Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #141

[Marlo56]

I think both sides “made mistakes”, tbh.

Here is what I don’t understand. If the guy had killed before, he probably abducted and hid the victims, leaving far fewer clues. Maybe they haven’t been found yet… Here, it is possible that abduction went wrong, but BG must have foreseen it - otherwise, why all these talks about him caring and taking steps not to leave DNA?

So what kind of a person plans abduction/murder, but also thinks “if she/they try to run away, and I have to kill on the spot, not to forget adding the (detergent?) to the kill kit”?

This is ultra-planning to me. And this looks strange. As if he knew there will be too little time.

This makes me wonder if the girls were targeted specifically, and the goal was to kill them no matter where. And the rest is to create the impression of random victims.

Or else, he indeed abducts random victims and keeps alive (Patterson-style) for a while, but in Delphi, it went wrong; however, then, the rest, with staging a “strange” CS, per Ives, makes no sense, too.

It is as if several MOs were merged in one.

Why?

Yes, I agree with this. The jacket and jeans loaded with items, and the decision to walk across the creek to a specific spot indicate a high degree of planning.

That level of calculation makes me think that anything planted at the crime scene was there to taunt, mislead or both.

For example, we don't know anything about the crime scene beyond rumours. But if any rumours about items left are true, that screams phony to me. IE, in a hypothetical scenario where a religious item was left, I don't believe the person has any sincere interest in religion or had any religious point to prove; my guess would be that it's just some Hollywood BS designed to shock and / or point fingers elsewhere.

I further speculate that LE refusing to release information is partly to deprive him of the attention he was craving when he chose to do whatever it is he chose to do, ie leaving whatever these alleged signatures are.

 

[Charlot123]

Maybe, he even is busy working the case with us, maps/pics/links/sound knowledge and all, IMO. We don't know though, at which point he purposely is leading us astray a bit, if he does at all.

If this is the case, he has left a few clues for us. However, as of today, I think the person “working with us”, as you put it, on the SM would be, more likely, not a killer, far from it, and “baits” (I counted three) are not meant for us. The killer, btw, is smarter than grab the bait
MOO, the killer knows a lot…what he doesn’t know (and is afraid of) is what will be his comeuppance, where science stands with the DNA. He’d be mining for this. Maybe, join some genetic genealogy groups. Post questions about DNA. This would be the SM he’ll frequent. When these murders happened, GSK was not yet arrested. So the killer had limited knowledge about genetic criminology. He would be trying to find out more. JMO. So, no, it is not the person who will be “working with us”, if this person posted, my bet would be: 1) a slew of unsolved criminal stories from the past making the police look bad; 2) questions about DNA.
One thing is, he poorly controls his emotions, so some fights on SM are possible.

 

[Yemelyan]

Is the common belief around here that this was BGs first murder? It just seems weird and more difficult to start with two victims for his first time and would possibly have killed a single person before.

Purely speculation.

Just to play devil's advocate, I think the selection of multiple victims could be a sign of an inexperienced offender. After all, we know that some murderers do start out with multiple victims....didn't BTK target 4 people in his first attack? Not sure he planned for all of them to be there, though....which brings me to my point.

I decided to look at only double child abduction murders by a non-family member, like what happened to Libby and Abby, which we know are the rarest of the rare types of crime. Haven't we heard the statistic that the FBI only knows about 15 such cases since the 1970s? I wanted to know how many of these double child abduction cases involve an offender who chose two victims for his first murder.

This is not an exhaustive search. There may be more examples out there. Granted it's a very small sample because this type of crime is rare. But taking out the cases with double victims that are still unsolved, like Evansdale, I found these examples of first time child murderers who targeted two victims on their first murder attempt (all cases listed here had victims age 13 and younger)

1. Michael Klunder (only succeeded in murdering one of the two victims due to an escape).
2. Kevin Sweat
3. Lloyd Lee Welch, Jr.
4. Jorge Avila-Torres

And from the UK I found these two examples:
5. Ronald Jebsen
6. Ian Huntley

Some of these offenders had previous assaults against single victims that didn't progress to murder. And, if they went on to commit more murders after their first time, they usually targeted single victims the next time around. Perhaps learning from their crime that it's quite hard to control two victims?

So while I'd agree that few people wake up and out of nowhere decide to murder (most people worked up to it through escalating lesser assaults), when it comes to people known to target two children at once, perhaps as many as 20-25% of the known offenders targeted two victims in their first murder. And to me that's actually quite a lot, considering what a rare crime this type of non-family child homicide is.

Maybe instead of assuming someone who takes two victims at once is extremely experienced, we should start wondering if they are in fact very inexperienced and actually haven't thought the crime through very well? Or perhaps they are a more impulsive (some might even say disorganized) type of offender when acting on opportunity?

No definitive answers here, just some thoughts.

 

[Charlot123]

Yes, I agree with this. The jacket and jeans loaded with items, and the decision to walk across the creek to a specific spot indicate a high degree of planning.

That level of calculation makes me think that anything planted at the crime scene was there to taunt, mislead or both.

For example, we don't know anything about the crime scene beyond rumours. But if any rumours about items left are true, that screams phony to me. IE, in a hypothetical scenario where a religious item was left, I don't believe the person has any sincere interest in religion or had any religious point to prove; my guess would be that it's just some Hollywood BS designed to shock and / or point fingers elsewhere.

I further speculate that LE refusing to release information is partly to deprive him of the attention he was craving when he chose to do whatever it is he chose to do, ie leaving whatever these alleged signatures are.

The assumption that the killer is truly religious is such nonsense. JMO. If anything, this idea reflects the schism between the perception of good and evil in someone’s own mind, along the lines of “the evil has come to Delphi”. LE should abandon the hope that the perpetrator would confess, or that he’d be moved by “the Shack”. If I were to bet, I’d say Eric Harris’s diaries with their concept of the Superman are on the perp’s table, not the Shack…Maybe, the beginning of “Crime and Punishment”, when Raskolnikov kills to prove own moral superiority, would bode well with the killer (not the end).

I doubt the killer is to taunt. After all, he is scared. Religious talks aside, DC is very angry with him. I think the killer is trying to mislead (and he did! One more reason for LE to be livid).

Why is LE not releasing the info? I think, if they do, this will generate questions. The answers will inevitably reveal how ill-prepared the LE was to handle the case. And if the killer, is, indeed, young, it would add insult to injury. So we won’t get anything from LE.

 

[Charlot123]

Just to play devil's advocate, I think the selection of multiple victims could be a sign of an inexperienced offender. After all, we know that some murderers do start out with multiple victims....didn't BTK target 4 people in his first attack? Not sure he planned for all of them to be there, though....which brings me to my point.

I decided to look at only double child abduction murders by a non-family member, like what happened to Libby and Abby, which we know are the rarest of the rare types of crime. Haven't we heard the statistic that the FBI only knows about 15 such cases since the 1970s? I wanted to know how many of these double child abduction cases involve an offender who chose two victims for his first murder.

This is not an exhaustive search. There may be more examples out there. Granted it's a very small sample because this type of crime is rare. But taking out the cases with double victims that are still unsolved, like Evansdale, I found these examples of first time child murderers who targeted two victims on their first murder attempt (all cases listed here had victims age 13 and younger)

1. Michael Klunder (only succeeded in murdering one of the two victims due to an escape).
2. Kevin Sweat
3. Lloyd Lee Welch, Jr.
4. Jorge Avila-Torres

And from the UK I found these two examples:
5. Ronald Jebsen
6. Ian Huntley

Some of these offenders had previous assaults against single victims that didn't progress to murder. And, if they went on to commit more murders after their first time, they usually targeted single victims the next time around. Perhaps learning from their crime that it's quite hard to control two victims?

So while I'd agree that few people wake up and out of nowhere decide to murder (most people worked up to it through escalating lesser assaults), when it comes to people known to target two children at once, perhaps as many as 20-25% of the known offenders targeted two victims in their first murder. And to me that's actually quite a lot, considering what a rare crime this type of non-family child homicide is.

Maybe instead of assuming someone who takes two victims at once is extremely experienced, we should start wondering if they are in fact very inexperienced and actually haven't thought the crime through very well? Or perhaps they are a more impulsive (some might even say disorganized) type of offender when acting on opportunity?

No definitive answers here, just some thoughts.

A little bit on the side, but I assume crimes against animals are easily missed and might be the first murders for any of the SKs. Is there any correlation between murders of double/several animals, and then people would progress with several people, and learn that it is more difficult?

I wonder if we factor in animals as the first victims, the pattern would change.

 

[Charlot123]

1. Kelly says we are dealing with a sadistic killer and a killer to who the visual sense/orientation is important. Apart from a hunch/intuition or drawing a LOT of information from the meagre bit LE has given us ("strange signatures" "at least three") he does seem to be drawing on some of the online/youtube type rumour or information OR something he is privy to from a source he can't divulge. Am I right?

2. Does someone know? in the literature on sadistic killers whether serial or otherwise is there a pattern in terms of how much time they wish or need to spend with the victims? Obviously in some cases it is a lot. But here IF "it was all over by 3:30" and for those who think it was planned me among them it seems there was not much time spent in the crime.

3. The biggest barriers (for me) to the planned theory is 1. the fact the visit to the bridge was apparently an imprompu idea of course if they were catfished or stalked that is no problem 2. the bigger one for me is the march from the end of the bridge to murder site. I still do not quite understand what the likelihood is of them encountering another hiker - it seems to me it is too high for this to be a really good plan.

Just an idea. If Kelly is right about the killer being “visual”, and there are such people, I think they would make good hunters, although not all are into it, then, to add, many of them are very sensitive to olfactory stimuli. This is often forgotten, but it is their perception of both space and smell. I don’t know how to attach it to this case, but perhaps either coming closer to smell, or take a memento that smells with them?

 

[TL4S]

The bodies were found on RL's nearly 40 acre property. The property near his house (which is on the complete opposite end from where the assumed crime scene is) was searched more than once, including the buildings.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/crime/sea...erty-where-delphi-teens-abby-libby-found-dead

On Friday, Indiana State Police said they had developed more information that led them to request a new search warrant at the property.

"It's just a normal course of this investigation," said ISP Sgt. Tony Slocum. "We've served multiple search warrants so far. They can either exonerate a person or maybe require law enforcement to take a closer look."

There have been many theories about where BG parked, but the only reference to a vehicle given by LE was the one at the CPS lot first mentioned at the April 2019 PC. In May, 2019, KR mentioned it again. The WLFI article's link is now broken, but here's the quote:

"The importance of the car also ties into why police now believe the killer is local. Riley said after reviewing many tips, investigators determined he was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area."

IMO, there might have been reason for LE to search and re-search RL's property and buildings. Not because RL was a suspect, but that maybe it's possible LE thought BG might have been around those buildings. KR's statement about the vehicle also insinuates that the vehicle is possibly tied to BG. So if BG planned a kidnapping, why would he park at the farthest, most public parking spot he could find around the trails? If the kidnapping went wrong and he killed them below the cemetery, why walk the opposite direction to RL's buildings (if he did so)? These are all just speculations on my part, of course.

We also have JH quoted as saying:

Why Police Have Not Released Details on the Murders of Libby German and Abby Williams from Delphi, Indiana

"There’s a lot of false information out there,” Holeman confirms. “Social media, although not new… does impede our investigation. Like when people put up side-by-side photos of innocent people—or, at least, people with no ties to the state of Indiana or Delphi—which creates false [information]. People believe it [though] because it’s on the internet.”

And armchair detectives are even taking their interest in the case a step further by creating YouTube reenactments of the crime.

“[The videos] help us know that people don’t know [the true details], because the facts haven’t been released,” Holeman says. “People watch the news and think they are picking up on things, but it’s false. Nothing out there is accurate, which only leads to more false tips.”

I feel like there is information within these kinds of statements that gets ignored, or molded to fit how we want it to fit. I'm guilty of it, too. LE is vague with the details, for sure, but why do we refuse the crumbs they throw us?

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Yes, remember how in the beginning they said, one of the girls had the chance to escape? It was loyalty and friendship.

Agree about the search.

I do remember vaguely about the, yes. I just can't remember who said it.

 

[Yemelyan]

A little bit on the side, but I assume crimes against animals are easily missed and might be the first murders for any of the SKs. Is there any correlation between murders of double/several animals, and then people would progress with several people, and learn that it is more difficult?

I wonder if we factor in animals as the first victims, the pattern would change.

Well, I'm not sure that the totality of what people were talking about when they were saying "he must be experienced in order to murder more than one victim at the same time" was the actual killing part (maybe it was). I think there is also a substantial piece of it that speaks to an assumption about having the assurance to approach two victims and then ability (whether that's through manipulation or violence) to control or "take" two of them at the same time.

I think people often err when they try to approach the problem of understanding the decision-making of these offenders and they can't see past the logical, rational choices that they themselves would make.
Of course it is usually going to be "harder" to abduct, control, and kill two victims than it is to kill just one. Some offenders will come to that logical conclusion. But many are dealing with dissociative or other psychological drives that make them less risk averse. And some are incapable of rational decision-making as well. First time offenders may be immature in their planning, extremely impulsive or opportunistic, or even driven by a particular fantasy of the crime they want to commit. I think research shows that many first-time abductors/murderers of children had a so-called emotional trigger in the recent time period that spurred them to their criminal act (common triggers being losing a job, breakup of a relationship, other legal troubles). So you can't assume they will always or even usually make the "rational" decision. None of this should be taken to mean that they acted outside of their own choices or are not 100% responsible for their behavior, however. JMO

 

[Marlo56]

Totally agreed re: people seeing past their own decision making. I feel like this whenever the subject of parking at CPS comes up. What the killer thought was a perfect plan and what was reality can be two separate things. If he changed out of his clothes before leaving the crime scene, it's possible that his decision making regarding the place to park was more to do with what location looked less suspicious to park in and leave from than how quickly he could get to his car.

 

[sandy_80]

I do remember vaguely about the, yes. I just can't remember who said it.

this was said very early one ..then repeated by kelsi on a podcast ( Abby was a hero too for staying with libby ).. i cant recall which podcast.. it was referenced here by me and others many times

 

[TL4S]

Totally agreed re: people seeing past their own decision making. I feel like this whenever the subject of parking at CPS comes up. What the killer thought was a perfect plan and what was reality can be two separate things. If he changed out of his clothes before leaving the crime scene, it's possible that his decision making regarding the place to park was more to do with what location looked less suspicious to park in and leave from than how quickly he could get to his car.

You could be right. I think it's a significant clue that LE has not asked if anyone saw a vehicle parked along 300 N., or in the cemetery, or on the private drive, etc., iirc. While we can't possibly know BG's thoughts or motives when/if he parked at the CPS lot, LE has outright told us the vehicle ties into them thinking BG is local and got around quickly that day. (Although, some members have posted reasonable theories about the car being linked to a witness vs BG.)

I know I am likely rationalizing too much, considering the possible irrational mind of the killer, but his parking at the CPS lot has always painted a particular picture in my mind. Somehow, I think he saw the girls driving and followed them, watched them getting dropped off alone, and continued west on 300 N, parking at the CPS lot. He was already driving in that area because he was local. He knew that lot was parking for the trail because he was local. He knew he could catch up with the girls whichever direction they went on the trail because he was local. It seems an impulsive decision, then, based on opportunity, rather than planning. So I don't know that a whole lot of thought was put into where he parked, only that he wanted to get on those trails and find them. Jmo.

 

[MistyWaters]

The assumption that the killer is truly religious is such nonsense. JMO. If anything, this idea reflects the schism between the perception of good and evil in someone’s own mind, along the lines of “the evil has come to Delphi”. LE should abandon the hope that the perpetrator would confess, or that he’d be moved by “the Shack”. If I were to bet, I’d say Eric Harris’s diaries with their concept of the Superman are on the perp’s table, not the Shack…Maybe, the beginning of “Crime and Punishment”, when Raskolnikov kills to prove own moral superiority, would bode well with the killer (not the end).

I doubt the killer is to taunt. After all, he is scared. Religious talks aside, DC is very angry with him. I think the killer is trying to mislead (and he did! One more reason for LE to be livid).

Why is LE not releasing the info? I think, if they do, this will generate questions. The answers will inevitably reveal how ill-prepared the LE was to handle the case. And if the killer, is, indeed, young, it would add insult to injury. So we won’t get anything from LE.

I agree that DC comes across as very angry during that Press Conference in Apr/19. But since then, to compare, I’ve watched other videos of his public speaking events and I’ve changed my mind because it seems it’s nothing more than his typical forceful manner of speaking about a topic that hits his heart. And really, he wouldn’t be expected to host a PC involving the two teens exhibiting a happy, cheerful smiling persona. So to conclude he’s angry at the killer because he was betrayed somehow, I think that might just be a figment of our imagination,
JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

The bodies were found on RL's nearly 40 acre property. The property near his house (which is on the complete opposite end from where the assumed crime scene is) was searched more than once, including the buildings.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/crime/sea...erty-where-delphi-teens-abby-libby-found-dead

On Friday, Indiana State Police said they had developed more information that led them to request a new search warrant at the property.

"It's just a normal course of this investigation," said ISP Sgt. Tony Slocum. "We've served multiple search warrants so far. They can either exonerate a person or maybe require law enforcement to take a closer look."

There have been many theories about where BG parked, but the only reference to a vehicle given by LE was the one at the CPS lot first mentioned at the April 2019 PC. In May, 2019, KR mentioned it again. The WLFI article's link is now broken, but here's the quote:

"The importance of the car also ties into why police now believe the killer is local. Riley said after reviewing many tips, investigators determined he was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area."

IMO, there might have been reason for LE to search and re-search RL's property and buildings. Not because RL was a suspect, but that maybe it's possible LE thought BG might have been around those buildings. KR's statement about the vehicle also insinuates that the vehicle is possibly tied to BG. So if BG planned a kidnapping, why would he park at the farthest, most public parking spot he could find around the trails? If the kidnapping went wrong and he killed them below the cemetery, why walk the opposite direction to RL's buildings (if he did so)? These are all just speculations on my part, of course.

We also have JH quoted as saying:

Why Police Have Not Released Details on the Murders of Libby German and Abby Williams from Delphi, Indiana

"There’s a lot of false information out there,” Holeman confirms. “Social media, although not new… does impede our investigation. Like when people put up side-by-side photos of innocent people—or, at least, people with no ties to the state of Indiana or Delphi—which creates false [information]. People believe it [though] because it’s on the internet.”

And armchair detectives are even taking their interest in the case a step further by creating YouTube reenactments of the crime.

“[The videos] help us know that people don’t know [the true details], because the facts haven’t been released,” Holeman says. “People watch the news and think they are picking up on things, but it’s false. Nothing out there is accurate, which only leads to more false tips.”

I feel like there is information within these kinds of statements that gets ignored, or molded to fit how we want it to fit. I'm guilty of it, too. LE is vague with the details, for sure, but why do we refuse the crumbs they throw us?

If an abduction of any potential victim walking the bridge was planned in advance, the logical place to park an exit vehicle is right there on the dirt road that runs directly underneath the far end of the bridge. Rather than get into the vehicle, the girls ran across the road and also crossed the river. I’ve never been convinced the request to identify the driver of the vehicle parked at the CPS lot was anything more than someone LE wanted to talk to in seeking information. But this is just my opinion, a failed abduction makes more sense to me than anything else as to why someone would approach two teens on a trail leading to them being killed within “minutes”.

 

[Lavender Moon]

Maybe, he even is busy working the case with us, maps/pics/links/sound knowledge and all, IMO. We don't know though, at which point he purposely is leading us astray a bit, if he does at all.

That is quite creepily possible!

 

[AC4RD]

[...]
3. The biggest barriers (for me) to the planned theory [...] the march from the end of the bridge to murder site. I still do not quite understand what the likelihood is of them encountering another hiker - it seems to me it is too high for this to be a really good plan.

I agree--I think the girls were opportune targets and BG had visited MHB and other public areas, considering them for his hunt. *BUT* I've also learned a lot from others here on WS and one thing I've learned is that any of my own opinions and theories may not be as ironclad as I thought at first. I've said a number of times that BG just couldn't be sure he could grab a target safely in such a public place--especially TWO targets at once.

But using the "Ken May Be Wrong" principle ;-) several people here have talked about BG entering the trail area from the east, near the cemetery or farther east, right? And remember the woman at the south/east end of the bridge who talked to BG around 12:30? So I can picture BG parking at the south end of the bridge somewhere, intending to force his target back to his car. And he gets there and scouts the southern and eastern part of the area--and he sees the Dog Woman and makes a bit of polite conversation, while doing so. After a half-hour he's sure of the area he's going to take his prey to, and he then strolls across the high bridge, headed north toward the area where the girls were dropped off.

At this point he knows that there are no visitors on the south end of the bridge. If anybody passes him headed south on the bridge, toward the house with the private drive, he knows his hunting ground is not safe. But if nobody DOES pass him, he knows that area behind him is almost certainly empty. Now he strolls up near the trailhead, where Flannel-Shirt Guy sees him. He sees the girls as they start down the trail (I like the theory that L&A saw BG earlier than the abduction and they thought he was creepy.) After a few minutes, BG follows them down the trail, He knows that Libby and Abby are the only people ahead of him, headed south toward the secluded areas. Nobody is coming behind him--he looks before he strikes, no question. So BG now knows he's the only person other than the girls in that part of the park. The girls are alone--BG just has to control them and keep them quiet.

I'm not saying that is what happened, there's a lot of support for the idea that BG entered the trails up near the Freedom Bridge, not out near the cemetery. But to me it sounds like it *could* have happened that way. MHO.

 

[AC4RD]

Is the common belief around here that this was BGs first murder? It just seems weird and more difficult to start with two victims for his first time and would possibly have killed a single person before. Purely speculation.

Nick, we've discussed that up one side and down the other, and my own guess is that there are plenty of people on both sides of the question ("first" vs "not first"). And probably others like me who just don't even have a good guess. You're right, two victims at once shows a huge amount of confidence in his plan--especially since being wrong about anything could put him in a cell for life, or even on Death Row. So "confident" equals "heck, yes." But "first" vs "not the first" sure leaves a lot of room for uncertainty, IMO. I'd guess L&A weren't his first murders, but that's strictly a guess I pulled out of thin air. It's a BIG question, isn't it?

 

[TL4S]

I agree--I think the girls were opportune targets and BG had visited MHB and other public areas, considering them for his hunt. *BUT* I've also learned a lot from others here on WS and one thing I've learned is that any of my own opinions and theories may not be as ironclad as I thought at first. I've said a number of times that BG just couldn't be sure he could grab a target safely in such a public place--especially TWO targets at once.

But using the "Ken May Be Wrong" principle ;-) several people here have talked about BG entering the trail area from the east, near the cemetery or farther east, right? And remember the woman at the south/east end of the bridge who talked to BG around 12:30? So I can picture BG parking at the south end of the bridge somewhere, intending to force his target back to his car. And he gets there and scouts the southern and eastern part of the area--and he sees the Dog Woman and makes a bit of polite conversation, while doing so. After a half-hour he's sure of the area he's going to take his prey to, and he then strolls across the high bridge, headed north toward the area where the girls were dropped off.

At this point he knows that there are no visitors on the south end of the bridge. If anybody passes him headed south on the bridge, toward the house with the private drive, he knows his hunting ground is not safe. But if nobody DOES pass him, he knows that area behind him is almost certainly empty. Now he strolls up near the trailhead, where Flannel-Shirt Guy sees him. He sees the girls as they start down the trail (I like the theory that L&A saw BG earlier than the abduction and they thought he was creepy.) After a few minutes, BG follows them down the trail, He knows that Libby and Abby are the only people ahead of him, headed south toward the secluded areas. Nobody is coming behind him--he looks before he strikes, no question. So BG now knows he's the only person other than the girls in that part of the park. The girls are alone--BG just has to control them and keep them quiet.

I'm not saying that is what happened, there's a lot of support for the idea that BG entered the trails up near the Freedom Bridge, not out near the cemetery. But to me it sounds like it *could* have happened that way. MHO.

I think that's a very well laid-out scenario. The whole failed abduction on the road below the south side of the bridge theory definitely has merit, imo.

Again, I'm guilty of rationalizing the sequence of events, since I can't accurately get inside the mind of a killer, but there are a couple things that make me question the abduction scenario. This is the back and forth that rolls around in my mind.

1) Did the killer really think his chances were any good of randomly cornering somebody at the south end of the bridge that particular day? *I know, but school was out...
2) Did the girls not see the vehicle parked below and say something during the audio? *it could have been hidden...
3) Would he risk it after being seen and talking to somebody in the area? *he's a risk-taker, clearly, so he didn't care...
4) What makes this dog-walking "witness" any more reliable than the witnesses who saw him on the trail, exiting the cemetery, or any of the other non-LE-confirmed "witnesses"? *because...
5) Why did LE not ask for any information on vehicles on that private road? *for the integrity of the investigation...

Then again, I can have these back and forths with any scenario.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think that's a very well laid-out scenario. The whole failed abduction on the road below the south side of the bridge theory definitely has merit, imo.

Again, I'm guilty of rationalizing the sequence of events, since I can't accurately get inside the mind of a killer, but there are a couple things that make me question the abduction scenario. This is the back and forth that rolls around in my mind.

1) Did the killer really think his chances were any good of randomly cornering somebody at the south end of the bridge that particular day? *I know, but school was out...
2) Did the girls not see the vehicle parked below and say something during the audio? *it could have been hidden...
3) Would he risk it after being seen and talking to somebody in the area? *he's a risk-taker, clearly, so he didn't care...
4) What makes this dog-walking "witness" any more reliable than the witnesses who saw him on the trail, exiting the cemetery, or any of the other non-LE-confirmed "witnesses"? *because...
5) Why did LE not ask for any information on vehicles on that private road? *for the integrity of the investigation...

Then again, I can have these back and forths with any scenario.

It fits with why LE believes the killer has a local connection. A first time stop at the bridge, one wouldn’t know how it access it via the dirt road.

 

[MollyDDD]

Good point! As is happened, IIRC, they had the worst of both: the official searchers being called in (midnight, wasn't it?) and the unofficial searchers continuing to hunt. One thing I wanted to add to your consideration of both sides: if the disappearance did involve a crime (as it did), you perhaps also risk having bunches of people trampling your crime scenes and interfering with evidence. I don't know how you'd weigh that in the decision either to keep going or to start again with daylight, though.

I agree, and I wonder how other crime scenes are processed to avoid the public from getting involved.