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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yemelyan said:
But, here are a few things I personally found interesting:

Question: What sorts of information do investigators continue to look at for this case? Answer: Several aspects specifically associated with February 13, 2017.
Click to expand...

^RSBM

Quite a very curious answer. Could mean any number of things.

Is he indicating that the entire chain of events that led to the murders began on 2/13/17? That would align with it being an unplanned crime of circumstance and opportunity, vs. the suspect having identified the girls as targets prior to that date.

It could also mean there was something specific about the date that had drawn the suspect to the trail. As we know, it was a publicized day off from school. We have covered that here many times. We’ve also talked about the nearby cemetery and the possibility of BG visiting a grave. I’m fairly sure folks have even gone so far as to check out headstones for corresponding dates.

Was there an event in the area on 2/13/17 that might have brought someone to Delphi that normally would not be there? Perhaps a meeting at a local company, or a birthday of a relative in the area, as examples.

Again, just tossing yet more thoughts out there. Here we are, four years later, still trying to interpret answers from LE. Arghhh..
 
So this is really interesting. Thanks for anyone who answered my question about "victims of opportunity."

So far most people who are still going back to theories about catfishing/luring/overhearing plans/advance targeting of these particular girls even after hearing TL's answer fall
into the following camps:

1. "I know what he said, but my feeling/hunch about the crime is just different." Or, "I know what he said, but I think LE's theory of the crime is just plain wrong."

2. "He is lying."

3. "His response makes no sense because A. Even if he didn't plan for these particular victims, he still planned a crime for that day. And B. Every offender has to select a victim sometime, even if it's a split second decision after seeing them in a random location." Personally, based on the context of the question he was asked, I think these A. and B. scenarios are included in what he was affirming. He's not eliminating an offender showing up ready to commit a crime where random victims were selected on the spur of the moment based on opportunity or something about them that he liked IMO.

The one interpretation I cannot agree with is that he is lying or using deception in his response. If LE genuinely thought they were dealing with a catfish scenario, for example, there's no way TL would go on the record saying these girls were "not planned, victims of circumstance or opportunity" just to throw the public off. Because that would come right back at trial in a defensive strategy, and not in a good way. IMO
 
steeltowngirl said:
^RSBM

Quite a very curious answer. Could mean any number of things.

Is he indicating that the entire chain of events that led to the murders began on 2/13/17? That would align with it being an unplanned crime of circumstance and opportunity, vs. the suspect having identified the girls as targets prior to that date.

It could also mean there was something specific about the date that had drawn the suspect to the trail. As we know, it was a publicized day off from school. We have covered that here many times. We’ve also talked about the nearby cemetery and the possibility of BG visiting a grave. I’m fairly sure folks have even gone so far as to check out headstones for corresponding dates.

Was there an event in the area on 2/13/17 that might have brought someone to Delphi that normally would not be there? Perhaps a meeting at a local company, or a birthday of a relative in the area, as examples.

Again, just tossing yet more thoughts out there. Here we are, four years later, still trying to interpret answers from LE. Arghhh..
Click to expand...

I thought it was a very interesting answer too. I think there are some things about his movements that day that LE still think they can figure out, whether that's based on video surveillance, witnesses, or what, I don't know.
 
Jerrod said:
Correct. As mentioned off & on over the years, this came directly from the early Facebook Q & A hosted by Becky Patty, along with Tara German. Some of us were online for that. Portions of the transcript have appeared here over the years. Here's an excerpt:

"Bridge is reportedly in quite bad condition; large adult-sized gaps in rotting rails. Not crossed without great caution and concentration. Wind was strong that day, and made crossing bridge more challenging than usual. Confirmed by hiker who crossed bridge around same time frame."

Question: "Did Libby and Abby go anywhere earlier in the day before heading to the bridge?"
Becky: "No."

Question: "Did Libby text Mike?"
Becky: "Libby did not text Mike saying some creep was following them - I searched phone records to confirm this - Mike does not use messenger or messages on Facebook. She was heard on audio she turned on as BG was spotted coming towards them, they were talking about that creepy guy they'd seen earlier."

Question: "Was Libby carrying a purse or clothing with pockets to carry her phone?"
Becky: "Had pockets in sweatpants."
Click to expand...

Thank you, this was the initial source of the word. Following that there has been much debate about if “creepy” was a direct quote or BP’s description in her summarization.

When the first sketch was released of the older man, IMO an image of him wandering alone on trails could indeed qualify as creepy. A younger man as young as 18 or early 20s, probably not so much.

Police: Delphi murder victims spoke of man behind them in audio played for family | wthr.com
“Police say the girls mostly talk about "stuff girls talk about" in the recording, but they also mention the man.”
 
Yemelyan said:
I thought it was a very interesting answer too. I think there are some things about his movements that day that LE still think they can figure out, whether that's based on video surveillance, witnesses, or what, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Just reflecting - how the opportunity given to pose questions to LE might ordinarily clarify at least some unknown aspects of this case. Instead it leaves me feeling, in general, we know even less than we thought we did.
 
Notes from Dr Oz segment - secret signs. 1:45 pm dropped off. 5:30 pm reported missing. After noon next day bodies found 1/4 mile away from bridge. BG appears to follow girls. 50000 tips, none led to killer. Families holding onto hope for justice. Details of crime never released.

Robert Ives on now. Trail not well known. Not tourist spot. Bridge abandoned. BG head down because bridge not safe. Local person - since not part of trail. However motivation for crime - No obvious one. Very unusual crime scenes. Very strange. Semi random crime. But doesn’t make sense he was there.

3-4 things at crime scene you would absolutely take picture of. He’s not involved in investigation. Time to release more clues? If another crime scene like this, could be work of serial killer. They were looking for crimes with similar characteristics. But public would not know. And were general things. But unusual. Ives is confident will be solved but no reason for that. Thinks BG will brag or even confess. Or someone will report nervous person. Serial killer will do it again and then be caught and confess to this one too.

Next up: scanner discussion.
 
HLN anchor Susan Hendricks. Was there more evidence? There are other videos and audio, but may hurt family. One of girls realizing what is happening. Susan has been to bridge. Shocked, due to condition and height of bridge. Kids have no fear. Adults don’t usually cross - must be local. Remote.

Susan thinks planned. Took her time to find bridge. Dense brush. Planned attack. BG thinks that day - “This is what I want to do - commit murder”. Crime of opportunity. May not be directed at Libby and Abby. He had girls follow him down the hill.

Scanner “keep everyone out until dogs search”. Helicopter looked up and down creek four miles. Why did chopper miss them? Cause not flat. Dense brush.

It used to be Mayberry here until this happened. Everyone becomes suspect, no one trusts anyone.
 
steeltowngirl said:
HLN anchor Susan Hendricks. Was there more evidence? There are other videos and audio, but may hurt family. One of girls realizing what is happening. Susan has been to bridge. Shocked, due to condition and height of bridge. Kids have no fear. Adults don’t usually cross - must be local. Remote.

Susan thinks planned. Took her time to find bridge. Dense brush. Planned attack. BG thinks that day - “This is what I want to do - commit murder”. Crime of opportunity. May not be directed at Libby and Abby. He had girls follow him down the hill.

Scanner “keep everyone out until dogs search”. Helicopter looked up and down creek four miles. Why did chopper miss them? Cause not flat. Dense brush.

It used to be Mayberry here until this happened. Everyone becomes suspect, no one trusts anyone.
Click to expand...

BBM

I didnt watch the show but do you think she actually meant follow, as in walk BEHIND him?? Or was it just accidentally used to mean “go with him”?

That would be surprising to me. I imagined he showed a weapon and threatened them with with. Like holding out a gun or knife and made them walk in front of him to prevent them from running. If he was in front...it would appear to give them more opportunity to run.

It could also be just a weird word to use that doesn’t mean anything.
 
Yemelyan said:
I thought it was a very interesting answer too. I think there are some things about his movements that day that LE still think they can figure out, whether that's based on video surveillance, witnesses, or what, I don't know.
Click to expand...
This is insignificant if the killer planned to be there hunting that day, but...

Let's say it was an opportunistic crime planned only within a short timeframe before their encounter (like my obsessively mentioned idea of him spotting them getting dropped off). Narrowing down a suspect pool would include finding out who might be traveling 300 rd (or ones close by), or who would be on the trail, on a Monday afternoon. That's an obvious question.

But it bothers me a lot that 300 rd is not a major thoroughfare to anywhere. It's a back way to Flora, a route into town for the folks who live around there, it's the road to the trail, a storage facility, and a couple small businesses. So who (aside from a predator on the prowl) would have reason to be in that area? There are two well-traveled east/west roads to the north and south of 300 rd that merge directly onto the highway system. There are very few reasons to put somebody on those back roads specifically. Could that help determine he's local, or anything unique to a possible suspect? I don't know, but I can't let it go.
 
Peppery said:
BBM

I didnt watch the show but do you think she actually meant follow, as in walk BEHIND him?? Or was it just accidentally used to mean “go with him”?

That would be surprising to me. I imagined he showed a weapon and threatened them with with. Like holding out a gun or knife and made them walk in front of him to prevent them from running. If he was in front...it would appear to give them more opportunity to run.

It could also be just a weird word to use that doesn’t mean anything.
Click to expand...

Excellent question. Dang, I can’t rewind it back now. I was keying notes as I watched so I’d get them raw, and I did take note she said he had the girls follow him. It caught my attention, so I noted it. Susan may have been ad-libbing with her own observations and interpretations. Or I may have heard it wrong.

I hope someone else saw it and can clarify what she said.
 
Jerrod said:
She was heard on audio she turned on as BG was spotted coming towards them, they were talking about that creepy guy they'd seen earlier."
Click to expand...

To me, there's a big difference in them talking about "a guy still behind them" (as has been how this answer was quoted in other posts) and "a guy they'd seen earlier." Do we know which it was?

As posted above, Ives says there's no obvious motive, no reason for BG to be there that day, semi-random. Combine that with the fact that another girl had an exchange with him, potentially, but was left unharmed (we also have no other information about that situation...), it sounds possible to me that L&A became his targets before they were even on the bridge, but still within a short span of time, unplanned prior to them getting on the trails, imo. Wonder what his trigger was?
 
Last edited:
stattlich1 said:
I tend strongly to trust LE. I actually worked with local LE on numerous matters over the years, even side by side with the Sheriff's son (for quite some time). I am a strong supporter :)

That being said, I've learned LE is not always the most knowledgeable in all domains, they are human too. On occasion, I had LE come to me to read graffiti for instance, as they could not make out the meaning, or what was being portrayed. They would come to me to assist in identification, to explore internet evidence, and other things.

With regard to this case, it is clear to me that mistakes were made early on. I'm putting no blame. I think LE was actually led away from the true investigative strategy they should have been on. Were they duped? Possibly. Who really knows?

Speaking of 'twists'. Have there not been a few 'twists' in terms of the investigation in to this murder? Might there be more 'twists' in the future. Paths that were taken, then shown to be in error?

For me, it is evidence that this investigation is an evolving process. For the most glaring example, LE stated as fact BG1 sketch was of the man being sought, then BG2 sketch came on the scene. Would one be able, as a result, to say that LE was wrong in their pursuit of BG1? Was the public not shown one thing, told one thing, yet it was found to be in error?

This case is not solved. LE seeks evidence. I think we agree the evidence they seek is such that it would either name the killer, or be undeniable in it's link to the killer, or prove who is in fact, the killer.

Possibly, LE knows who the killer is, and as a result, the comments made regarding circumstance/opportunity. Yet I ask, what if a shred of evidence comes to light that shows the connection?

Would there ever be a circumstance where LE would put out information contrary to truth to assist in the apprehension of a murderer?

Were it known to locals these, or one of these, girls were targeted by this killer, might that be enough reason to keep such information from the public?

I have been privy to some LE investigative strategies and tactics. Working with, and knowing, an undercover drug task force agent, looking like one person in real life, and a totally different person while on the job. Is that not deception of a kind?

I'm not on the wagon with those who think these girls were lured to the bridge. However, I do reserve the possibility that they were murdered, or possibly one of them was targeted, for a reason.

MOO
Click to expand...

LE are not IT. Any profession dealing with humans learns the best from their clients, from experience. This is why so many detective stories portray local cops, walking the beats. They know everyone, and they understand the situation.

The situation in Delphi is very complicated. I can see it. Had it been some meth-related crime, one thing. But in my heart of hearts, I do not believe it is a substance-related crime. (Although the perp could have been disinhibited by ingesting something.)

I am positive mistakes have been done, but what if they are dealing with something extremely rare?

In my profession, there is a situation that goes into all textbooks, all exams, but I personally have never seen it. I hope I’ll recognize a typical case, but what if it is an atypical one? I’d totally miss it, and maybe 1/10 colleagues would have a guess, either.

When I think about detective work, I don’t imagine Harry Hole, I imagine tons of paperwork and also, the need to get warrants for every step you make. I think of LE not as either educated or limited, but as people 100% overwhelmed by bureaucratic work. It undercuts and undermines everything.
 
Last edited:
steeltowngirl said:
^RSBM

Quite a very curious answer. Could mean any number of things.

Is he indicating that the entire chain of events that led to the murders began on 2/13/17? That would align with it being an unplanned crime of circumstance and opportunity, vs. the suspect having identified the girls as targets prior to that date.

It could also mean there was something specific about the date that had drawn the suspect to the trail. As we know, it was a publicized day off from school. We have covered that here many times. We’ve also talked about the nearby cemetery and the possibility of BG visiting a grave. I’m fairly sure folks have even gone so far as to check out headstones for corresponding dates.

Was there an event in the area on 2/13/17 that might have brought someone to Delphi that normally would not be there? Perhaps a meeting at a local company, or a birthday of a relative in the area, as examples.

Again, just tossing yet more thoughts out there. Here we are, four years later, still trying to interpret answers from LE. Arghhh..
Click to expand...

I think still checking the alibis and stories...
 
A Sister’s Walk for Justice: The Delphi Murders [EXCLUSIVE]

"This means the killer did something unique that was not necessary for the commission of the crime. I asked him (Ives) straight out could there have been two killers.

He said, “No, I don’t think so. This was one person.

A killer leaving at least three different signatures leads me to think there is some distinct mental illness that he would not be able to hide from others. We don’t know if these signatures were pre or postmortem. Ives said it’s not like any other crime he has been to."

This is some interesting stuff from Ives, IMO.
 
stattlich1 said:
With all the speculation, and discussion, over the years, would it be correct to say that what really happened to these girls on that fateful day still has not been mentioned or discussed on this website?

What I mean is, if someone here, or elsewhere online, really did post that detail, or details about the murder of these two girls, that LE knows, but nobody else knows, save the killer, do you think that person would be contacted by LE? Would LE ever know?
Click to expand...

If, hypothetically speaking, this were to happen, I believe LE would be made aware. Would LE make contact? That's certainly a point to ponder.

I've been meaning to ask, @stattlich1, with your theory of BG entering and exiting via the cemetery, what are your thoughts on his clothes not being wet in the photograph(s) that Libby took? If you've mentioned this in the past, I've missed it.
 
OverTheRhine said:
A Sister’s Walk for Justice: The Delphi Murders [EXCLUSIVE]

"This means the killer did something unique that was not necessary for the commission of the crime. I asked him (Ives) straight out could there have been two killers.

He said, “No, I don’t think so. This was one person.

A killer leaving at least three different signatures leads me to think there is some distinct mental illness that he would not be able to hide from others. We don’t know if these signatures were pre or postmortem. Ives said it’s not like any other crime he has been to."

This is some interesting stuff from Ives, IMO.
Click to expand...
Not to open a can of worms...

Always buried in the back of my mind was LE's request for autopsy results after another crime happened in a neighboring town ending in the suspect's suicide. LE said then that specific person was not of particular interest, so I'm not putting the emphasis on him, individually, but the significance of autopsy findings in regards to Delphi evidence.

I think of it wherever I hear Ives discuss the oddness of things.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 2,398 (members: 115, guests: 2,283)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
2,283
Total visitors
2,398
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,236
Messages
18,137,306
Members
231,279
Latest member
skoorboh54
Back
Top