Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #133

[155etta]

That's honestly what I think. I think he had set up camp in the area and just happened to come up on them. A case of being in the wrong place at the worst possible time. JMO.. I could be wrong

Maybe he was squatting in a nearby shack.

 

[Schatz]

Reporter: What do you mean by odd?
RI: Well, in one sense any murder scene is probably odd. But again, this is where I have difficulty because I'm not sure what all has been released. But there were a variety of things, at the scene of the crime, where - I guess I would ask you to talk to the State Police about that, they have to decide what is going to be released and what's not going to be released, but it was just not your normal "a person was killed here" crime. That's all I can say about it....All I can say about the situation with Abby and Libby is that there was a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene (note: he's talking about a previous example he gave of a "normal" murder, which is a domestic violence scenario) and it's probably not what you would imagine. What people think I'm talking about, it's probably not....I do think it will be solved because it's so odd, and so unusual, and people are so compelled to talk about the horrible things they do.

Yikes

 

[Schatz]

Anybody know where JBC was living in 2003?

we need a timeline because a court doc I reviewed puts him in TN in 1999 after getting in trouble in IN and now I’ve gone down a whole rabbit hole of cases in TN.

 

[Yemelyan]

This is a very, very good post. If we want to brainstorm - what type of evidence found at the scene of a crime would be useful to a 1960s detective?

- a wallet
- clothes with some identifying mark (tshirt from a local company, etc)
- shoe prints
- fingerprints
- a weapon
- a signature tying the killer to previous crimes

What else? There’s a lot of possibilities here.

I agree with your list - fingerprints, shoe markings (especially if distinctive to size or type), clothing left behind, weapon and/or items that were used to bind or kill (LE might have thought these were distinctive or that they could be easily traced as to where purchased), hair/fibers/trace evidence (modern methods exist to analyze these but analysis of these have been around forever).

In a different interview Ives said that there was a evidence at the crime scene that seemed like it would have logically pointed to a person (perhaps based on its odd or uncommon nature?) but somehow had never been able to be matched to a single individual. Just as an example (no evidence that this is the case), let's say that LE found green carpet fibers on the girls but neither of their homes or cars they typically rode in had this type of carpeting. Green is an unusual color so that would logically point to a person who had this type of carpeting in their home, at work or car. But if they were never able to find a POI who had this characteristic, then how to explain this unusual evidence? Again, that's just an example of something like LE may be dealing with.

 

[Finlay]

Thanks for answering.
—What about before?

Personally, even from the limited details I've read about this case, I would be surprised if this type of murder scene was a first offense for this killer. I struggle somewhat though to really get a feeling for just what types of offenses he might have committed. I do feel like this wasn't the first time he had killed. But I'd really like more details on this crime scene before I'd want to speculate too much further. As always, this is My Opinion Only.

 

[margarita25]

Map of JBCII's known addresses, towns he is associated with and high profile crimes that have been mentioned on these threads. Please reach out to me with corrections or info to be added. This is an ongoing/work in progress. James Brian Chadwell II - Google My Maps

Thank you, @ClaireNC !
:YouRock:

 

[yelodoggie]

Nice work! Questions:

1. Are Facebook “check-ins” only what the account holder OKs to be posted?
2. Where was a before 2016 - especially 2012?
3. What did he drive during the period 2012-present?
4. Are there any other assaults, abductions, etc in areas that coincide with his check-in dates?

If Facebook user has to OK the posting of a check-in location, can they also alter information about a check-in - i.e. If I’m in Seattle, can I post a check-in claiming to be in Los Angeles?

I know that when Standing Rock was happening, I was able to "check in" from there, even though I was in Ohio.

 

[Boxer]

That's honestly what I think. I think he had set up camp in the area and just happened to come up on them. A case of being in the wrong place at the worst possible time. JMO.. I could be wrong

Agree.

 

[yelodoggie]

I don't think he can be positively identified by the audio nor video. If he was dumb enough to keep the plain blue jacket (doubtful), I do think that would be a good piece of evidence. I don't think it could be 100% proven that it is THE jacket.

I guess the sketch witnesses could say that he is the guy. Again, probably a good piece of evidence, but if I was a juror, I might be a little skeptical of their "recollection" after 4+ years.

I don't know how they will tie him to the crime scene. Most likely they don't have dna, or he should have been a match long ago. Will cellphone records pinging on the delphi tower on 2/13/17 be damning enough? I don't know. It doesn't seem like a smoking gun to me. In a court of law, that is. Now me personally, I would find it to be pretty damning.

JMO

One of his screen names was Blue Chadwell. Does anybody know the timeframe he used that name? Was it after Abby & Libby's murders?

 

[flashy09]

That's honestly what I think. I think he had set up camp in the area and just happened to come up on them. A case of being in the wrong place at the worst possible time. JMO.. I could be wrong

If he did set up camp, it seems he would have the dog with him? A Pit Bull would be a very good way to control the girls. If he was camped out, he wouldn't need to walk the dog across the bridge or be seen with the dog on the trail if he could tie him up. Could his camp been at the crime scene? That would explain a lot of physical evidence and "the shack" reference.

 

[Boxer]

There's so much stuff to analyze, I think it could be a good long time before they get forensic testing results and even longer to figure out what the data means.

I'm sure he's committed other assaults and murders before. I don't know whether those crimes include L&A's murder, though.

Yes. A&L may not be his victims, but everything points to the young girl not being the only one. He seems to be effortlessly ruthless and quick.
Another hour of response time in Lafayette might have meant he got clear.

If he did set up camp, it seems he would have the dog with him? A Pit Bull would be a very good way to control the girls. If he was camped out, he wouldn't need to walk the dog across the bridge or be seen with the dog on the trail if he could tie him up. Could his camp been at the crime scene and the dog was there? That would explain a lot of physical evidence and "the shack" reference.

If he was camped out that neighbor of RLs that said he met a fellow or some fellows camping around a few days before hand may have talked to him.

 

[Skillz]

Dear @bourbongal,

Makes me wonder whether he slept under the Monon High Bridge the night before and was there on February 13th.

It seems possible to me because it seems he was "between" jobs during that time. He didn't start his new job until April, 2017. We're not sure when his job ended at Moon Fabrications Inc.

Just a thought. JMO

I had the same thought, especially after seeing some of his fb posts about camping and sleeping outdoors.

 

[yelodoggie]

It seems to me that whatever they have must be something DNA-ish. The girls were found by searchers which means it would be tough to keep anything very obvious, evidence-wise, a "secret". That's a
lot of people who need to stay extremely tight lipped. I just feel there would be talk out there about the crime scene. Or maybe I just don't know what's been said...

IIRC, on one of the CNN specials, LE thought the crime scene may have been somewhat compromised because searchers had been all over the woods in the dark.

 

[margarita25]

Compilation of Maps:


@ClaireNC’s Map:
James Brian Chadwell II - Google My Maps
(* Please reach out to @ClaireNC with corrections or info to be added. This is an ongoing work in progress.)

* JBCII's known addresses
* Towns he is associated with
* High profile crimes that have been mentioned on these threads


Satellite / Ariel View:
Google Maps

Street View:
Google Maps

Zillow:
714 Park Ave, Lafayette, IN 47904 | Zillow

Google Reviews & Photos:
Google Maps

Wabash National South Plant, Lafayette to Delphi:
Google Maps
via @Lmustang89

 

[Diddian]

This is a very, very good post. If we want to brainstorm - what type of evidence found at the scene of a crime would be useful to a 1960s detective?

- a wallet
- clothes with some identifying mark (tshirt from a local company, etc)
- shoe prints
- fingerprints
- a weapon
- a signature tying the killer to previous crimes

What else? There’s a lot of possibilities here.

I'm going to brainstorm a little bit outside the box, but what if there were many items of evidence (disposable drinking glasses or beer or liquor bottles, discarded food containers, crack or meth pipes or lighters, cigarette butts, gloves) collected from the crime scene which would normally be expected to implicate certain individuals (say ex-convicts who had DNA on file), but those individuals were reliably ruled out as involved because they had rock-solid alibis for the relevant timeframe? So, of many items of evidence collected when processing the scene, only a very small list of those items was ultimately determined by LE to be potentially reliable and they contain DNA which is not on file.

This could happen if:
(1) these individuals who were investigated and ruled out had at one time been homeless and used as "camp" the general area where the girls' bodies were found, leaving personally used items behind.
(2) the perpetrator gathered items from other locations (such as rehab facilities or job sites or parties) which he knew would implicate others who had DNA on file and purposely left these items at the scene of the crime to implicate those people.

Who might take advantage of such misleading evidence:
For (1):
A killer who himself might have been occasionally homeless and who camped at some point in the broader surrounding area (such as under the trestle bridge or somewhere at some distance across Deer Creek) or worked somewhere close by, but who attacked and killed where he knew others whose DNA was likely on file had camped and left many items behind. This could be a technique a person who spent some time in prison might have learned from other inmates.
For (2):
Someone who operated or attended a court-ordered rehab facility, where ex-convicts or others with DNA on file participated, and where he gathered items used by others there.
Someone who regularly employed as laborers individuals through the work programs associated with such facilities, knowing they were ex-convicts or others who had DNA on file, while he did not.

Either circumstance would require some planning, either to wait for the opportunity to commit these crimes at that particular location OR to gather the evidence in advance with a plan to plant it at the time of the crime or in advance of it.

 

[Skillz]

If he did set up camp, it seems he would have the dog with him? A Pit Bull would be a very good way to control the girls. If he was camped out, he wouldn't need to walk the dog across the bridge or be seen with the dog on the trail if he could tie him up. Could his camp been at the crime scene and the dog was there? That would explain a lot of physical evidence and "the shack" reference.

I also remember in the Down The Hill podcast, they mentioned the crime scene being a lair of sorts. That always perplexed me, but in the context of camping out for a few days, possibly with dogs, maybe there was a fire pit, food remnants, and more. That would explain the use of the term lair.

 

[everybodhi]

This is a very, very good post. If we want to brainstorm - what type of evidence found at the scene of a crime would be useful to a 1960s detective?

- a wallet
- clothes with some identifying mark (tshirt from a local company, etc)
- shoe prints
- fingerprints
- a weapon
- a signature tying the killer to previous crimes

What else? There’s a lot of possibilities here.

Reading about the alleged 1960’s serial killer John Norman Collins, it’s kind of amazing how little they had to go on back then, most of it is circumstantial.
Collins was only charged with one murder, last in a string of seven, that was tied to hair trimmings on the victim’s clothing.
He was house sitting for his uncle who was state police, they had cut the kids hair in the basement before going on vacation. Even blood evidence was only matched by type back them. Matching blood “type O” and hair analysis (used for the first time in this case) was all the hard evidence they had.
Most of the evidence was circumstantial things like witnesses saying they saw the victim on his motorcycle the last day she was seen.

 

[yelodoggie]

This is a very, very good post. If we want to brainstorm - what type of evidence found at the scene of a crime would be useful to a 1960s detective?

- a wallet
- clothes with some identifying mark (tshirt from a local company, etc)
- shoe prints
- fingerprints
- a weapon
- a signature tying the killer to previous crimes

What else? There’s a lot of possibilities here.

Geez, almost anything could be dropped or left behind. Something written in the dirt or on the bodies, like a symbol or word? Positioning of the bodies? Hair?

 

[yelodoggie]

I apologize. . .I can't get the quote feature here to work reliably for me, so some of my posts have my comment in the quote, or not at all.
Someone asked the type of dog he has. 2 or 3 pitbulls, and puppies at any given time, as his dogs seem to have a litter at least once a year .

 

[Tiff23fr]

I agree with your list - fingerprints, shoe markings (especially if distinctive to size or type), clothing left behind, weapon and/or items that were used to bind or kill (LE might have thought these were distinctive or that they could be easily traced as to where purchased), hair/fibers/trace evidence (modern methods exist to analyze these but analysis of these have been around forever).

In a different interview Ives said that there was a evidence at the crime scene that seemed like it would have logically pointed to a person (perhaps based on its odd or uncommon nature?) but somehow had never been able to be matched to a single individual. Just as an example (no evidence that this is the case), let's say that LE found green carpet fibers on the girls but neither of their homes or cars they typically rode in had this type of carpeting. Green is an unusual color so that would logically point to a person who had this type of carpeting in their home, at work or car. But if they were never able to find a POI who had this characteristic, then how to explain this unusual evidence? Again, that's just an example of something like LE may be dealing with.

Can you post a link to the interview you are referencing in case others want to check it out?
Thanks