Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #129

[sandy_80]

Huh? Yes when the younger-guy sketch was released April/19, LE emphatically stated he was the suspect. LE have never stated they now believe the person depicted in the sketch wasn’t directly connected, as well that sketch is still featured on the FBI posters. The video shows a man looking downward, impossible to determine his age IMO.

“According to an ISP release, the new sketch of the clean-shaven man “is representative of the face of the person captured in the video on Liberty German’s cell phone as he was walking on the high bridge.”..”
Delphi murders: New suspect sketch not same man as in old sketch, ISP clarifies

I didnt say they didnt consider him the suspect...just that the artist who did the sketch said exactly ( it came from a witness who saw something that was suspeciouse and thought it needed reporting ) ..its not from the witnesses who saw bg on the trails..
this would simple explain why the sketch was not released then.. and wasn't thought of as relevant to the case ..
and
in another article from last year..

Investigators have released two grainy images from that video that shows a man we’re to believe was behind the girls on that bridge, a short clip of that man walking, an audio recording of a man — presumably the same one — saying “Guys. Down the hill” and two sketches from possible witnesses in the area the day the girls were murdered.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/three-years-later-everything-we-know-about-the-delphi-murders

it says two sketches not one.

 

[sandy_80]

new interview with former prosecutor Ives..
he says until he was on the case, they never had any idea who did

 

[somequestions]

@Awsi Dooger I'm a fan of your contributions. They always make us think and question our assumptions, which is what we should be doing.

I wanted to add one variable, or piece of information that I think is important. You laid out for us the rational decisions you would make if you were to be one a killer. You'd travel to a place nobody knows you. You'd choose victims at random so they couldn't be traced to you. Now consider why a ton of killers apparently don't do that (obviously there also may be tons that do, we just aren't catching them). The reason that geographic profiling often works, that these predators abduct kids in the neighborhood, or off the streets near where they work, that they tend to leave the bodies of their victims in places they intimately know, is that many of these offenders have extremely poor impulse control. A lot of them are incapable of being an Israel Keyes, either because due to their previous behaviors they have limited resources to travel around or because of their almost addiction-like need to offend whenever a "good" opportunity arises.

I'd agree with you that they do spend hours honing their "craft," but I'd say that a lot of this is working on the twisted emotional intelligence that helps them recognize good opportunities for predation.

As you know, I'm not a believer in the catfishing angle for the Delphi case. I do think there's a good possibility this person is pretty far out on the edges of what could be considered "local" - a neighboring county, or Kokomo, Lafayette, Logansport.

And on another note, I think LE's offer to answer questions from the community is their hope that the person who knows the offender's identity will ask a question to confirm that their suspicions are correct and that this will give them impetus to act on that knowledge.

JMO.

I know LE have not submitted a "geographic profile" to the general public. Based on their statements I would not have a lot of faith in one if they did. In my opinion, Abigail Williams and Liberty German's case is a textbook example of how not to come to geographic profile decisions.
In this case LE's statements are the equivalent of saying it could be anyone in the world who works or worked, visits or visited, lives or lived, travels through or traveled through, or knows or knew about the Monon High Bridge in Delphi, IN.

Since we have no idea about the actual LE investigation, I guess we can only conclude they have not come up with an actual geographic profile. Their terminology is as broad as what they use to describe a suspect from one of their sketches.

There is so much more that goes into actual geographic profiling like psychological decision making and mapping locations. The psychological relationships between locations is what matters most. But it comes down to people and how people interpret those relationships that really matters. This is the human element and in my opinion, is probably the most important aspect because one person can look at a location and think one thing and another person can look at the same location and think something else. People's decision making matters.

There are so many little things that make me question why LE said what they did at the press conferences.

If, for example, LE knew at the time that the killer left "signatures" at the crime scene and that tends to be more associated with serial killers, then why the local angle? If the killer is walking on a trail covered head to toe in clothing but it is sunny and 52 degrees outside, why is he dressed like that? If the killer walks them such a long distance away from the bridge when he obviously would have looked around to make sure no one was there before he actually abducted them, then why did he walk the girls so far and, at least according to the details, then cross a creek before killing the girls? He may have been comfortable walking across the Monon High Bridge. He does not seem that comfortable with the area around it. And finally, where was the transportation? How did the killer leave the area? I would think if someone went out to the Monon High Bridge to commit a crime like this, they would want their transportation nearby. But it seems like most of the parking locations mean the possibility of having to walk back past people. I doubt the killer was going to rely on the bystander effect and that no one would notice him. Like a lot of profiling it is difficult to come to any conclusions because we do not know what LE knows. But I do wonder about all these questions.

I think that, as of today, LE has no idea who murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German or where that person was living at the time of the crime. So they are left waiting. They wait for the day the right tip comes in or there is a DNA match that gives them a break and helps them solve the case.

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

new interview with former prosecutor Ives..
he says until he was on the case, they never had any idea who did

Min 1:04-ish “The FBI came in extreme numbers”. That statement tells me that they had seen something very similar if not nearly a perfect match to another crime(s). So they sent as much manpower as they could afford, from various divisions, to get a handle of everything, directing & managing what they had at hand.
mO0.

 

[Yemelyan]

Yet this article from 2018 says familial DNA was used in the April Tinsley case. Did the law change since that time? Would the technique possibly still be available to use, but results not legally admissible in court?

Delphi detectives working closely with investigators who cracked Fort Wayne cold case | Fox 59

Just a point of clarification from that Kokomo Tribune article re: DNA. The prosecutor in that article is actually discussing two different types of DNA comparisons. Familial DNA is when investigators use a DNA sample from a crime scene and run it through local and state databases of convicted felons looking for close familial matches. The theory is, if you are a violent felon, chances are people closely related to you are also felons. This is the strategy that brought the break in the "Grim Sleeper" serial killings. The murderer's son was arrested for some other offense and had to submit DNA. Authorities were able to get a hit on his DNA as a close familial match to whoever was doing the "Grim Sleeper" killings. Familial DNA searches are not legal at the national level (so you aren't allowed to search CODIS for familial matches). There are only 10 or 11 states in which familial DNA searches are legally permitted in state databases/admissable at trial and Indiana is not one of them.

Investigative genetic genealogy is something completely different, though I can see why the confusion would arise because it involves family trees. Investigative genetic genealogy is what Parabon does...find close DNA relative matches in publicly available ancestry databases and then build out family trees to identify potential suspects which are confirmed through other investigative techniques. This is the method that found GSK/EARONS and what was used to eventually figure out who killed April Tinsley in Indiana. However, since the suspect in the Tinsley case confessed and pled guilty, essentially bypassing the trial phase, I don't think the legality of investigative genetic genealogy has yet been totally established in Indiana.

I think that colloquially people often call genetic genealogy "familial DNA" but properly speaking, the two methods are not the same and likely have different admissibility depending on the state on which the crime occurred.

All MOO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

 

[ReadySet]

Thank you so much for clarifying that.
I believe that Investigative Genetic Geneology was what was used to solve the Daralyn Johnson case in Idaho.
And I do believe that Indiana would find some way to use that method if they have DNA that can be used, as they did in the April Tinslley case.

Just a point of clarification from that Kokomo Tribune article re: DNA. The prosecutor in that article is actually discussing two different types of DNA comparisons. Familial DNA is when investigators use a DNA sample from a crime scene and run it through local and state databases of convicted felons looking for close familial matches. The theory is, if you are a violent felon, chances are people closely related to you are also felons. This is the strategy that brought the break in the "Grim Sleeper" serial killings. The murderer's son was arrested for some other offense and had to submit DNA. Authorities were able to get a hit on his DNA as a close familial match to whoever was doing the "Grim Sleeper" killings. Familial DNA searches are not legal at the national level (so you aren't allowed to search CODIS for familial matches). There are only 10 or 11 states in which familial DNA searches are legally permitted in state databases/admissable at trial and Indiana is not one of them.

Investigative genetic genealogy is something completely different, though I can see why the confusion would arise because it involves family trees. Investigative genetic genealogy is what Parabon does...find close DNA relative matches in publicly available ancestry databases and then build out family trees to identify potential suspects which are confirmed through other investigative techniques. This is the method that found GSK/EARONS and what was used to eventually figure out who killed April Tinsley in Indiana. However, since the suspect in the Tinsley case confessed and pled guilty, essentially bypassing the trial phase, I don't think the legality of investigative genetic genealogy has yet been totally established in Indiana.

I think that colloquially people often call genetic genealogy "familial DNA" but properly speaking, the two methods are not the same and likely have different admissibility depending on the state on which the crime occurred.

All MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

I didnt say they didnt consider him the suspect...just that the artist who did the sketch said exactly ( it came from a witness who saw something that was suspeciouse and thought it needed reporting ) ..its not from the witnesses who saw bg on the trails..
this would simple explain why the sketch was not released then.. and wasn't thought of as relevant to the case ..
and
in another article from last year..

Investigators have released two grainy images from that video that shows a man we’re to believe was behind the girls on that bridge, a short clip of that man walking, an audio recording of a man — presumably the same one — saying “Guys. Down the hill” and two sketches from possible witnesses in the area the day the girls were murdered.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/three-years-later-everything-we-know-about-the-delphi-murders

it says two sketches not one.

Okay, thanks. We know nobody witnessed the murder and LE has never said beyond all doubt somebody recalled seeing the killer on the trails after the bodies were discovered a day later. If any witnesses had known for sure they sighted the killer near the crime scene (wet, very dishevelled, carrying a weapon etc), I think a sketch would’ve been released much sooner. The first sketch wasn’t released until July/17, five months later and reportedly after tips began to dwindle.

As with most investigations, people come forward and report who or what they saw, then its LE who determines if the sighting is significant based on other details known to their investigation. As sketches are not photographs, it’s possible the witness involved in the younger guy sketch did in fact sight the killer but the memory of what he looks like isn’t accurate.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Just a point of clarification from that Kokomo Tribune article re: DNA. The prosecutor in that article is actually discussing two different types of DNA comparisons. Familial DNA is when investigators use a DNA sample from a crime scene and run it through local and state databases of convicted felons looking for close familial matches. The theory is, if you are a violent felon, chances are people closely related to you are also felons. This is the strategy that brought the break in the "Grim Sleeper" serial killings. The murderer's son was arrested for some other offense and had to submit DNA. Authorities were able to get a hit on his DNA as a close familial match to whoever was doing the "Grim Sleeper" killings. Familial DNA searches are not legal at the national level (so you aren't allowed to search CODIS for familial matches). There are only 10 or 11 states in which familial DNA searches are legally permitted in state databases/admissable at trial and Indiana is not one of them.

Investigative genetic genealogy is something completely different, though I can see why the confusion would arise because it involves family trees. Investigative genetic genealogy is what Parabon does...find close DNA relative matches in publicly available ancestry databases and then build out family trees to identify potential suspects which are confirmed through other investigative techniques. This is the method that found GSK/EARONS and what was used to eventually figure out who killed April Tinsley in Indiana. However, since the suspect in the Tinsley case confessed and pled guilty, essentially bypassing the trial phase, I don't think the legality of investigative genetic genealogy has yet been totally established in Indiana.

I think that colloquially people often call genetic genealogy "familial DNA" but properly speaking, the two methods are not the same and likely have different admissibility depending on the state on which the crime occurred.

All MOO

Excellent point of clarification and think I’ve been guilty of confusing the two terms a time or two as well.

From Parabon - Familial versus genetic genealogy
Genetic Genealogy - Parabon® Snapshot® DNA Analysis Service
How Does This Technique Differ From Familial Searches in the CODIS Database?
Our genetic genealogy service is somewhat like familial search, but it differs in three very important ways: (1) we only search public genetic genealogy databases, not government-owned criminal (STR profile) databases, such as CODIS; (2) because the DNA SNP profiles we generate contain vastly more information than traditional STR profiles, genetic relatedness can be detected at a far greater distance (see Snapshot Kinship Inference); and (3) because genetic genealogy matches can be cross-referenced by name with traditional genealogy sources, such as Ancestry.com, existing family trees can be used to expedite tree-building and case-solving. This technology and our innovative techniques combine to create a groundbreaking system for forensic human identification.

 

[Yemelyan]

Excellent point of clarification and think I’ve been guilty of confusing the two terms a time or two as well.

From Parabon - Familial versus genetic genealogy
Genetic Genealogy - Parabon® Snapshot® DNA Analysis Service
How Does This Technique Differ From Familial Searches in the CODIS Database?
Our genetic genealogy service is somewhat like familial search, but it differs in three very important ways: (1) we only search public genetic genealogy databases, not government-owned criminal (STR profile) databases, such as CODIS; (2) because the DNA SNP profiles we generate contain vastly more information than traditional STR profiles, genetic relatedness can be detected at a far greater distance (see Snapshot Kinship Inference); and (3) because genetic genealogy matches can be cross-referenced by name with traditional genealogy sources, such as Ancestry.com, existing family trees can be used to expedite tree-building and case-solving. This technology and our innovative techniques combine to create a groundbreaking system for forensic human identification.

Thank you. My post was already getting wordy so I didn't mention it but your quote that you brought here from Parabon is important for the Delphi discussion IMO.

Investigative genetic genealogy uses ancestry databases and looks at SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in a given DNA profile, familial DNA uses LE databases which look at STRs (short tandem repeats) in a DNA profile. To put it simply, they are comparing different information encoded in DNA with their respective databases.

LE databases (like CODIS) use between 13-24 points of comparison for STRs. If a sample is degraded, contaminated, commingled, etc, it may not have enough STR loci to make matches in the LE database systems but since genetic genealogy uses a different way of comparing DNA, it can be a very valuable tool.

 

[keyleigh]

Four years. Abby and Libby's families remain in my thoughts. May this year finally bring them some answers.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

I've said it since early on in this case, "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line".

JMO

And as you mentioned in a prior post, that straight line requires only 4 minutes from end of bridge to crime scene. I'd say maybe slightly longer because the second stage of down the hill requires some backtracking to the left on the gravel access road. First stage is steep but hardly intimidating and certainly doable. Basically a long step and skid. Second stage is so steep and especially so many large gnarly tree roots all over the place you have to detour left 20-25 yards to avoid them. I haven't seen one video visit that didn't agree with that.

Expanding on the straight line theory, at end of this post I'd like to post a screen capture of an aerial view of the bridge area from 2005. We were tinkering around with old aerials on the Sumter County Does case last week so I thought I would switch to Delphi. One aspect caught my attention immediately. The tree cover on the near side of the creek was every bit as dense as the far side through 1998. Then something dramatic obviously happened. The next aerial from 2003 was still flush on the far side but shredded on the near side. I asked on Reddit. There were comments about diseased trees. But that wasn't drastic enough to accomplish in such a short time. Then someone mentioned flooding. Now that's logical. I took a look and found online reference to severe flooding in July 2003. It was so bad that Delphi and Deer Creek were referenced specifically, with loss of life and assertion that it was even worse than a so-called 100 year flood.

Downstream in Delphi that water would typically make the gentle curve to the right approaching the crime scene, then curve left under the bridge. But a crashing flood in that area would find wide open spaces straight ahead over the minimal bank to the left. Now I fully understood why the trees were gone and the bank so low. Whatever minimal bank had been there prior to July 2003 was all but eroded by that record flooding.

The best view was two years later from 2005, since it was taken in the dead of winter. Notice the near total lack of trees on the near side. It has filled out somewhat now but still very minimal. I tried to depict that in some photos I took. The walking path toward the creek is wide open and obvious. It would make zero sense to commit down there as opposed to crossing the creek.

Ironically the centered watermark of "HistoricalAerials.Com" covers almost the exact straight line route from end of the bridge to the crime scene. The circled copyright C on the opposite bank is almost precisely at the bodies location. I did not drag or crop to produce it. That's the way it is. But I hope an overhead like this will lessen the questions regarding why that spot was chosen. The darn lay of the land lends in that direction:

imgur.com

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Re: Yemelan's question regarding impulse control and why more killers don't utilize the best methods to get away with the crime, I do believe this is an outlier case and Bridge Guy a significant cut above. He made so many astute choices that lend toward that conclusion, like location of crime and bodies, the generic clothing head to toe, apparently not leaving blatant DNA, the wise choice not to take Libby's phone, etc.

Obviously he screwed up by not recognizing he had been filmed. I think that was a combination of looking down at the planks and Libby filming in selfie mode over her shoulder. Bridge Guy would have entered the screen at very end in a small segment and we can see he was not focused on the girls at the time.

IMO, law enforcement always tries to force crimes toward the majority sample and not outlier mode. And that is the correct approach. It would be asinine to do it the other way..for example by always assuming strangers and non-local.

But naturally you are going to get stuck when a major crime is an outlier and all of your tactics are designed toward deciphering a traditional example. As a sports bettor I don't care about outliers because being wrong 40% of the time places me in grind city exuberance. When law enforcement are late/never or wrong 40% of the time they look like fools and earn public scorn.

I always knew I needed a racket where I didn't have to hit a severe percentage. That's why airplane pilot was first scratched off the list when I was about 6.

 

[JnRyan]

UGH! You've got to be kidding!!!! I didn't have much faith in the Profiting From Evil, er, I mean Profiling Evil, on the Suzanne Morphew case as I thought they were not objective and got tunnel vision. To start with here they get the drop off point wrong as Kelsie dropped them off on Rt. 300 and NOT at the Freedom Bridge as shown in the video. And then it just goes down hill (no pun intended) from there. I'm starting to wonder if anyone has actually verified their LE experience. He even speculates as to whether or not the guy in the video is even the killer. Gray Hughes and Anthony Greeno have done a better job than this. In fact, one of Greeno's reenactments they actually have a lady scream from down near the creek and she can be heard up on the trail.

 

[JnRyan]

new interview with former prosecutor Ives..
he says until he was on the case, they never had any idea who did

I hadn't seen this one. Some of the remarks he makes here are similar to the "Down the Hill" HLN podcast. Yet it is a very good refresher. A lot of us thought on here that in the beginning that this case would be solved very quickly. Or at least I did.

 

[Charlot123]

Min 1:04-ish “The FBI came in extreme numbers”. That statement tells me that they had seen something very similar if not nearly a perfect match to another crime(s). So they sent as much manpower as they could afford, from various divisions, to get a handle of everything, directing & managing what they had at hand.
mO0.

What if the CS didn’t match any case but was...extreme? They’d come, I assume.

The case was viewed as child abduction, I presume. This should have been enough for them to come.

 

[sunshineray]

new interview with former prosecutor Ives..
he says until he was on the case, they never had any idea who did

He says at the end of the interview about that particular area...Why would you be out there? Why would you even expect to find other human beings out there? Good, simple questions.

A couple of my immediate guesses would be a combined...the weather, knowledge of the kid's day off and possible chatter on social media...or you have knowledge of specific people/friends and their activites happening that day, you're looking to find them because they have something you want (drugs).

 

[swedeheart]

UGH! You've got to be kidding!!!! I didn't have much faith in the Profiting From Evil, er, I mean Profiling Evil, on the Suzanne Morphew case as I thought they were not objective and got tunnel vision. To start with here they get the drop off point wrong as Kelsie dropped them off on Rt. 300 and NOT at the Freedom Bridge as shown in the video. And then it just goes down hill (no pun intended) from there. I'm starting to wonder if anyone has actually verified their LE experience. He even speculates as to whether or not the guy in the video is even the killer. Gray Hughes and Anthony Greeno have done a better job than this. In fact, one of Greeno's reenactments they actually have a lady scream from down near the creek and she can be heard up on the trail.

Yes, Mike has the wrong info in this video. I thought I was going nuts, so I went to check out the StoryMap on PE, and it's been pulled, so someone must have tipped Mike that he had the wrong info. I feel like he will delete this video, but I do hope he comes back with the correct info in another video, as I do respect his ex-LE opinion.

 

[Spy Versus Spy]

Remembering the Anniversary.

Hoping, as ever, that this gets solved.

 

[Rocky1]

At timestamp 6.06, this "investigator" claims that the girls were walking southeast, and BG was walking northwest? Then with his yellow line, shows them walking along the north/west side of the river to the crime scene, but never crossing the river?
I thought they were all walking southeast, and BG was walking faster and met them at the southeast end of the bridge, they went "down the hill" in the south/eastern side of the river, and crossed the river.
Either I've been looking at this wrong for 4 years, or this guy hasn't done much "investigating".
Can someone please clarify?
TIA.
Just to add. I thought that BG wasn't limping, but it just looked that way because he was jumping the railroad ties?
This guy insists he has a limp and concludes he would have had a tough time walkng the 1/2 mile, and calculates that into his "theory" (but never therorizes)