Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #130

[Deleted member 102539]

Living in a small town would likely require people to own a vehicle.
Access to things like groceries, doctors, etc . are often not within walking distance- add to that things and services such as doordash and instacart are not normally available either.

So, in that respect, I can see why people don't walk to the places that they need or want to visit.

I feel that the murderer in this case left the Crime scene on foot. The area is densely wooded and he could have been undetected -and 5 or 6 miles from the scene in an hour and a half easily. That is if he walked and didn't run.

This adds to my feeling that he is local. He knows the area, the woods, the snowbirds homes, the farmland, etc. like the back of his hand.

This also adds to my feeling that he is young and strong. He is physically fit.

He could have ditched certain clothing and/ or objects somewhere along the way. LE has alluded to the fact that with the overwhelming size of the crime scene itself, it is possible to have missed certain things..now - add to that a trail leading back to wherever this person lives or chose to hide. We are talking about a HUGE area that has not likely been scoured, if at all searched to begin with. Another link to this- is TL's voiced regret of turning away search dogs.

Of course, this is my opinion. I do feel it is a pretty plausible one. It kind of connects some of things being said by TL and others as of late.

MOO JMO AMOO

If BG did walk his way back to where ever, it doesn't mean, he hadn't some ordered "assistant", who picked him up at a certain point, IMO. Young, strong, physically fit, fast, but maybe not without any help after walking a piece. Was one of the addresses with a search warrant involved, where the accomplice waited for BG and had his own (wrong?) alibi?

 

[stattlich1]

Even if this murderer walked out of there, I would suspect he eventually got in a car somewhere, and drove away.

To explore the area, go to google maps, type in the search bar.....

Mary Gerard Nature Reserve, Delphi, IN

Then click the 'Satellite' box down in the lower left corner. That will take you to the overhead view of the area. You can use the + and - signs to zoom in and out, or in my case, my mouse wheel zooms too.

Follow the wooded areas to speculate where he may have emerged. I seriously doubt he spent a lot of time in the open fields, and in areas where he may be seen.

This process is why I've always felt he entered and exited via the cemetery. Though I have looked at the area across from the "Deer Creek Valley Rural Historic District" shown on the map. It appears to be a remote area where one could park, or be picked up, undetected.

Click the map here and it'll get bigger

 

[TL4S]

JMO. If I consider whether or not BG had a vehicle, the first thing I remind myself is that he had to come from somewhere. Unless somebody dropped him off nearby (and subsequently planned to pick him up), or he lived nearby, he had to have a mode of transportation. Two questions to think about:

1) If he was there to fulfill some fantasy that day, wouldn't he have a quick getaway in place?

2) If he was there for other purposes, but then took an opportunity when it presented itself, then why and how was he there to begin with?

 

[Yemelyan]

Unsolved: The Delphi murders - A grandfather remembers

"These were just two young teenage girls just out enjoying life," he said. "They were full of life, they had their whole lives ahead of them, they wanted to enjoy everything and anything. They were good kids out enjoying the outdoors. Not that they didn't play Xbox or video games or PlayStation or whatever, but they were truly adventurous, outside. 'Let's see what's out there.'"

I hope LE found out who they were ‘playing video games’ with. Maybe they talked about the bridge.

In the Scene of the Crime podcast, MP talks about returning to his house and gathering up every type of electronic device including old ipods and bringing it all to LE to examine for clues.

 

[sandy_80]

Just still learning about this horrific case and wondering - how did Libby conceal that she had the pictures / video of the killer on her phone and keep the device hidden? I had imagined if he knew about it, or thought he was on it, he'd have taken it with him, but clearly, he didn't, because as far as we know, the LE have the actual device (right?). Or... did LE get the photos / video off a cloud service?

putting it in her pocket is the most possible solution

 

[Yemelyan]

I understand “circumstance” and “opportunity” differently.

I feel that “circumstance” pertains to the situation that could have emerged several days before the murders, that presented Libby as the threat. I don’t know what it was.

“Opportunity” means that Libby had to be silenced somehow. We don’t know what the initial plan was. Maybe, threatening of bribing her?

But since the girls decided to take that walk, and they were alone, the opportunity emerged to kill them, and the murderer jumped at it.

Your interpretations are not how native speakers of American English would understand and use the phrases, though.

Victim of circumstance means something like "getting hurt after being caught in a situation beyond one's control." An example would be, an offender decides to burn down a house for the insurance money but, unbeknownst to that person, four young girls are asleep in the burning house and subsequently lose their lives. Even the offender did not intend for them to die in the fire. They were victims of the circumstance - which was the fire.

"Victim of opportunity" means something like "becoming a victim after a perpetrator sees that they have a chance to commit a crime and suddenly seizes upon it." It implies a sense of the victim being selected because they were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and also has more intentionality to it on the offender's part, than "victim of circumstance" does.

TL is the one using these terms and it would be remiss not to point out that as a member of LE he likely has taken classes in crime theory and prevention. "Crime opportunity theory" is taught to LE officers. The basis of this theory is the idea that offenders make rational choices and choose targets with high reward and little effort. The theory states that available opportunities limit the offender's choices and LE use it to focus on situational crime prevention. So for example, if an offender went to the trails thinking he wanted to assault someone, he would be limited in choice or opportunity to the victims who happened to showed up that day.

 

[Peppery]

Correct
I was just saying why would BG pass by another girl/girls/guys and go for A & L ??
No matter if first sketch where we all thought for 2 yrs was BG or 2nd sketch... I am just questioning why Libby ?? why Abby ?? Why not someone else that was there that day ??
The 2nd sketch was also done at the beginning so he passed others also.. again.. why not the witness who saw him??
Why Libby ?? Why Abby ??

Why anyone? Because he’s a psychopathic murderer who for some reason thought Abby and Libby to be desirable victims. Whether that was due to their location, their age, their looks, their vulnerability or practically anything else, we just don’t know.

 

[TL4S]

Your interpretations are not how native speakers of American English would understand and use the phrases, though.

Victim of circumstance means something like "getting hurt after being caught in a situation beyond one's control." An example would be, an offender decides to burn down a house for the insurance money but, unbeknownst to that person, four young girls are asleep in the burning house and subsequently lose their lives. Even the offender did not intend for them to die in the fire. They were victims of the circumstance - which was the fire.

"Victim of opportunity" means something like "becoming a victim after a perpetrator sees that they have a chance to commit a crime and suddenly seizes upon it." It implies a sense of the victim being selected because they were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and also has more intentionality to it on the offender's part, than "victim of circumstance" does.

TL is the one using these terms and it would be remiss not to point out that as a member of LE he likely has taken classes in crime theory and prevention. "Crime opportunity theory" is taught to LE officers. The basis of this theory is the idea that offenders make rational choices and choose targets with high reward and little effort. The theory states that available opportunities limit the offender's choices and LE use it to focus on situational crime prevention. So for example, if an offender went to the trails thinking he wanted to assault someone, he would be limited in choice or opportunity to the victims who happened to showed up that day.

I agree. In context, that statement about "victims of circumstance and opportunity" was said in regards to both the Flora and Delphi cases, not just Delphi.

 

[minazoe]

A question was posed to LE asking if the murders were planned. “No, not planned, they were victims of circumstance and opportunity.”

I’m confused as your theory appears to indicate a targeted murder involving revenge. Or don’t you believe LE’s response?

exactly...I do believe their response but I also know le won't tip their hand if it is indeed something other. mOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

exactly...I do believe their response but I also know le won't tip their hand if it is indeed something other. mOO

Certainly sometimes LE talks around things but I think they would choose silence over knowingly putting out false information. First, in that they would then have credibility issues to deal with forever and second, a good defense attorney could turn that into a nightmare at trial.

 

[MistyWaters]

I understand “circumstance” and “opportunity” differently.

I feel that “circumstance” pertains to the situation that could have emerged several days before the murders, that presented Libby as the threat. I don’t know what it was.

“Opportunity” means that Libby had to be silenced somehow. We don’t know what the initial plan was. Maybe, threatening of bribing her?

But since the girls decided to take that walk, and they were alone, the opportunity emerged to kill them, and the murderer jumped at it.

The two words expanded on the response of “not planned”. If a victim is perceived as a threat, then the murder of that person was typically planned and premeditated. That’s the opposite of one who becomes a victim of circumstance and opportunity.

Not planned says to me the girls became victims because of the circumstances - they were on the trails that afternoon at exactly the same time as the perpetrator, just the two of them alone. The opportunity arose for the killer because he sighted them on the trails and at the bridge, a semi-isolated location with nobody else around at the time.

I’ve changed my own theory many times as well but what the heck....I think we would all acknowledge at best what we can do is guess.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Certainly sometimes LE talks around things but I think they would choose silence over knowingly putting out false information. First, in that they would then have credibility issues to deal with forever and second, a good defense attorney could turn that into a nightmare at trial.

As well I think we have to believe LE still require that one good tip in order for a prosecution to occur so intentionally putting out false information would seem totally counterproductive.

Even if LE ‘know’ who the killer is (which I don’t believe), the murders of these two young, innocent victims is still unsolved.

 

[photographer4]

LE have the actual phone and it was found in the area of the bodies. That’s about all we know for sure.

Thanks for clarifying. This made me wonder - when LE said the killer made mistakes, and the crime scene was odd with several "signatures" - is it possible that he may have known she had a photo / video of him? Maybe something odd is that he reviewed whatever was on the phone and still left the device there? That would be creepy, but it would also be odd (in my opinion anyhow). Maybe this dude wants to get caught?

 

[photographer4]

This guy was in an out pretty quickly for whatever he did to the kids. Have we considered that he may have planted trail cams to watch what was going on? Would police even have found them if they were way up high over the scene? WOuld they even think to look UP? Have electronic sniffing dogs ever been used in this case / in that area?

 

[stattlich1]

JMO. If I consider whether or not BG had a vehicle, the first thing I remind myself is that he had to come from somewhere. Unless somebody dropped him off nearby (and subsequently planned to pick him up), or he lived nearby, he had to have a mode of transportation. Two questions to think about:

1) If he was there to fulfill some fantasy that day, wouldn't he have a quick getaway in place?

2) If he was there for other purposes, but then took an opportunity when it presented itself, then why and how was he there to begin with?

I'm so glad you posted this. The reason is, and I'm speaking for me, your number 1 kind of describes the 'victims of opportunity' and your number 2 somewhat describes the 'victims of circumstance'.

 

[Optics]

Even if this murderer walked out of there, I would suspect he eventually got in a car somewhere, and drove away.
This process is why I've always felt he entered and exited via the cemetery. Though I have looked at the area across from the "Deer Creek Valley Rural Historic District" shown on the map. It appears to be a remote area where one could park, or be picked up, undetected.

Click the map here and it'll get bigger

View attachment 286059

I agree with you, it seems more logical to me that he could have obscurred a vehicle even on the private road in the woods - less risk of someone spotting him . I've thought often about that vehicle near that CPS building, which was on surveillance cam. If the cam caught it there, I would think LE would check continuing video footage from it on when the car was no longer there and even what direction it turned when it left that lot. Also there are traffic cams along the highways, if that is their 'target vehicle which would have helped narrow it down too.

 

[Pyschsandi]

Living in a small town would likely require people to own a vehicle.
Access to things like groceries, doctors, etc . are often not within walking distance- add to that things and services such as doordash and instacart are not normally available either.

So, in that respect, I can see why people don't walk to the places that they need or want to visit.

I feel that the murderer in this case left the Crime scene on foot. The area is densely wooded and he could have been undetected -and 5 or 6 miles from the scene in an hour and a half easily. That is if he walked and didn't run.

This adds to my feeling that he is local. He knows the area, the woods, the snowbirds homes, the farmland, etc. like the back of his hand.

This also adds to my feeling that he is young and strong. He is physically fit.

He could have ditched certain clothing and/ or objects somewhere along the way. LE has alluded to the fact that with the overwhelming size of the crime scene itself, it is possible to have missed certain things..now - add to that a trail leading back to wherever this person lives or chose to hide. We are talking about a HUGE area that has not likely been scoured, if at all searched to begin with. Another link to this- is TL's voiced regret of turning away search dogs.

Of course, this is my opinion. I do feel it is a pretty plausible one. It kind of connects some of things being said by TL and others as of late.

MOO JMO AMOO

I’ve looked over the maps of the area around the trail, bridge, and place where the girls were found. I noticed a person could hike to a business or a house. BG could have parked his vehicle almost anywhere and walked to the bridge. In rural areas a parked car may not be noticed by anyone because it’s common to see car’s parked all over, even on the side of the road.

 

[Optics]

I've always felt once the killer told them to 'go down the hill' he would have a short time period in which to contain them. The only possible hope the girls would have had to escape him would have been once they hit the private road. I don't feel once they went down the second 'hill' to the creek, they tried to 'run' at that point. Water, rocks, etc slippery. I feel he incapacitated them before going across the creek, then carried (or dragged) each girl to the final spot they were found deceased at.

 

[TL4S]

I'm so glad you posted this. The reason is, and I'm speaking for me, your number 1 kind of describes the 'victims of opportunity' and your number 2 somewhat describes the 'victims of circumstance'.

I guess in my mind, the only way the Delphi girls would be considered victims of circumstance is if he killed them accidentally. And I don't think it was an accident.

I keep coming back to this, but LE has said they think the Flora girls died unintentionally during the commission of another, intentional crime. LE had said the Delphi girls were likely in the wrong place at the wrong time and BG took that opportunity.

 

[Charlot123]

Your interpretations are not how native speakers of American English would understand and use the phrases, though.

Victim of circumstance means something like "getting hurt after being caught in a situation beyond one's control." An example would be, an offender decides to burn down a house for the insurance money but, unbeknownst to that person, four young girls are asleep in the burning house and subsequently lose their lives. Even the offender did not intend for them to die in the fire. They were victims of the circumstance - which was the fire.

"Victim of opportunity" means something like "becoming a victim after a perpetrator sees that they have a chance to commit a crime and suddenly seizes upon it." It implies a sense of the victim being selected because they were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and also has more intentionality to it on the offender's part, than "victim of circumstance" does.

TL is the one using these terms and it would be remiss not to point out that as a member of LE he likely has taken classes in crime theory and prevention. "Crime opportunity theory" is taught to LE officers. The basis of this theory is the idea that offenders make rational choices and choose targets with high reward and little effort. The theory states that available opportunities limit the offender's choices and LE use it to focus on situational crime prevention. So for example, if an offender went to the trails thinking he wanted to assault someone, he would be limited in choice or opportunity to the victims who happened to showed up that day.

@Yemelyan, thank you for your time explaining...although Merriam-Webster is on my side

Definition of CIRCUMSTANCE

“a condition, fact, or event accompanying, conditioning, or determining another : an essential or inevitable concomitant”

With that, surely, small utterances like those of TL, are subject to interpretation.

The main thing - I enjoy your articles about SKs, but it is my human right to doubt that the girls’ slayer was a serial killer on the prowl. (ISP, in a way, almost went there, with DN, and what happened? Two years lost in vain. )

But coming to non-native speakers - if you think I had to summon my “other” languages to interpret what has been said, it is obvious, why - I don’t buy the theory of a serial killer, unless we assume that the killer lives in Delphi or around, and it is not quite logical. Maybe the murderer is a serial killer. The ISP is not releasing more facts, and how they speak, is subject to huge interpretations. (Except for R. Ives, who definitely has logic on his side, but this, I suspect, is inborn).

I hope you won’t be upset if I say - after “the shack”, after two sketches, I don’t know anymore what ISP representatives mean when they speak to public. Especially if in one interview TL uses words like “victim-specific” when speaking about the murders, and in another, “victims of circumstances and opportunity”.

My opinion? Maybe they simply have to arrest him, if they think they know, and then, the witnesses might come out. They might be scared now. Definitely, they should stop public briefings if they have nothing new to say. And for sure, being interviewed by the family member indicate certain boundary issues on DC’s part. I suspect he did it out of kindness, but his act invites another question, can he be impartial when interviewing the relatives and cross-checking the alibis?