Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #136

[sunshineray]

When was Libby's phone found?

Not far from the girls on the crime scene side I believe?

Jeez if this info is true, the actual physical injury crime scene spanned the creek, both sides.

Edit: I'm sorry I see you asked when. That I'm not sure of.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The guest on the GH video says his source said Libby was dragged a long way and her wrists were bruised as a result and the source added that he didn’t think he could drag her that far. The guest then speculates he thought he could drag her on flat ground and because of that assumes the source meant Libby was pulled up the embankment. That’s a very wild and silly assumption on his part I think. Regardless, the source himself never said Libby was dragged up the embankment.
Libby probably was dragged at some point, but LE said they were killed where they were found, and I believe them.

 

[sunshineray]

The guest on the GH video says his source said Libby was dragged a long way and her wrists were bruised as a result and the source added that he didn’t think he could drag her that far. The guest then speculates he thought he could drag her on flat ground and because of that assumes the source meant Libby was pulled up the embankment. That’s a very wild and silly assumption on his part I think. Regardless, the source himself never said Libby was dragged up the embankment.
Libby probably was dragged at some point, but LE said they were killed where they were found, and I believe them.

What I got from it...finally...had to digest and go back and listen to parts again...was that the Guest wasn't saying the girls were killed on the abduction side, just transported from there to the killing scene by dragging in Libby's case and probably carrying in Abby's case.

It's just crazy to think the killer then killed them but also had to spend time covering the marks left on the landscape by his actions.

If true it makes me wonder if the searchers that spotted the girls weren't the very first ones down by the creek bank on the abduction side if the bridge...the spot where BG crossed with the girls. for nobody else to have seen them til after 12 noon.

 

[WildHuncher]

The guest on the GH video says his source said Libby was dragged a long way and her wrists were bruised as a result and the source added that he didn’t think he could drag her that far. The guest then speculates he thought he could drag her on flat ground and because of that assumes the source meant Libby was pulled up the embankment. That’s a very wild and silly assumption on his part I think. Regardless, the source himself never said Libby was dragged up the embankment.

Libby probably was dragged at some point, but LE said they were killed where they were found, and I believe them.

BBM

If the spot they were found was close to the creek, then any flat ground Libby was dragged over figures to be a short distance. I don't personally know if that is true, but if it is, then you do have to ask what was all that dragging if not up the embankment and perhaps even across the creek. I'm inclined to give that bit of reasoning the benefit of the doubt.

ETA: Especially if we accept that LE is impressed with what they can determine of the killer's physical strength.

(But every bit of this is off-the-record hear-hearsay.)

ETA: I suppose he could for some reason (better concealment?) have dragged her / them in an upstream or downstream direction from the point where the creek was crossed. But there's been no mention of that.

ETA: My mind can't stop going back to JBC and his prison muscles.

 

[Justice101]

following

 

[minazoe]

JBC is still a <modsnip> still a POI.. no news..no statement from LE no presser.

just still there in jail for the rape/sex assault/ vicious beating and attempted murder /bodily harm..etc..

of a nine year old girl...they have a lot of material to sort through.

mOO

 

[MistyWaters]

So then I guess if this new information is true, the girls were knocked out but not dead when transported across the creek.

This is some crazy stuff. To do all this physicality and not leave any forensics except one spot of touch DNA...possibly, not for sure.

This man’s information was so suspiciously vague that I’m not ready to jump on the bandwagon. Is it just a coincidence that for everything new we think we’ve learned, we’re forced to create various scenarios in order for the information to become remotely plausible?

Plus how it came to be the bodies were found on the other side of the creek isn’t information that would lead to the identity of the killer. IMO that’s the critical piece we’re awaiting.

 

[flashy09]

I was in Indiana last week and crossed over a Deer Creek - not sure if the same one, but it gave me such a weird feeling. I also saw weather references to Delphi and was only 30-40 minutes away. Delphi almost seems unreal, like a place in a mystery novel, so it was just strange to have it so real.

Sorry for all that, but nobody else would understand, lol!

I am wrapping my head around everything GH has said. What BG and girls said on the bridge and the gun reference is directly from Abby's mom? Some of what she said actually wasn't supposed to be known, according to Abby's mom (I almost hate to repeat it!)

Obviously I find it fascinating, but I hope not the wrong thing to do putting it on youtube and I have hard time even believing it! Does Abby's mom know he is saying all this?

 

[Yemelyan]

For Libby to have bruising on her wrists or to be dragged, she would not necessarily need to be totally incapacitated. She would just have to be restrained by the wrists and resistant IMO.

However, I think it would have been a difficult task for all but a very fit person to carry even Abby's weight as far (and up an embankment) as was claimed, and I think it would have been a huge task to also drag Libby, even if it was at a different point in time.

I'm not buying that this information is 100% correct. There may be elements of truth to it.

 

[Yemelyan]

When was Libby's phone found?

I have never heard anyone give an exact time frame for when the phone was found, but it was probably not found at the exact same time the girls were or before the girls were, it must have been found afterwards - because in Episode 4 of Down the Hill, Kim Riley was talking about how the crime scene was secured and he said this:

The crime scene originally started where they found the bodies. Then after we found the phone, we realized it started at the bridge so we had to back up and bring that bridge into the crime scene. The original crime scene was a third of an acre.

So it could have been found hours later to a day or so later.
I believe by February 17th they were starting to show the picture of the man and saying they wanted to speak to him, so LE had it in their possession well before that date. JMO

Chapter 4: Three Words - Down The Hill: The Delphi Murders - Omny.fm

 

[FrostedGlass]

For Libby to have bruising on her wrists or to be dragged, she would not necessarily need to be totally incapacitated. She would just have to be restrained by the wrists and resistant IMO.

However, I think it would have been a difficult task for all but a very fit person to carry even Abby's weight as far (and up an embankment) as was claimed, and I think it would have been a huge task to also drag Libby, even if it was at a different point in time.

I'm not buying that this information is 100% correct. There may be elements of truth to it.

Do you have a good explanation as to how they got up the embankment? Or do you think there is no embankment. That whole issue really has me stumped. The only place with a very low slope I've seen in videos is at the far west end of RL's property.

 

[Falling Down]

Caller may not have said that both girls were absolutely, positively stone dead on the near side. He did say that the killer transported them over the creek. They were not moving under their own power anymore by that point. Sorry for any confusion.

"Transported" could mean a lot of things. The creek is shallow right there, anyway, could be he meant BG just kept walking them towards the CS.

Just like LE's and Ives' comments, I think people try to read just a little too much into the wording an individual uses, semantic arguments, really.

JMO

 

[TedMac]

For Libby to have bruising on her wrists or to be dragged, she would not necessarily need to be totally incapacitated. She would just have to be restrained by the wrists and resistant IMO.

However, I think it would have been a difficult task for all but a very fit person to carry even Abby's weight as far (and up an embankment) as was claimed, and I think it would have been a huge task to also drag Libby, even if it was at a different point in time.

I'm not buying that this information is 100% correct. There may be elements of truth to it.

Do you have a good explanation as to how they got up the embankment? Or do you think there is no embankment. That whole issue really has me stumped. The only place with a very low slope I've seen in videos is at the far west end of RL's property.

I have thought about this scenario (bruises, being dragged, etc.). I have wondered if the killer had possibly knocked Libby down, maybe dragging her while she was conscious, He could have been behind her, holding her by her wrists and dragging/pulling her while she attempted to get up, That would make her a lot lighter and easier for him to pull her along as she struggled to get up since a lot of her weight would be supported by her legs and feet. That would explain the bruises on her arms and his ability to move her in spite of her weight.

MOO and theory only.

 

[Falling Down]

I generally don’t watch GH videos. He seems to have decent information but they are soooo long and soooo boring. I did watch the relevant parts of this one thanks to the time marks by @Ravenmoon.
Most of this stuff I think we’ve all heard before, but it’s nice to get it “confirmed” by GH.
One of the most interesting things I thought was about the two sketches. The guest said only months after the murders, his family member was told about a second sketch by his source that was done two or three days after the murders. The source then remarked “which sketch would you rely on, the one done days afterward or one done 5 months afterward”. The source seemed frustrated that the focus was going to be the 5 month sketch.
I have said before and do think that the sketches have been rendered useless now by how LE has handled them, but the information above I think is interesting.
1) The source doesn’t agree with going with the 5 month sketch, so I wonder who made that decision at that time and why. It appears then that there was disagreement on that.
2) The source hints that he believes the days old sketch should have been used first, so he must believe, from something he knows surrounding the days old sketch, that that sketch is more legitimate and closer to the truth. To me this is confirmation that the sketch from 2019 is the one we should be paying attention to. LE initially said that at the 2019 presser and then danced it into oblivion so nobody is paying attention to it now.
3) LE acknowledged that they might have missed something early on and were going to revisit things. This has to be part of that. Why did they dismiss the days old sketch? Who decided to ignore it for two years? Who persuaded LE away from it?
4) This is the most important thing about the days old sketch. It is less about the sketch itself and more about the information that came with the sketch. That is info that LE chose to ignore until 2019 and we all would love to know why.
5) Think how different this case might be if LE had gone with the days old sketch from the get go. Think how different it might be knowing the killer was a younger slimmer guy instead of some pot bellied 50 year old dude from the beginning.
6) If it was a citizen that led LE away from the days old sketch and information then he should be at the top of the POI list. If it was someone in LE that led them away from it, they should be fired.
I would love to know what other folks think about this.

Could be they dismissed the witness' info which lead to the sketch from the week of the murders because of the physical description given, and what LE saw in the 1.5 second snippet pulled from Libby's phone. Let me explain:

My understanding is the witness who they got the info for the first sketch from was there mere minutes before A&L got there, they arrived at approximately 1:37 PM. The witness saw BG on the main trail just west of the intersection of the trails, I won't go any further as this information has not been shared by LE or the media. The caller on GH's last show said an eyewitness saw someone resembling BG at 8:45 AM, which jives with my theory that BG was there a long time waiting for the right person or persons to attack. But who knows on that last one, really.

1. My theory is BG changed his appearance after he saw A&L, and he had a substantial time to do so before he cornered them at the end of the bridge.

If this is true, then it explains more why there was some confusion early on, BG on the trail before the girls got there doesn't look like BG on the bridge, in the video. Also, I've not heard of any audio that exists along the lines of 'hey that's the guy we saw earlier' or something along those lines. My theory on that is he'd changed his appearance, he didn't look like he had roughly 40 minutes earlier.

I've walked that main trail and know for certain the distances are so short he would have had ample time to put his sick fantasy in motion by preparing himself both in appearance/whatever he would then be carrying on his person, and mentally if need be.

LE could have thought initially that BG was lurking in the woods, easy enough to do that time of year, even. There may have been confusion or hesitation on the part of LE regarding where BG was when the girls got there, which might explain some of the 2019 PC. Again I think we need to keep in mind they thought this case would be wrapped up in a matter of days.

JMO

 

[Falling Down]

WARNING: GRAPHIC INFORMATION:
One of the things that was mentioned in the call (in the Grey Hughes video) is that the crime was sexually motivated ( I am paraphrasing) but that there was no actual physical sexual assault.
It seems that they are leaning towards the killer pleasuring himself while looking at the scene.
I know how harsh that is- but it DOES give us a little insight into motivation and how this sicko's mind works.

AMOO JMO MOO

This case and some others I've looked into here on WS in recent years have educated me re: the sexual nature of a lot of violent crimes, like what happened on Feb. 13th, 2017. It's been eye-opening, but I can totally see a killer getting off at the CS, even getting off on the attention their case or cases get online and in the media. Sick, but it must be part of the thrill. It doesn't necessarily have to include sexual assault (SA).

JMO

 

[WildHuncher]

"Transported" could mean a lot of things. The creek is shallow right there, anyway, could be he meant BG just kept walking them towards the CS.

Just like LE's and Ives' comments, I think people try to read just a little too much into the wording an individual uses, semantic arguments, really.

JMO

"Transported" was my paraphrase. The caller and GH were definitely discussing dragging, carrying, how strong would you have to be, etc.

But, as explained earlier, I misremembered the caller as having proposed that the killer moved them across the creek under his power and not theirs. When I went back and listened to it again, that was GH who brought up that idea.

 

[sunshineray]

I have thought about this scenario (bruises, being dragged, etc.). I have wondered if the killer had possibly knocked Libby down, maybe dragging her while she was conscious, He could have been behind her, holding her by her wrists and dragging/pulling her while she attempted to get up, That would make her a lot lighter and easier for him to pull her along as she struggled to get up since a lot of her weight would be supported by her legs and feet. That would explain the bruises on her arms and his ability to move her in spite of her weight.

MOO and theory only.

It's a good theory and horrifying. When I was caring for my Dad he had a few falls over the years. He was around 175-180 lbs and I tell you just trying to get him back upright took every ounce of power I had at my 135 lb frame. If he'd been unconscious dead weight, no way in heck I'd have been able to even move him a few feet. Adrenaline is your friend sometimes but even that has it's limits.

So even if BG is a fairly big guy, a LOT of energy and determination went into moving them across that creek and those embankments. If that's in fact what happened.

 

[Yemelyan]

Do you have a good explanation as to how they got up the embankment? Or do you think there is no embankment. That whole issue of really has me stumped. The only place with a very low slope I've seen in videos is at the far west end of RL's property.

I think there was an embankment, so that's why I'm unsure of the accuracy of this info that the girls could be carried up while incapacitated or dragged up, not under their own power.

 

[TedMac]

I think there was an embankment, so that's why I'm unsure of the accuracy of this info that the girls could be carried up while incapacitated or dragged up, not under their own power.

I agree. It would be very difficult to either drag or carry either of them up an embankment-maybe downhill or even on level land, but not up an embankment.

 

[WildHuncher]

WARNING: GRAPHIC INFORMATION:
One of the things that was mentioned in the call (in the Grey Hughes video) is that the crime was sexually motivated ( I am paraphrasing) but that there was no actual physical sexual assault.
It seems that they are leaning towards the killer pleasuring himself while looking at the scene.
I know how harsh that is- but it DOES give us a little insight into motivation and how this sicko's mind works.

AMOO JMO MOO

I went back a THIRD time to listen to 48:25 through 52:00 of the video. You see, on the second pass I thought I heard something a little different from what I remembered and reported here after the first pass. It keeps happening.

I had reported here that caller thought perhaps Libby's state of undress was from dragging. (Police have not confirmed if either or both were clothed, nude, partial, or whatever, never mind how they got that way.)

The caller is in fact referring to a rumor that dragging had removed clothing. He is not endorsing it at all. Before addressing the likelihood of this, he skips to another rumor, that one or both girls were sexually assaulted. This he addresses, saying that he has not heard they were assaulted.

He then cites a non-public LE-developed profile of the killer where they say some stand-offish, non-touching but still sexual behavior occurred. LE could not believe [exaggerated emphasis by caller] there was no DNA. This citing of LE's belief in a sexual motive seems intended in part to rebut, not assert, the rumor about dragging. However, it occurs so far after the mention of it that I'm still not sure. Caller mentions the killer perhaps using a condom from a distance. This IMHO appears to be him giving an example from his own mind of what LE could be referring to, not a quote from the profile.

I keep having to correct my first report. The caller's presentation is vague and ambiguous. <modsnip>