podium.[/QUOTE]​

Interesting post. Quote snipped by me.
I guess the months and months of befind the scene material and discussions did not convince Carter? I wonder if that means that what they have that made them change directions is not as solid as I thought and hoped? That those in here believing that LE changed course, not because of new information, but simple because they were stuck. I really hope not, I have always believed that there must be something substantial that made them change course, however if Carter is not convinced, then maybe not?

 

[sunshineray]

I don't know if this has been posted. HLN channel is having a 2 part, 2 night show called "Down The Hill: The Delphi Murders" airing Feb 14 & 15 at 10 pm ET.

 

[sandy_80]

this is an interview with TL from last year
Lots of tips, no arrest in 2017 double homicide | Carroll County Comet

The Sheriff indicated the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday, Feb. 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation.

Leazenby advised there is DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated. He said there is “suggestive” evidence of fingerprints found at the crime scene.

 

[TL4S]

this is an interview with TL from last year
Lots of tips, no arrest in 2017 double homicide | Carroll County Comet

The Sheriff indicated the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday, Feb. 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation.

Leazenby advised there is DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated. He said there is “suggestive” evidence of fingerprints found at the crime scene.

That article was new to me. Thanks!

 

[Falling Down]

Doug Carter caused the fracture at the last second in April 2019. It seems obvious. I don't know how that can be viewed as a scripted presser, when all evidence indicates it was scripted one way until Doug Carter didn't want to commit to the younger sketch so he freelanced the other way throughout that presser. Carter may have been influenced by Tobe Leazenby and others from the local Delphi investigation, since they now go along with Carter in the ridiculous "could be a combination" theme.

The press release simultaneous to the presser includes the shift away from the older sketch, and with the centerpiece, "We have a witness. You made mistakes," quotes from Carter. Those quotes are attributed to Carter yet he never made them during the presser itself. That is totally unprecedented. I cannot remember another example, in any realm. Somehow the media ignored the press release and those undelivered quotes...hence the theme became a scripted speech instead of a freelance betrayal of the intended direction. And once conventional wisdom gets out there it is hellish to reverse.

The clarification press release from a day or two later was instructive toward intention -- the older sketch no longer a person of interest -- but it was mostly overwhelmed by public attention toward the new sketch and toward Carter with "The Shack." Even if the FBI was wondering what the heck happened and how did we get stuck with this guy they can't make the situation worse by holding a subsequent presser emphasizing disregard that junior varsity fellow from a few days ago.

Doug Carter knows he will be remembered for this case. In his gut he doesn't believe he is seeing a young guy in Libby's video. That's why he got scared and shifted away at the last second. I don't see any other explanation. Reportedly it was the Georgia FBI and other federal types who were asked to take a look at the case when identification was not happening, to the surprise of local Delphi law enforcement. Those federal types adopted a wide scope view and favored the immediate sighting and young sketch, not the older one pieced together over 5 months. Carter and Leazenby followed the process and went along with it...until Carter as spokesman was forced to commit.

Unfortunately nobody saw the months and months of behind the scenes material and discussion that led to the younger sketch being adopted. Everyone saw Carter behind that podium.

I agree, and would add that on my end they didn't want to come right out and say they fudged some of the investigation early on.

My hunch is they disregarded a witness' words early on in the case, which is how we now have the sketch of a young-ish male. That witness and that sketch are linked, and while I don't think a sketch of our suspect necessarily will lead to identifying him, I think that what the witness told investigators was crucial to putting together a timeline. I also think it was crucial to ruling out/disregarding some things LE said early on, such as "could be a drifter", things along those lines. Like Awsi Dooger, I've been to the trails and the surrounding area. People just don't walk along and stumble upon Monon High Bridge and the trail connected to it.

JMO

 

[Rush4087]

LE did tell the public to disregard the first sketch. They didn't say we found him or we eliminated him from our suspects but it was in Dec 2018 and early 2019, before the April press conference, that LE is quoted as saying they sent DNA to Quantico to be researched and then that they'd looked into a man CE (who favored the first sketch).

Then ISP Carter said repeatedly in interviews that he thought the killer would wind up looking like a combination of the two sketches.

If in fact the first sketch was cleared as Abby's Mom has said, why ISP Carter is saying the sketch has value in identifying the killer is all the more confusing now.

Maybe the only explanation is there's a fracture in thought concerning that first sketch within LE?

A "fracture in thought" is a nice way of putting it.

They had both composite sketches early on. In fact, they had sketch no. 2 before they had sketch no. 1. They later admitted that sketch no. 1 was "compiled". It's obvious now (to me, anyway) that they discounted sketch no. 2 because it didn't look enough like the man in the photo, and that they editorialized and "compiled" sketch no. 1 (post witness input, imo) so that it looked (at least more) like the man in the photo. All just my opinion.

There's nothing wrong with choosing one objective sketch over the other. That would be a judgement call - and LE is not perfect. But it appears that they didn't just choose one objective sketch over the other. It appears that they allowed their own biased opinions to actually influence one of the sketches itself (post witness input, again, jmo) - and then chose to release just that one sketch. This would've been not just an error in judgement, but an error in procedure - and something that LE should have owned up to at the PC. Carter's refusal to own up to it on behalf of LE, imo, damaged the credibility of the investigation.

I think Carter tried to distract from the incongruity of the sketch explanation with all the "we know you're out there", "you're probably listening to this right now, maybe even in this room", "we know you think you know - but you don't know ", "you didn't think we would change strategies, but we did", "how can you sleep at night", "somebody's going to tell on you", "we're going to get you - when you least expect it expect it", "if it's the last thing we do" kind of stuff.

I don't have the expertise to know whether it would have been a wise tactic for LE to release both sketches, but I'm left wondering why they ultimately chose not to do so. I guess they thought the public would just be too overwhelmed and confused. Or maybe they didn't want twice the number of tips (which I can certainly understand - if you're chasing the wrong person it would be harmful to the investigation ). But one is left wondering if perhaps LE hubris hasn't at times hurt things in this particular case.

Imo LE may have violated sound investigational technique and handicapped the future investigation by allowing their personal bias/opinions to influence sketch no. 1. Why do I think they did this? Because instead of Carter just announcing that they chose the wrong sketch, or that the POI in sketch no.1 has been positively identified and cleared (so throw away sketch no. 1), he makes the admission that he thinks the killer "will wind up looking like a combination of the two sketches".

This makes no sense. So keep a copy of sketch no. 1? It reminds me of that scene in 'The Wizard of Oz' where the man standing behind the curtain says: "Pay NO attention to the man standing behind the curtain"

I actually DO think that when the killer is finally identified he will look like a combination of the two sketches. He can't not. Even if LE has already identified and cleared some man who they think witnesses might have been describing when they were creating sketch no. 1, sketch no. 1 - unlike sketch no. 2 - was (again, jmo) altered by LE (post witness input) to make it look (at least more) like the photo of the man on the bridge. So to me, that guy should still be considered a POI. I hope they catch him soon. He deserves to rot in h***

All jmo

 

[minazoe]

if he killed before ...it wouldn't be an identical murder of 2 little girls ...
......
the choice of victims is random...

the choice of victims can be random..but often victims are stalked ,targeted and murdered based on their features etc. not everyone believes this was random. mOO

 

[minazoe]

one of the ways they could've been targeted, would have been any social media where they
appeared together.

so many ways a killer can find just what he is looking for.

mOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

this is an interview with TL from last year
Lots of tips, no arrest in 2017 double homicide | Carroll County Comet

The Sheriff indicated the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday, Feb. 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation.

Leazenby advised there is DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated. He said there is “suggestive” evidence of fingerprints found at the crime scene.

This article is pretty interesting. It has a few small nuances to add I think.
Here’s my take on a few things mentioned:
1) “Leazenby advised there was DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated”. My thoughts on DNA for a long time have been that they have a lot of touch DNA and some has not been identified. None of it is definitively from the killer. It’s not going to lead them to the killer but if they arrest somebody it might confirm he had contact with the girls.
2) “He said there was suggestive evidence of fingerprints at the crime scene.” I have never heard of that and have no idea what that is.
3) “...from evidence found in the area, the victims were killed on the same property on which their bodies were found...” Pretty definitive statement. That should end the speculation that the girls were taken, killed and brought back during the night. It should, but it probably won’t.
4) “...it has not been determined if there were one or more perpetrators. “We go back and forth on that”.” This is shocking to me after four years. Video, audio, an odd crime scene with lots of evidence and LE hasn’t yet figured out if there was one or more people involved? I would love to know what they have that makes them think it is two people or more and what makes them debate this. No wonder we are all so confused, LE is too...and they know a lot more than we do!
5) “He said he believes the perpetrator will likely be someone who is fairly well-known in the community.” Then why the heck hasn’t someone, including LE, recognized the guy on the bridge. His dress, his mannerisms. This also makes it sound like they have an idea who it might be. Confusing.
6) “ Mistakes may have been made early on in the rush to get a resolution to this.” I still believe a lot of the mistakes involved LE dismissing information implicating local people simply because they knew them.
7) “...the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday Feb 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation. This is in complete conflict with what has been said the last two years. We were told the 2017 sketch was made from input from multiple witnesses on the trails that day some of which didn’t come forward for weeks afterward. The 2019 sketch was one witness who came forward to report “ something that needed reporting” a couple days after the murders. We were told the 2017 sketch was secondary now, at one point, that it should be disregarded. The 2019 sketch was the guy. He was the killer. Really confused about this. This is the one of the main problems with this case in a nutshell in my opinion. The tiny bit of information released changes without reason constantly.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Boxer]

this is an interview with TL from last year
Lots of tips, no arrest in 2017 double homicide | Carroll County Comet

The Sheriff indicated the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday, Feb. 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation.

Leazenby advised there is DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated. He said there is “suggestive” evidence of fingerprints found at the crime scene.

Thanks for posting this.

"Leazenby stated the investigation is not “stalled.” And it has not been determined if there was one or more perpetrators."

MOO not stalled means more to follow up. So they will keep at it till something doesn't fit or an alibi turns out to be false.

 

[sandy_80]

I don't understand the social media angle..we've heard from families over and again that it was a spontaneous trip ..

 

[Ekliptika]

This article is pretty interesting. It has a few small nuances to add I think.
Here’s my take on a few things mentioned:
1) “Leazenby advised there was DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated”. My thoughts on DNA for a long time have been that they have a lot of touch DNA and some has not been identified. None of it is definitively from the killer. It’s not going to lead them to the killer but if they arrest somebody it might confirm he had contact with the girls.
2) “He said there was suggestive evidence of fingerprints at the crime scene.” I have never heard of that and have no idea what that is.
3) “...from evidence found in the area, the victims were killed on the same property on which their bodies were found...” Pretty definitive statement. That should end the speculation that the girls were taken, killed and brought back during the night. It should, but it probably won’t.
4) “...it has not been determined if there were one or more perpetrators. “We go back and forth on that”.” This is shocking to me after four years. Video, audio, an odd crime scene with lots of evidence and LE hasn’t yet figured out if there was one or more people involved? I would love to know what they have that makes them think it is two people or more and what makes them debate this. No wonder we are all so confused, LE is too...and they know a lot more than we do!
5) “He said he believes the perpetrator will likely be someone who is fairly well-known in the community.” Then why the heck hasn’t someone, including LE, recognized the guy on the bridge. His dress, his mannerisms. This also makes it sound like they have an idea who it might be. Confusing.
6) “ Mistakes may have been made early on in the rush to get a resolution to this.” I still believe a lot of the mistakes involved LE dismissing information implicating local people simply because they knew them.
7) “...the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday Feb 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation. This is in complete conflict with what has been said the last two years. We were told the 2017 sketch was made from input from multiple witnesses on the trails that day some of which didn’t come forward for weeks afterward. The 2019 sketch was one witness who came forward to report “ something that needed reporting” a couple days after the murders. We were told the 2017 sketch was secondary now, at one point, that it should be disregarded. The 2019 sketch was the guy. He was the killer. Really confused about this. This is the one of the main problems with this case in a nutshell in my opinion. The tiny bit of information released changes without reason constantly.
Just my thoughts.

Maybe the reason why they go back and forth on one or more perpetraitors is related to them saying say that both sketches are POIs. Maybe they Think there is a chance that the 2 sketches did it together.
But it does not make sense that Abby’s mom say that the guy in the first sketch has been cleared.
Edit: the YT interview with Abby’s mom was after this artiklen, maybe they cleared sketch 1 in the meantime

 

[somequestions]

Doug Carter caused the fracture at the last second in April 2019. It seems obvious. I don't know how that can be viewed as a scripted presser, when all evidence indicates it was scripted one way until Doug Carter didn't want to commit to the younger sketch so he freelanced the other way throughout that presser. Carter may have been influenced by Tobe Leazenby and others from the local Delphi investigation, since they now go along with Carter in the ridiculous "could be a combination" theme.

The press release simultaneous to the presser includes the shift away from the older sketch, and with the centerpiece, "We have a witness. You made mistakes," quotes from Carter. Those quotes are attributed to Carter yet he never made them during the presser itself. That is totally unprecedented. I cannot remember another example, in any realm. Somehow the media ignored the press release and those undelivered quotes...hence the theme became a scripted speech instead of a freelance betrayal of the intended direction. And once conventional wisdom gets out there it is hellish to reverse.

The clarification press release from a day or two later was instructive toward intention -- the older sketch no longer a person of interest -- but it was mostly overwhelmed by public attention toward the new sketch and toward Carter with "The Shack." Even if the FBI was wondering what the heck happened and how did we get stuck with this guy they can't make the situation worse by holding a subsequent presser emphasizing disregard that junior varsity fellow from a few days ago.

Doug Carter knows he will be remembered for this case. In his gut he doesn't believe he is seeing a young guy in Libby's video. That's why he got scared and shifted away at the last second. I don't see any other explanation. Reportedly it was the Georgia FBI and other federal types who were asked to take a look at the case when identification was not happening, to the surprise of local Delphi law enforcement. Those federal types adopted a wide scope view and favored the immediate sighting and young sketch, not the older one pieced together over 5 months. Carter and Leazenby followed the process and went along with it...until Carter as spokesman was forced to commit.

Unfortunately nobody saw the months and months of behind the scenes material and discussion that led to the younger sketch being adopted. Everyone saw Carter behind that podium.

I think when Carter did the press conference he thought it was a young person. At the time of that press conference their information was based "on thousands and thousands of hours of investigation." Overall I think LE just has no idea who killed Abigail Williams and Liberty German. And LE has no idea what that person looks like. Liberty German's phone video is too pixelated to say with any certainty that the person in it is young or old. So they need to keep the spectrum as broad as possible for when the day the murderer is caught. It is the same idea as a psychic who says that the murderer's hair color is most likely a dark brownish blondish color. If the hair color ends up being black, brown, or blonde they can say later they ended up being right.

In my opinion, LE decided to guess with these sketches they put out based on witnesses from the Monon High Bridge trail that think they may have seen the person who murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German. What else could they do if this person walked in the area and walked out of the area without being remembered by a witness?

The real question is a matter of how long will it take to solve this case? This case goes to show that it may take years to solve if the only way to solve it is through forensic evidence like DNA. You can have all the physical evidence, but you still need to have that name and address to connect it to someone if the case is ever going to be solved. Or else all you have are boxes that sit in a room at the police station.

 

[sunshineray]

I agree, and would add that on my end they didn't want to come right out and say they fudged some of the investigation early on.

My hunch is they disregarded a witness' words early on in the case, which is how we now have the sketch of a young-ish male. That witness and that sketch are linked, and while I don't think a sketch of our suspect necessarily will lead to identifying him, I think that what the witness told investigators was crucial to putting together a timeline. I also think it was crucial to ruling out/disregarding some things LE said early on, such as "could be a drifter", things along those lines. Like Awsi Dooger, I've been to the trails and the surrounding area. People just don't walk along and stumble upon Monon High Bridge and the trail connected to it.

JMO

It was obvious to me that ISP Carter was not only upset over having to tell the families that morning the sketch they'd been distributing for 2 years was being replaced by a sketch completely different in every way. I also think there was anger at someone he thought had directly mislead them. AJMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

This article is pretty interesting. It has a few small nuances to add I think.
Here’s my take on a few things mentioned:
1) “Leazenby advised there was DNA from the crime scene but refused to divulge from where it originated”. My thoughts on DNA for a long time have been that they have a lot of touch DNA and some has not been identified. None of it is definitively from the killer. It’s not going to lead them to the killer but if they arrest somebody it might confirm he had contact with the girls.
2) “He said there was suggestive evidence of fingerprints at the crime scene.” I have never heard of that and have no idea what that is.
3) “...from evidence found in the area, the victims were killed on the same property on which their bodies were found...” Pretty definitive statement. That should end the speculation that the girls were taken, killed and brought back during the night. It should, but it probably won’t.
4) “...it has not been determined if there were one or more perpetrators. “We go back and forth on that”.” This is shocking to me after four years. Video, audio, an odd crime scene with lots of evidence and LE hasn’t yet figured out if there was one or more people involved? I would love to know what they have that makes them think it is two people or more and what makes them debate this. No wonder we are all so confused, LE is too...and they know a lot more than we do!
5) “He said he believes the perpetrator will likely be someone who is fairly well-known in the community.” Then why the heck hasn’t someone, including LE, recognized the guy on the bridge. His dress, his mannerisms. This also makes it sound like they have an idea who it might be. Confusing.
6) “ Mistakes may have been made early on in the rush to get a resolution to this.” I still believe a lot of the mistakes involved LE dismissing information implicating local people simply because they knew them.
7) “...the two sketches, which varied greatly from each other, were supplied by two different people near the scene on Monday Feb 13. Both images are of persons of interest in the investigation. This is in complete conflict with what has been said the last two years. We were told the 2017 sketch was made from input from multiple witnesses on the trails that day some of which didn’t come forward for weeks afterward. The 2019 sketch was one witness who came forward to report “ something that needed reporting” a couple days after the murders. We were told the 2017 sketch was secondary now, at one point, that it should be disregarded. The 2019 sketch was the guy. He was the killer. Really confused about this. This is the one of the main problems with this case in a nutshell in my opinion. The tiny bit of information released changes without reason constantly.
Just my thoughts.

Great post . Gives some pretty interesting things to think over.

As to number 4~

I am wondering if there is a legal definition for perpetrator?
Yes, I know technically what a perpetrator is.
Having said that does it mean that they would have been actively involved in the physical act of murder?
Or could it be at all interpreted as someone that influenced the killer to carry out the crime? Could it also be interchangeable with an accomplice?
My thoughts of course on an accomplice would allude more to someone that helped dispose of evidence or give alibis, etc?

I have never been on the "more than one killer" bandwagon.
I have difficulty believing that would NOT be apparent to LE.

 

[Yemelyan]

Great post . Gives some pretty interesting things to think over.

As to number 4~

I am wondering if there is a legal definition for perpetrator?
Yes, I know technically what a perpetrator is.
Having said that does it mean that they would have been actively involved in the physical act of murder?
Or could it be at all interpreted as someone that influenced the killer to carry out the crime? Could it also be interchangeable with an accomplice?
My thoughts of course on an accomplice would allude more to someone that helped dispose of evidence or give alibis, etc?

I have never been on the "more than one killer" bandwagon.
I have difficulty believing that would NOT be apparent to LE.

Indiana is a state that has the legal mechanism "accomplice liability." This means that a person who knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally gives assistance to another in the commission of a crime is criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. An accomplice is typically present when the crime is committed. Someone who conceals evidence after the fact, provides false alibis, etc (as in your example @Ravenmoon) would legally be considered an accessory.

So how does this work in practice? Let's say two men are walking down the street and make the decision that they are going to rob a victim. However, during the robbery one of the offenders unexpectedly shoots and kills their victim. The other robber didn't pull the trigger, but he can be charged with murder just like the shooter because he was involved in the planning and commission of the crime (robbery) that led to the victim's murder.

Just speculation but I'm thinking there are some facts of the Delphi crime scene that lend themselves to the debate over one or two perpetrators. One possibility is that the girls were each killed by a different method.

If I remember correctly, in the Placker/Whitaker case that involved the murder of two young girls, authorities debated one or two offenders for a long time because ballistics showed the girls were shot by two different weapons. Turns out one man used two weapons to kill them. Similar situation to the recent rage killing between neighbors in Scranton. The perpetrator shot his victims with one gun, then returned minutes later to shoot them with a different weapon. I don't think a shooting was likely involved in the Delphi case and I don't want to go too far down the road of speculating what might have happened to the girls but you can see how use of two different weapons complicates crime scene reconstruction.

 

[Falling Down]

It was obvious to me that ISP Carter was not only upset over having to tell the families that morning the sketch they'd been distributing for 2 years was being replaced by a sketch completely different in every way. I also think there was anger at someone he thought had directly mislead them. AJMO

Good post, and I've wondered about this for some time.

There are various possibilities when it comes to the possibility they were "mislead".

JMO

 

[Boxer]

Indiana is a state that has the legal mechanism "accomplice liability." This means that a person who knowingly, voluntarily, or intentionally gives assistance to another in the commission of a crime is criminally liable to the same extent as the principal. An accomplice is typically present when the crime is committed. Someone who conceals evidence after the fact, provides false alibis, etc (as in your example @Ravenmoon) would legally be considered an accessory.

So how does this work in practice? Let's say two men are walking down the street and make the decision that they are going to rob a victim. However, during the robbery one of the offenders unexpectedly shoots and kills their victim. The other robber didn't pull the trigger, but he can be charged with murder just like the shooter because he was involved in the planning and commission of the crime (robbery) that led to the victim's murder.

Just speculation but I'm thinking there are some facts of the Delphi crime scene that lend themselves to the debate over one or two perpetrators. One possibility is that the girls were each killed by a different method.

If I remember correctly, in the Placker/Whitaker case that involved the murder of two young girls, authorities debated one or two offenders for a long time because ballistics showed the girls were shot by two different weapons. Turns out one man used two weapons to kill them. Similar situation to the recent rage killing between neighbors in Scranton. The perpetrator shot his victims with one gun, then returned minutes later to shoot them with a different weapon. I don't think a shooting was likely involved in the Delphi case and I don't want to go too far down the road of speculating what might have happened to the girls but you can see how use of two different weapons complicates crime scene reconstruction.

MOO To me it seems like a solo crime.
More MOO, I think the police looked at the younger sketch done immediately after the crime and also the video.

Making a decision they went with the video appearance for their suspect sketch.
After two years of nothing working they back tracked hoping to raise more tips.

 

[sandy_80]

from what surface would the possible partial fingerprint come from..I wonder..I don't think that they have a weapon ..
could it have come from a victim body .hmm

 

[Yemelyan]

MOO To me it seems like a solo crime.
More MOO, I think the police looked at the younger sketch done immediately after the crime and also the video.

Making a decision they went with the video appearance for their suspect sketch.
After two years of nothing working they back tracked hoping to raise more tips.

I agree, IMO it's most likely a solo crime. My post was simply to address the question of whether an accomplice also can be considered a perpetrator (yes, in certain circumstances) and what is the difference between an accomplice and an accessory to a crime.