Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #142

[minazoe]

I wonder, if JBC is ever found to be the killer, will he still have a trial? He’s already in jail for the attack on the neighbor girl for the rest of his life what would be the point of giving him a life sentence if he’s already going to die in jail?

Oh they will want to execute him and put him on trial for the sake of his victim's families. mOO

 

[somequestions]

With the 5 year mark coming up, I'm wondering if there will be any publicity. I'm fairly sure if Carroll County SO has the lead now, there won't be anything unless the media makes the first move. I believe ISP is keeping a low profile on this case now. If they do have something on TV, the cases of JBC and KAK and this business with the internet will probably be something LE doesn't want to deal with in public.

I think there probably will be some sort of small press conference updating the families and the public on the progress within the investigation. Usually with major anniversaries police do something. I would be surprised if there is no public update given. What you probably will not hear is another quote to the killer telling him they are coming for him(after all this time that has passed).

It is sort of sad how little has transpired in a case that looked like it was almost a sure thing at the beginning. There are lots of criminals who commit lots of crimes and unfortunately anytime one of them comes up who lives close to the Delphi area people will start to speculate. Look at cases older than this one and over time there end up being many persons of interest. Anytime someone commits a crime against a minor and looks even remotely like the video, 1st sketch, or 2nd sketch, people are going to try and link them to these murders.

But at least in this case there is a video, and that is what makes me think this case has the potential to be solved.

 

[Charlot123]

Good things to think about. There are a lot of unknowns here, so anything could be true. Also, we don't know how much they had to clean up the audio, that can definitely alter the voice a bit. I imagine whoever edited it was doing so with the intent in not trying to change it too much but sometimes that's hard to avoid. But, what I would say is regardless, if you know the person well, it likely won't matter. You can recognize voices of friends and family when they are sick, shouting, whispering, etc.

I remember being mistaken about the voices of people having flu (over the phone). And if medications can change the voice, lots of things come to mind. I wonder what DC meant by saying "the devil's voice". I don't want to agree with him, but the voice, indeed, sounds unusual, deprived of certain (expected) high notes, and hence, somewhat scary. Did they overclear it? "Hi, guys" sounds different.

 

[Charlot123]

I suspect some of the problem is that they know perfectly well what happened but they don't have the evidence to prove it in court. They might even have definite information but if it's from, say, an illegal search, they wouldn't be able to use it.

But then, lots of our assumptions are wrong. He is not posting somewhere on forums and Facebooks, not trying to attract attention to himself. He - he knows, too, or feels that they know, and tries not to attract attention to himself, God forbid. He is probably very quiet.

 

[Charlot123]

I suspect some of the problem is that they know perfectly well what happened but they don't have the evidence to prove it in court. They might even have definite information but if it's from, say, an illegal search, they wouldn't be able to use it.

If so, I think I understand what case R. Ives had in mind when he said, "unless he attacks someone else". Yes, the law protects the criminals, if procedural mistakes have been made by the police. (It is sad and unfair, but good that there is the law). I hope that LE find the way to deal with BG in this case, though, because you can not count on his next victim being a hero, if LE messed up.

 

[Boxer]

Oh they will want to execute him and put him on trial for the sake of his victim's families. mOO

Yes, unless he pled guilty, the state would wants him found guilty for it.

 

[sunshineray]

I suspect some of the problem is that they know perfectly well what happened but they don't have the evidence to prove it in court. They might even have definite information but if it's from, say, an illegal search, they wouldn't be able to use it.

I think this could be why the families aren't being more vocal. Even LG's Mom has been oddly quiet after being so vocal in her frustration.

Like poster StarryStarryNight says on this page, its "past time"...for new tactics...something. Makes me think LE knows but can't prove. Although, look how quiet the Evansdale families have been about their two girls. That case is a lot different though as far as evidence available since it took so long to find them.

If LE for Delphi girls has more video or audio, IMO, they need to clean it up, block the images of the girls or their voices, and realize more to the public. That they haven't is another reason to think they don't need to, they know the monster. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I wonder, if JBC is ever found to be the killer, will he still have a trial? He’s already in jail for the attack on the neighbor girl for the rest of his life what would be the point of giving him a life sentence if he’s already going to die in jail?

If he doesn't admit it AND LE can prove it...justice would be the point, IMO

 

[Yemelyan]

I wonder, if JBC is ever found to be the killer, will he still have a trial? He’s already in jail for the attack on the neighbor girl for the rest of his life what would be the point of giving him a life sentence if he’s already going to die in jail?

Plenty of people who were serving life sentences (or sentences so long they may as well have been life sentences) have been indicted for their roles in other murders that were discovered later on. One in the news right now is the case of Charles Helem: Another serial killer? Murderer Charles Helem charged in two cold cases in Md. and Va.

For a situation very similar to the one you propose, you could read up on the case of the abduction of the Lyons sisters. Lloyd Lee Welch, in prison on a very lengthy sentence for three other, separate rapes, was ultimately charged in their murders even though their bodies had never been found. He decided to plead guilty but was sentenced to an additional 48 years for their murders on top of what he was already serving (the penalty was actually two 48 year sentences but they will be served concurrently if he lives that long).

When there is a lot of public outcry about a case and when the families are heavily involved, as is the case in Delphi, LE are going to do something with the charges if they have enough evidence to bring them, IMO.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I suspect some of the problem is that they know perfectly well what happened but they don't have the evidence to prove it in court. They might even have definite information but if it's from, say, an illegal search, they wouldn't be able to use it.

I’ve thought the same thing, that there is evidence LE is unable to use for some reason, so they are having to find some other way to get that same info, or some other info to prove the same thing. I hope that makes sense.
I was wondering though, if LE knows who the killer is but their main evidence is unusable for some technical reason, could LE release that information without comment to the public under the guise of needing information on it. For example, if LE knew who the killer was because he dropped his drivers license at the crime scene along with two photos of himself posing with the bodies, but they couldn’t use the evidence for some reason…could LE release a picture of the drivers license along with a few other benign things from the crime scene with no comment other than “these are from the crime scene, if you have any tips call the d#&n tip line”. I would imagine they would be flooded with information concerning the drivers license, etc.
I just don’t know whether that’s allowed.

 

[sunshineray]

I’ve thought the same thing, that there is evidence LE is unable to use for some reason, so they are having to find some other way to get that same info, or some other info to prove the same thing. I hope that makes sense.
I was wondering though, if LE knows who the killer is but their main evidence is unusable for some technical reason, could LE release that information without comment to the public under the guise of needing information on it. For example, if LE knew who the killer was because he dropped his drivers license at the crime scene along with two photos of himself posing with the bodies, but they couldn’t use the evidence for some reason…could LE release a picture of the drivers license along with a few other benign things from the crime scene with no comment other than “these are from the crime scene, if you have any tips call the d#&n tip line”. I would imagine they would be flooded with information concerning the drivers license, etc.
I just don’t know whether that’s allowed.

I think, in that senario, it would certainly be allowed. It would then be up to the person who's drivers license was found at a murder scene to put up a stink publicly and face I'm sure a lot of public questions. Not saying they'd have to answer them but they can't stop anyone from asking.

Or depending on exactly were license was found, say they were a searcher, they could bring slander charges. That would then open them up to lots of questions they would have to answer.

I doubt it's any scenario like this though. Mostly likely it's just the lack of forensics evidence at the scene. LE may have pieced it all together circumstantial but the killer has an alibi that either won't be broken or the person giving it is now dead...something along those lines.

I still wonder about the vehicle LE asked about, never to be brought up again.

Just some thoughts. AJMO

 

[Yemelyan]

I’ve thought the same thing, that there is evidence LE is unable to use for some reason, so they are having to find some other way to get that same info, or some other info to prove the same thing. I hope that makes sense.
I was wondering though, if LE knows who the killer is but their main evidence is unusable for some technical reason, could LE release that information without comment to the public under the guise of needing information on it. For example, if LE knew who the killer was because he dropped his drivers license at the crime scene along with two photos of himself posing with the bodies, but they couldn’t use the evidence for some reason…could LE release a picture of the drivers license along with a few other benign things from the crime scene with no comment other than “these are from the crime scene, if you have any tips call the d#&n tip line”. I would imagine they would be flooded with information concerning the drivers license, etc.
I just don’t know whether that’s allowed.

IMO the only evidence that LE can't use is illegally obtained evidence. So anything gained by violating a suspect's constitutional rights (i.e. evidence collected without a valid warrant perhaps) would be so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree" that cannot be used at trial. But even then, some evidence that police obtained illegally can still be admitted. There is something called "attenuation doctrine" whereby prosecution can show that yes, police obtained this info illegally in this circumstance but they would have been able to find out about it lawfully or inevitably through the course of the investigation.

Your question, though, about what police are "allowed" to do in order to gain intelligence reminds me of the other Amber Alert that occurred in Indiana on the day Abby and Libby went missing (of course, we know an Amber Alert was not issued in their case, but there was one issued out of Gary, IN for a missing 15 year old teenager named Chastinea Reeves). The Amber Alert was justified, police said, because the teen was missing from her residence and her mother was found stabbed and murdered inside the residence. Plot twist: the teen girl was actually the perpetrator of the crime, which police suspected at the time. They used the Amber Alert essentially as a way to harness the help of the public to track a fugitive from justice, all the while having the public on alert to find someone supposedly in danger herself. The girl's defense attorneys brought up the "police misuse" of the Amber Alert at her trial: Attorney alleges police misused Amber Alert system in search for teen suspected of stabbing mom

She was sentenced to 45 years, though. So IMO in most of these cases LE can find unusual ways to get the information that they want out to the public.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

IMO the only evidence that LE can't use is illegally obtained evidence. So anything gained by violating a suspect's constitutional rights (i.e. evidence collected without a valid warrant perhaps) would be so-called "fruit of the poisonous tree" that cannot be used at trial. But even then, some evidence that police obtained illegally can still be admitted. There is something called "attenuation doctrine" whereby prosecution can show that yes, police obtained this info illegally in this circumstance but they would have been able to find out about it lawfully or inevitably through the course of the investigation.

Your question, though, about what police are "allowed" to do in order to gain intelligence reminds me of the other Amber Alert that occurred in Indiana on the day Abby and Libby went missing (of course, we know an Amber Alert was not issued in their case, but there was one issued out of Gary, IN for a missing 15 year old teenager named Chastinea Reeves). The Amber Alert was justified, police said, because the teen was missing from her residence and her mother was found stabbed and murdered inside the residence. Plot twist: the teen girl was actually the perpetrator of the crime, which police suspected at the time. They used the Amber Alert essentially as a way to harness the help of the public to track a fugitive from justice, all the while having the public on alert to find someone supposedly in danger herself. The girl's defense attorneys brought up the "police misuse" of the Amber Alert at her trial: Attorney alleges police misused Amber Alert system in search for teen suspected of stabbing mom

She was sentenced to 45 years, though. So IMO in most of these cases LE can find unusual ways to get the information that they want out to the public.

Good information.
I think what I was trying to say, and it came out rambling and messy, is…if LE has information they know they cannot use in court because of a technicality, could they release that evidence to the public without comment, hoping that it would bring in info they could use for an arrest and trial.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

For a long while, I have sensed so much understandable frustration & almost a feeling of helplessness (here and elsewhere) from people who have been following this case from the beginning and from those who have joined in along the way.

There are so many posters and Moderators who bring a wealth of information about the Law, DNA, personal experience as well as wonderful ideas to these threads. People who direct us to, as well as transcribe podcasts and there are others who are so awesome about keeping the information here fact-based....and others who pull msm links out of thin air when the rest of us can't find them.

To those of you who post regularly, I appreciate each and every one of you for keeping these threads on page 1 when some of us can't be here regularly to do so ourselves.

Many of us feel we have no 'power' to do anything, but to come here and theorize or make suggestions about what we hope LE has already done or should do.

After all, it has been almost 5 very long emotional years.

It is heartbreaking to see the words 'cold case' connected with the names Abby and Libby.

We all want the person(s) who committed this crime to be arrested and have him nailed to the floor so he will never go free again.

We do have 'power' and we can make a difference though.

If you have not done so already or recently, please share this case on your social media platforms if you have them.

If you don't 'do social media' then bring it up to someone you feel connected with (a friend, family member, neighbor or co-worker) at your next 'social event' or maybe even during a facetime or Zoom call where there is a lull.

Bring as much awareness to this case as you can. No matter where you live.

Tell them about Abby and Libby and their families and how desperate hundreds of thousands and of people are to see justice. Tell people about what the City of Delphi has gone through for the past several years and about how many people's lives have been turned upside down by accusations that have later been found to be false.

Look at the # of views on many of the podcasts and videos that are out there. The number is very high and its because so many people out there care so much.

Let's work together to double or even triple that number.

I think it can be our 'job' to bring as much publicity to this case as humanly possible, in any way possible.

Use your knowledge about this case and your powers of persuasion to discuss this case with others in hopes that they too will dedicate their time to bringing awareness to this case.

Maybe....just maybe, one of us can reach the right person who has that 'one tip.'

All JMO on a Friday lunch break after a long and busy week

 

[Charlot123]

Good information.
I think what I was trying to say, and it came out rambling and messy, is…if LE has information they know they cannot use in court because of a technicality, could they release that evidence to the public without comment, hoping that it would bring in info they could use for an arrest and trial.

I disagree, although i am a layperson. I think that police cannot, and should not, ever hint at the evidence or knowledge, that was obtained with violation of the subject's constitutional rights. MOO. Because - as long as there is hope that some information, yet not obtained, might be available tomorrow, the police can not, today, create the situation when the (hopefully) arrested in the future murderer might be let out on a technicality.

(It has happened, and it happens). Much depends on the judge, and the state.

 

[MollyDDD]

Plenty of people who were serving life sentences (or sentences so long they may as well have been life sentences) have been indicted for their roles in other murders that were discovered later on. One in the news right now is the case of Charles Helem: Another serial killer? Murderer Charles Helem charged in two cold cases in Md. and Va.

For a situation very similar to the one you propose, you could read up on the case of the abduction of the Lyons sisters. Lloyd Lee Welch, in prison on a very lengthy sentence for three other, separate rapes, was ultimately charged in their murders even though their bodies had never been found. He decided to plead guilty but was sentenced to an additional 48 years for their murders on top of what he was already serving (the penalty was actually two 48 year sentences but they will be served concurrently if he lives that long).

When there is a lot of public outcry about a case and when the families are heavily involved, as is the case in Delphi, LE are going to do something with the charges if they have enough evidence to bring them, IMO.

Thank you. I am glad to know that he’d hopefully face the death penalty if he was found guilty and spend the rest of his days on death row. Just hate to see the tax payers footing the bill. IMO

 

[minazoe]

I disagree, although i am a layperson. I think that police cannot, and should not, ever hint at the evidence or knowledge, that was obtained with violation of the subject's constitutional rights. MOO. Because - as long as there is hope that some information, yet not obtained, might be available tomorrow, the police can not, today, create the situation when the (hopefully) arrested in the future murderer might be let out on a technicality.

(It has happened, and it happens). Much depends on the judge, and the state.

I don't think she meant violating constitutional rights necessarily.. mOO

 

[MollyDDD]

I think this could be why the families aren't being more vocal. Even LG's Mom has been oddly quiet after being so vocal in her frustration.

Like poster StarryStarryNight says on this page, its "past time"...for new tactics...something. Makes me think LE knows but can't prove. Although, look how quiet the Evansdale families have been about their two girls. That case is a lot different though as far as evidence available since it took so long to find them.

If LE for Delphi girls has more video or audio, IMO, they need to clean it up, block the images of the girls or their voices, and realize more to the public. That they haven't is another reason to think they don't need to, they know the monster. AJMO

Yet another reason why I think it’s JBC. LE knows that as long as he sits in prison, the community is safe. IMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I disagree, although i am a layperson. I think that police cannot, and should not, ever hint at the evidence or knowledge, that was obtained with violation of the subject's constitutional rights. MOO. Because - as long as there is hope that some information, yet not obtained, might be available tomorrow, the police can not, today, create the situation when the (hopefully) arrested in the future murderer might be let out on a technicality.

(It has happened, and it happens). Much depends on the judge, and the state.

I wasn’t meaning that this was something they should try. I was just wondering whether it was possible. I certainly want everything done by the law. Just a wild thought I had. Five years of frustration.

 

[acutename]

assuming that you think BG used weapon(s), what did he do with them?
no one seems to have seen anyone carrying things out (?). wash things off? discard or bury them? no mention of any items found at the crime scene or in the creek. I just started thinking that everyone sees concealed items in the video, but nothing about them after that.