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

[carbuff]

Bravo! But what the heck does “only the vast majority” mean? Has everyone in the family been cleared or not?

To me, it says there are a few people who weren't cleared.

 

[MollyDDD]

I agree, it's somewhat maddening. Then you can throw in the things LE have said like...

No on-going danger to the public, specific to the girls, not connected to girl's social media but make sure you know what your kids are doing, what they're up too. Well most kids are up to social media almost 24/7.

Then you have Sheriff Leazenby saying he knows heard that voice before...still gives me chills and makes me wonder why bother even saying something like that to a reporter. Again that would make me think killer is local and I should be more worried about the danger in the area.

The ISP Carter saying at the end of the Flora Fire PC when pressed about if all the Delphi family members have been cleared, most reluctantly (I mean the man almost winched) he says only the vast majority.

Again after the Delphi 2019 PC, ISP Carter says the killer could be a combination of the two extremely different sketches.

The firmer prosecutor Ives saying how complicated the murder scene was with many different signatures and such yet no other tidbits realized to garner tips. Even just one thing about that crime scene could help, maybe not but possibly it could.

Going on 5 years it's time something is done....unless they know or have their man but not enough evidence to put him at the scene...for murders.

I'm sure I've missed a few more. Those are the ones that jump to mind

Bravo! But what the heck does “only the vast majority” mean? Has everyone in the family been cleared or not?

When the police close a case with an arrest they were lucky. When a case goes five years without being closed the police botched it. Happens every time.

The criteria for an Amber Alert was not even close to being met. Even if it had been issued the girls would have been just as dead.

Dogs. Even if Lassie had been called to the scene the girls would have been just as dead.

The search did not end. There were still officers, firefighters
, and civilians out in those woods until dawn. It is a small police department. You can’t hold over everyone because if you do you won’t have anyone to work the day shift. The chief has to keep that in mind when managing his troops. Remember it was a mostly Delphi case until the bodies were found.

Believe it or not some cases were made to be solved while others were destined to stay unsolved. Five years ago I documented two cases from thirty some years ago. One was worked tirelessly for a month until a phone rang. On the other not squat was done for a month until tge right doorbell was rung.

Such is the nature of police work.




D

i

What criteria wasn’t met for an Amber Alert? The girls were missing. They were left alone in the woods and were supposed to meet their ride home at a certain time but they never showed up. Didn’t answer their cell phone either. The woods can be a dangerous place for two young girls, especially with a dangerous 60 foot bridge that was off limits to pedestrians. Their clothing was describable.
At the time people were searching in other local places where they thought the girls could have gone to. They could have been anywhere and the alert would have alerted many more people to be on the look out. Who knows, maybe someone could have seen the killer walking about and later helped to identify him. And more importantly, Officer, at the time, they didn’t know they were already dead. IMO

Search dogs would have detected their path, right to their bodies as well as possibly indicated the escape route of the killer, or even found him if he was hiding in the woods, or inside a car. Again, at the time, Officer, they didn’t know they were dead. In fact, they could have still been alive and survived to tell the tale. IMO

It will be interesting to learn the primary cause of death.
I sure hope it wasn’t hypothermia, before they succumbed to their brutal injuries. IMO

 

[MollyDDD]

Abby looks up at Libby, who is recording, and says "He's right behind me, isn't he?"

Abby hurries to where Libby is.

The girls are discussing which way to go. It appears they were talking about two ways to go but said it was hard to hear the audio.

Abby says "Is that a gun? He's got a gun."

BG says "Hey" (probably supposed to be "Guys")

Libby then says "Hmmm"

BG says "Down the hill" and then the sound of a gun cocking is heard

The above gun talk is at the 48:00 to 51:12 min mark. All this BBM info was given to AW by police and then AW gave that info to GH...whom we're allowed to site.

It's all just chilling.

My God, the fear in those little girls at that moment…
I just cannot imagine. And they can’t find him.

 

[MollyDDD]

To me, it says there are a few people who weren't cleared.

But who, and why? <modsnip>

 

[somequestions]

I think that first and foremost that the video and the audio that Libby recorded need to be shown everywhere possible.
That's what needs to be in the spotlight.

The focus doesn't even have to be on the second sketch being the person in the video, because the audio and video speak for themselves.

People just need to know that the audio and the video are the same person.

To put it bluntly, I feel like saying *advertiser censored** the stupid blasted confusing sketches.

According to what LE says, the second sketch (April 22, 2019) and the most recent description are what people need to look for, but I think that those sketches are only a valuable tool for a very minimal number of people.

Namely, those who were right in proximity of the bridge that day who actually saw someone on February 13, 2017.
Those are the people who need to ask themselves whom they saw that day.

It's too bad those (IMO) vastly different sketches turned this case into such a s**t show, and as a result, many people have lost confidence in what LE says when they release information now. I can certainly see why.....and it is so darn frustrating.

I wonder how many people saw the first sketch released on July 17, 2017 and decided it didn't resemble anyone whom they saw that day so they never came forward when it was released?

Alternatively, I also wonder if the person who helped create the second sketch released on April 22, 2019 ever saw the person depicted in that drawing ever again before, or even after, it was released? What a complete jolt of terror they must have felt when they saw it unveiled that day...knowing that LE took over two years to publicly associate the face they saw with the terrible crimes committed that day.

Quoted bbm. You've been very consistent in your opinion about this pretty much from when you first started posting on this case. I think you have even mentioned previously that you believe that LE was guessing with the sketches.

I am curious if it is because your sure that BG is the refrigerator truck driver that you saw who dressed and looked just like the person in the video, or if it is because you lost confidence in LE when they released the second sketch and it didn't fit the face of the person you pictured who was in the video?

JMO

I think you make a great point in your last paragraph. I completely agree.

When we are sure of something we often times believe in that as opposed to everything else. For example, how can I be sure none of the witnesses did not see a guy with wet pants or some other great identifying information? Maybe one of the sketches is based off good identifiable factual information that points to that person in the sketch being the killer. Being seen with wet pant legs in February, when considering the crime scene area, would be good information.

I admit I actually believed that I saw the person and that he was a refrigerated truck driver. Maybe I am trying to make the person I see in the video out to be the killer? There is no way I can say I am absolutely sure based on how grainy the video is in this case. The blue parka, pants, same floppy ear hat, and I think that he may have been left-handed, by how he signed his documents. I really thought it all fit together.

But with over 50,000 tips in this case I am probably not the only one who thinks they saw the killer.

 

[mom2chloe]

The killer knows what he did to the victims and he knows the bodies were discovered the next day. So why would DC need to address it to rile up the killer as the killer would know exactly what LE discovered. I think that phrase was to comfort the families, who appear to also have deep religious beliefs. I just don’t think it has to mean anything more than were left for dead and now they’re in - as they say, a better place - heaven. JMO

A Priest perhaps? Didn’t both girls attend the same church? Anyone recall? TIA.

 

[sunshineray]

Bravo! But what the heck does “only the vast majority” mean? Has everyone in the family been cleared or not?

This is the only time I've heard any LE speak to that. ISP Carter does so at the end of a Flora Fire PC when asked persistently by a reporter there.

Between 19:08 to around 20:00

ISP on family of 4 girls killed in 2016 Flora house fire: ‘They’ve not offered themselves to sit down with us’ | WTTV CBS4Indy

 

[Confusion]

I really don't believe that LE had any ulterior motive for releasing the bits of the video and both of the sketches. When I got a closer look at the stills from the video, I thought he looked like he was late 20's or maybe early 30's. I had a hard time making the first sketch work with them. I've wondered if some people gave descriptions of someone else who was dressed in similar clothes that day; RL seemed to dress a lot like that in the videos I saw with him, and another guy walked by in the background of one wearing about the same thing. I think that the first sketch released may have been a composite of a few/several witnesses describing 2 or more men; the second sketch sounded like it was the description given by one witness (although that doesn't mean it was.)

I do think the 2nd sketch looked quite a bit like what I saw in the stills except that I though he looked like had had some facial hair. I also don't think the voice sounds as old as many do, but I do think he sounds like someone who has abused his voice in some way - mainly heavy drinking, smoking, yelling or something that might be hard on the vocal cords. I don't really see how any of this could be helpful, but I thought I'd throw it out here just in case.

 

[Charlot123]

Just a version. TL says he feels bad he cancelled the request for search dogs; most likely, it means the dog could have alerted to some things and helped to understand the escape route.

But maybe, just maybe, the guy was still standing on the CS with the search group, or was somewhere around in the forest. And the dogs would have alerted and run up to him, in TL’s imagination.

Could Tobe mean this?

I think, with any usual escape route, the scent would have been lost, unless the guy went to his house, or some dwelling that was close to the CS. But if he was still present on the search day, maybe, he would have been suspected sooner.

 

[asyousay]

I had not realized that people knew the audio from the video. So Abby was pretty close to him at one point and he did have a gun.

It’s such a barbaric crime and so opportunist as well. I can not believe it’s nearly the 5 year mark as I remember posting on here in the early days.

 

[TL4S]

Abby looks up at Libby, who is recording, and says "He's right behind me, isn't he?"

Abby hurries to where Libby is.

The girls are discussing which way to go. It appears they were talking about two ways to go but said it was hard to hear the audio.

Abby says "Is that a gun? He's got a gun."

BG says "Hey" (probably supposed to be "Guys")

Libby then says "Hmmm"

BG says "Down the hill" and then the sound of a gun cocking is heard

The above gun talk is at the 48:00 to 51:12 min mark. All this BBM info was given to AW by police and then AW gave that info to GH...whom we're allowed to site.

It's all just chilling.

Thank you for the link @sunshineray. I've been wanting to see it again.

This is what has always suggested to me that the girls had a prior encounter with BG that day, either on the trail, or even the bridge. And, I think words were exchanged during that prior encounter, as well.

There's just something casual about the way he approaches them and immediately says, "Guys..." IDK.

But what's always struck me is how very...I don't know the word...predictable this description is of the kind of crime occurring. Follow until he can corner them, pull a gun, and order them to a location out of view. For me, personally, it takes away the fantastical: kill kits, disguises, lairs, props, staging, etc. and reveals a more straight-forward abduction/SA/murder scenario. That's MOO, though, and I respect that others view it differently.

But again, we have RI describing the CS as "odd" and including "signatures." It makes me wonder if once BG got the girls under his control, he sort of didn't know what to do with them. I mean, I think he knew what he wanted, but once he got them to the spot he eventually killed them, what actually happened between setting foot there, and leaving them dead? It's in that time frame that his personality and reasoning had to unconsciously come through. IMO. It just doesn't feel planned to me, I don't know why. And I wonder if significant things happened between the end of the bridge and the CS, besides.

L's shoe comes into play here. I'm not sure it has ever been clearly stated which side of the creek the shoe was found. Has it? It's easy to assume the footprints led to the shoe on the south bank, but if footprints led into the water, I would
instinctually look across the creek to see where the person exited on the other side. So maybe that's where the shoe was? IDK. Unless the girls fled, or BG was unaware her shoe came off, why would he leave it behind? It seems strange. I greatly wonder what was happening the moment that shoe came off.

Sorry for rambling...

 

[Prime8]

RE: not testing all the family.

But who, and why? <modsnip>

To be fair, he wasn't asked "have you tested all the family who were in the area that day." They likely wouldn't test family who would not have seen the girls within the last few years and did not live in the area. If he says "yes" and then someone find a random family member who wasn't tested, then people would say he was not being honest.

 

[Prime8]

I had not realized that people knew the audio from the video. So Abby was pretty close to him at one point and he did have a gun.

It’s such a barbaric crime and so opportunist as well. I can not believe it’s nearly the 5 year mark as I remember posting on here in the early days.

This is speculation and not confirmed by LE. Third hand accounts should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is no official confirmation there was a gun or even that the same video that we saw of BG was the same continuous video of the audio. It's quite possible that they were two different videos.

 

[TL4S]

This is speculation and not confirmed by LE. Third hand accounts should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is no official confirmation there was a gun or even that the same video that we saw of BG was the same continuous video of the audio. It's quite possible that they were two different videos.

I totally agree with what you say here, but I have to admit that the bigger picture leads me to believe the gun story. Firstly, it isn't all that far in distance from where BG was on the bridge during the video to the end of the bridge, where LE has stated "DTH" was said (and LE has also stated there really isn't any more of BG talking on the audio, iirc). Whether or not the video/audio is continuous or separate almost doesn't matter, imo.

TL said BG gained control through "intimidation and manipulation." We can guess he pretended he was a park employee or had a puppy, but realistically, what would be the most likely means of abducting and controlling two teenager girls? Imo, a weapon, quite easily a gun.

Guns are ubiquitous. With a gun he wouldn't need a disguise or a lure or need to say anything else. It's kind of the Occam's Razor in this situation, from my own perspective.

 

[asyousay]

This is speculation and not confirmed by LE. Third hand accounts should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There is no official confirmation there was a gun or even that the same video that we saw of BG was the same continuous video of the audio. It's quite possible that they were two different videos.

I thought confirmed as WS is letting the posts stand?

 

[MollyDDD]

RE: not testing all the family.

To be fair, he wasn't asked "have you tested all the family who were in the area that day." They likely wouldn't test family who would not have seen the girls within the last few years and did not live in the area. If he says "yes" and then someone find a random family member who wasn't tested, then people would say he was not being honest.

“The ISP Carter saying at the end of the Flora Fire PC when pressed about if all the Delphi family members have been cleared, most reluctantly (I mean the man almost winched) he says only the vast majority.”

Okay, so we should just assume that the all of the immediate family members were “cleared”, whether they participated in the search or not, right?

 

[Charlot123]

MistyWaters, I respectfully disagree with you. I get a strong feeling that the things he said, after saying he wanted to directly address the killer who could be in the room, were said to BG about what he actually did to his victims. I think those things said weren't just generically religious nor for the public's benefit.

I've always felt there was a betrayal of sorts involved in some way between LE and the killer. It's the main reason I can't fully get on board with JBC. I think the killer involved himself within the investigative machine somehow and was trusted in some way.

I feel ISP Carter wasn't just making a religious statement. He was too vehement and direct. Those words to the killer weren't meant to comfort the public, they were meant to rile a monster. AJMO

Agree.

There is a strange dichotomy here. On the one hand, the way DC is trying to shame the person, indicates a younger man. On the other hand, the guy’s organization would rather point at the higher end of the age spectrum we have.

I always thought the perp was not religious. I am now wondering if he could have been psychotically religious, like, say, Robert Lewis Dear. That would be at odds with the killer’s mental organization, but could explain some words DC used speaking “directly” to him. After all, of this aspect (what happened that day, how the girls were left), we know nothing, and DC, everything. Or else, the killer is the person who is known to loudly profess his religiosity, and inside, is very different.

 

[carbuff]

I really don't believe that LE had any ulterior motive for releasing the bits of the video and both of the sketches. When I got a closer look at the stills from the video, I thought he looked like he was late 20's or maybe early 30's. I had a hard time making the first sketch work with them. I've wondered if some people gave descriptions of someone else who was dressed in similar clothes that day; RL seemed to dress a lot like that in the videos I saw with him, and another guy walked by in the background of one wearing about the same thing. I think that the first sketch released may have been a composite of a few/several witnesses describing 2 or more men; the second sketch sounded like it was the description given by one witness (although that doesn't mean it was.)

I do think the 2nd sketch looked quite a bit like what I saw in the stills except that I though he looked like had had some facial hair. I also don't think the voice sounds as old as many do, but I do think he sounds like someone who has abused his voice in some way - mainly heavy drinking, smoking, yelling or something that might be hard on the vocal cords. I don't really see how any of this could be helpful, but I thought I'd throw it out here just in case.

I think a lot of it is probably just a difference of opinion. I look at the same stills and think I'm looking at an older man, middle aged probably. I suspect this difference of opinion is why one of the descriptions of the suspect said he could look younger than he is.

 

[sunshineray]

Thank you for the link @sunshineray. I've been wanting to see it again.

This is what has always suggested to me that the girls had a prior encounter with BG that day, either on the trail, or even the bridge. And, I think words were exchanged during that prior encounter, as well.

There's just something casual about the way he approaches them and immediately says, "Guys..." IDK.

But what's always struck me is how very...I don't know the word...predictable this description is of the kind of crime occurring. Follow until he can corner them, pull a gun, and order them to a location out of view. For me, personally, it takes away the fantastical: kill kits, disguises, lairs, props, staging, etc. and reveals a more straight-forward abduction/SA/murder scenario. That's MOO, though, and I respect that others view it differently.

But again, we have RI describing the CS as "odd" and including "signatures." It makes me wonder if once BG got the girls under his control, he sort of didn't know what to do with them. I mean, I think he knew what he wanted, but once he got them to the spot he eventually killed them, what actually happened between setting foot there, and leaving them dead? It's in that time frame that his personality and reasoning had to unconsciously come through. IMO. It just doesn't feel planned to me, I don't know why. And I wonder if significant things happened between the end of the bridge and the CS, besides.

L's shoe comes into play here. I'm not sure it has ever been clearly stated which side of the creek the shoe was found. Has it? It's easy to assume the footprints led to the shoe on the south bank, but if footprints led into the water, I would
instinctually look across the creek to see where the person exited on the other side. So maybe that's where the shoe was? IDK. Unless the girls fled, or BG was unaware her shoe came off, why would he leave it behind? It seems strange. I greatly wonder what was happening the moment that shoe came off.

Sorry for rambling...

TL4S, you're not rambling and what you say is very interesting. I'm thinking you could be right on it that the girls did encounter BG that day before they started across the bridge.

I do remember in that earlier Renner 360* interview that Abby's Mom did she mentions hearing some audio where Abby said to Libby (paraphrasing) lets get away from here as BG was crossing towards them. Libby said something to the effect of, we can't the trail ends. Then Libby started her recording. I think both girls had already been spooked by this man. Up to that point it all does seem very predictable.

I just feel after what Ives said and words of other LE who'd witnessed the murder scene, that it could have been a prearranged spot for the killer. He could have had that much of a plan. He had to had felt very confident that he could handle two beings. Planned that way or just a spur of the moment decision because Abby was so slight in stature?

As far as Libby's shoe, I always did take it for granted that it was found on the "Down the hill" side of the creek by how Kelsei described it's recovery that day. But you're right that's all just an assumption, unless I've missed reading something. How it came off is anyone's guess but I'm think LE probably has a handle on that.

Just the fact that it looks like BG did use a gun to intimidate them, Libby's shoe probably came off by accident? AJMO

 

[JnRyan]

Just a version. TL says he feels bad he cancelled the request for search dogs; most likely, it means the dog could have alerted to some things and helped to understand the escape route.

But maybe, just maybe, the guy was still standing on the CS with the search group, or was somewhere around in the forest. And the dogs would have alerted and run up to him, in TL’s imagination.

Could Tobe mean this?

I think, with any usual escape route, the scent would have been lost, unless the guy went to his house, or some dwelling that was close to the CS. But if he was still present on the search day, maybe, he would have been suspected sooner.

We had a similar situation occur here in the '80's. A well known radio DJ, Debbie Dicus, was murdered. When LE brought out the search dog it left the crime scene and went right up to one of the bystanders and alerted his handler to the killer. The case was featured on "Forensic Files", "Garden of Evil" episode. Yes, if the killer was still there we might be talking about the murder trial now and not who the killer is.