Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #145

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
So true--the murderer(s) might be criminal masterminds, or might be lucky morons--I'd guess it's some combination of forethought and luck, but you're right, we have no way of knowing that right now.

I think you're right about the scouting trip. Remember DWW (dog-walking woman), who saw a mysterious person at the far end of the bridge around mid-day? My own guess is that BG scouted from the trailhead to the far end of the bridge. DWW makes me think it was at least a couple of hours before the murders.

In my guess, BG watches DWW leave; then he strolls from the south end to the trailhead (remember the theory that the girls saw him near the trailhead and spoke?) Now he knows there is nobody behind him, on the bridge and to the south of it. He then waits/lurks somewhere on the trail. Now the girls appear on the trail and cross the bridge. He gives them a few minutes, then follows them across the bridge. Because he has been scouting and monitoring, he knows there is nobody anywhere in the area, and there is no easy escape from that end, either. The girls are alone and vulnerable. Tragedy ensues.

This sounds likely to me (MOO). Whether the girls (or just libby) were previously targeted, or if they were random targets of opportunity, isn't clear but it could be either, in this scenario. Planning plus luck? As the man said, "One day, we'll know."
See, and this is where it just bugs me

He knew Nobody was around, and yet we know there were a bunch of people there that day.

Luck ??? Knowledge of where everyone was at???

UGH... this case drives me crazy !!!
 
See, and this is where it just bugs me

He knew Nobody was around, and yet we know there were a bunch of people there that day.

Luck ??? Knowledge of where everyone was at???

UGH... this case drives me crazy !!!
That is absolutely what makes insane. How were there so many people there that day, yet no one saw the girls at all. How is that even possible?
 
LE has known KAK was using the fictitious anthony_shots profile with the male model photo almost immediately following the murders. Why would they waste time and effort in circulating a sketch of a known innocent person, still to this very day? There’s no reason to release a sketch of a photo since they also had the actual photo from the onset. JMO
bbm
^^ This, IMO.
Maybe, LE indeed know "their man", but are farther searching for the connection to the KAK fake account, IF there is one. Maybe, it is the missing puzzle piece?
 
bbm
^^ This, IMO.
Maybe, LE indeed know "their man", but are farther searching for the connection to the KAK fake account, IF there is one. Maybe, it is the missing puzzle piece?

LE publicly began searching for a connection to the anthony_shots fake account in December, 2021. The photo of the male model was released then and at that same time they announced the man in the photo was not the murder suspect.

Anthony_Shots: Instagram Page Probed in Delphi Murders | Heavy.com

If we are to believe the sketch is of the photo of the male model and considering it’s not been retracted even yet, we’d also have to believe LE is utterly incompetent considering by now LE has probably gotten 100s of tips suggesting that’s who the sketch possibly represents.

A photo did not commit murder so unless LE tells the public otherwise at this time the 2nd sketch of the suspect that was released is still what they’re sticking with. Who are we to know anything different?
 
Last edited:
There is nothing in the article or has ever been said by the sketch artist that indicates the person in the sketch was seen “in person” by the witness. They say only that the witness reported something they felt needed reporting.
Could just as easily been something online. Nobody knows.
ive def answered this same argument before
and no.. a witness is someone who had WITNESSED something visually related the crime ..not someone who seen a profile seen by anyone online !!! and why not send that pic instead of going to le and describing a pic online !!!
also you actually mean le cant see that profile for themselves !!! when its public !!?? le would not use a pic online for a criminal sketch.. that doesnt make ANY SENSE..
they KNEW right after the murders that the profile was FAKE and the male model ( who looks nothing like the sketch ) was just a victim of stolen photos ! this is 3 agencies working and it cant get this bad
 
Last edited:
It’s my opinion that the sketch of the older man is BG. The sketch of the younger man is the male model.
Confused... did you mean you think the sketch of the younger man is the male model himself, or that you think the sketch is of the person who pretended to BE the male model online?
 
The "luck" about the exact circumstances favoring the crime can be explained without the perpetrator needing to be a criminal mastermind if you are familiar with the habitual stalking behavior of classical serial killers.

The stalking itself is a big part of the modus operandi of a certain type of criminal, one that Chadwell fits the bill for very nicely but that's why it's important to try to establish stalking style behavior for the Klines.

The thing is that as social media creeps steadily toward being inextricable from real life for many potential victims, online stalking will have to start being considered more and more. It would still be invaluable to establish that the Klines did in fact peek in people's windows or watch them from a distance after they had arranged to meet "Shots"
 
ive def answered this same argument before
and no.. a witness is someone who had WITNESSED something visually related the crime ..not someone who seen a profile seen by anyone online !!! and why not send that pic instead of going to le and describing a pic online !!!
also you actually mean le cant see that profile for themselves !!! when its public !!?? le would not use a pic online for a criminal sketch.. that doesnt make ANY SENSE..
they KNEW right after the murders that the profile was FAKE and the male model ( who looks nothing like the sketch ) was just a victim of stolen photos ! this is 3 agencies working and it cant get this bad

I’ve definitely answered this same argument before too.
I don’t know what this witness saw or reported. None of us do. Could’ve been the actual murders. Probably wasn’t. Could’ve been a bunch of circus bears marauding the countryside. Probably wasn’t. The point is again that nobody knows what was reported.
To use such a narrow definition of the word “witness” simply to try to slap down any and all thoughts and discussion that this case may be tied to the internet seems wrong in my opinion.
One of the definitions of “witness” in Merriam-Webster says “one who has personal knowledge of something”. Pretty wide open there and could easily be someone who had personal knowledge of Libby talking to someone online who looked like the sketch. Someone who did not have access to the profile so could not show it to LE directly. I could easily see LE tossing it in a drawer and forgetting about it for a couple of years. It’s just a thought, one theory among many. I don’t understand why it would be so upsetting.
 
That is absolutely what makes insane. How were there so many people there that day, yet no one saw the girls at all. How is that even possible?

I walked those trails on the weekend. I was there for 1 1/2 hours. Vehicles were parked at various trailheads along the trail system.

I never saw a soul and didn’t hear anything the whole time I was there.

The area where the girls were found is quite secluded. There is NO Trail there. No one would be in that area and it was private land.

I am convinced that the person or persons responsible had intimate knowledge and chose that spot specifically. The Landowner was not home that afternoon. I have to believe that the killer knew that.

It was a workday. Anyone in the homes just past Ron Logan’s property may have been at work. Even if home, it was February so potentially windows closed.

It was a well chosen spot.

Edit to add: Just thinking, with this vast 10 miles of trail system and the only person who saw Abby and Libby that day was the killer, it screams to me that he knew they were there and potentially where to find them. It also says to me that this was not random but rather planned.

MOO
 
Last edited:
ive def answered this same argument before
and no.. a witness is someone who had WITNESSED something visually related the crime ..not someone who seen a profile seen by anyone online !!! and why not send that pic instead of going to le and describing a pic online !!!
also you actually mean le cant see that profile for themselves !!! when its public !!?? le would not use a pic online for a criminal sketch.. that doesnt make ANY SENSE..
they KNEW right after the murders that the profile was FAKE and the male model ( who looks nothing like the sketch ) was just a victim of stolen photos ! this is 3 agencies working and it cant get this bad
I think that's very true. If the person who "saw something they thought needed reporting" was basing the sketch off the profile pic, LE could have shown the profile pic to this person and asked if that's the same man they saw (the model). And if the model was a suspect, or LE wanted tips from people who saw the online profile, they wouldn't need the sketch, they'd use a profile pic.

In fact, the model's profile pic is included in the a_shots ask, so it wouldn't really benefit LE to use a sketch of the same person to generate tips. IMO. Add to that LE stating the model isn't a suspect, as @MistyWaters posted above, and it really kind of takes that theory off the table for me. Of course, who knows...
 
Last edited:
I walked those trails on the weekend. I was there for 1 1/2 hours. Vehicles were parked at various trailheads along the trail system.

I never saw a soul and didn’t hear anything the whole time I was there.

The area where the girls were found is quite secluded. There is NO Trail there. No one would be in that area and it was private land.

I am convinced that the person or persons responsible had intimate knowledge and chose that spot specifically. The Landowner was not home that afternoon. I have to believe that the killer knew that.

It was a workday. Anyone in the homes just past Ron Logan’s property may have been at work. Even if home, it was February so potentially windows closed.

It was a well chosen spot.

Edit to add: Just thinking, with this vast 10 miles of trail system and the only person who saw Abby and Libby that day was the killer, it screams to me that he knew they were there and potentially where to find them. It also says to me that this was not random but rather planned.

MOO

I also want to add (having also walked the trails), that if you're on the trails going towards the High bridge after getting past the Freedom bridge, you can't really see people in the distance so it would be easy for people to be in the general area of the girls and not see them.
 
The "luck" about the exact circumstances favoring the crime can be explained without the perpetrator needing to be a criminal mastermind if you are familiar with the habitual stalking behavior of classical serial killers.

The stalking itself is a big part of the modus operandi of a certain type of criminal, one that Chadwell fits the bill for very nicely but that's why it's important to try to establish stalking style behavior for the Klines.

The thing is that as social media creeps steadily toward being inextricable from real life for many potential victims, online stalking will have to start being considered more and more. It would still be invaluable to establish that the Klines did in fact peek in people's windows or watch them from a distance after they had arranged to meet "Shots"

I went to CrimeCon this weekend. There was a psychiatrist who has worked with BTK. He stalked at least 10x as many people as he actually victimized. She noted that during the period of time that he didn't kill anyone, he didn't actually "stop", he just never got an opportunity to kill anyone. He was in fact stalking dozens and dozens of people during this time.
 
The "luck" about the exact circumstances favoring the crime can be explained without the perpetrator needing to be a criminal mastermind if you are familiar with the habitual stalking behavior of classical serial killers.

The stalking itself is a big part of the modus operandi of a certain type of criminal, one that Chadwell fits the bill for very nicely but that's why it's important to try to establish stalking style behavior for the Klines.

The thing is that as social media creeps steadily toward being inextricable from real life for many potential victims, online stalking will have to start being considered more and more. It would still be invaluable to establish that the Klines did in fact peek in people's windows or watch them from a distance after they had arranged to meet "Shots"
<modsnip>

Besides the possibility of catfishing and a planned meetup, I seriously wonder if the girls were followed to the trails by the killer, who was already stalking L at the house. Even if L merely mentioned them going to the bridge and the killer showing up and waiting to encounter them seems stalker-ish to me... JMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
See, and this is where it just bugs me

He knew Nobody was around, and yet we know there were a bunch of people there that day.

Luck ??? Knowledge of where everyone was at???

UGH... this case drives me crazy !!!
 
I'm adding this to the many uses of "luck" from various posts. I viewed Mike Patty at Crimecon, so composed. He said that the killer of Libby and Abby has to be lucky every day, and that he, grandfather, "only has to be lucky on one day." Maybe this adds to the hopeful views posted more recently, one lucky day is possible.
 
He knew Nobody was around, and yet we know there were a bunch of people there that day.
Luck ??? Knowledge of where everyone was at???
UGH... this case drives me crazy !!!

Sparty, I agree--we know so little that it's easy to get wrapped up in "what ifs" that spread each other along. My own opinion is that BG must certainly have scouted the south end of the bridge, the ground along the creek and the private property. I think that just because it would be (almost literally) insane to plan to commit a horrible brutal crime without knowing that the area was clear.

It's true that the killer might have been too blinded by bloodlust to have approached the planned abduction rationally ... but I think the sighting of BG by the dog-walking woman 2 hours before the murders suggests that BG was in fact out scouting first.

It appears to me that a good scouting trip could have made the area safe. Because of the terrain and the lack of public access, once BG knew that south area was clear, he could go across the bridge, north to the trail system, and be fairly sure nobody had come back into that area. So once he cleared it, he knew he could follow a victim (or victims) into that area and almost certainly be free from nearby witnesses. Just MHO, but it rings true to me.
 
I'm adding this to the many uses of "luck" from various posts. I viewed Mike Patty at Crimecon, so composed. He said that the killer of Libby and Abby has to be lucky every day, and that he, grandfather, "only has to be lucky on one day." Maybe this adds to the hopeful views posted more recently, one lucky day is possible.

I've heard these words from him before. May today be his "lucky day."
 
Sparty, I agree--we know so little that it's easy to get wrapped up in "what ifs" that spread each other along. My own opinion is that BG must certainly have scouted the south end of the bridge, the ground along the creek and the private property. I think that just because it would be (almost literally) insane to plan to commit a horrible brutal crime without knowing that the area was clear.

It's true that the killer might have been too blinded by bloodlust to have approached the planned abduction rationally ... but I think the sighting of BG by the dog-walking woman 2 hours before the murders suggests that BG was in fact out scouting first.

It appears to me that a good scouting trip could have made the area safe. Because of the terrain and the lack of public access, once BG knew that south area was clear, he could go across the bridge, north to the trail system, and be fairly sure nobody had come back into that area. So once he cleared it, he knew he could follow a victim (or victims) into that area and almost certainly be free from nearby witnesses. Just MHO, but it rings true to me.
I agree he must have scouted the area
<modsnip>

HOWEVER--- He still took a chance on property owners being home, returning home, even if the coast was clear from the others that were already at the trails --
I mean.. RL or other home owners right there where in area girls were found could have come home or walked outside and seen BG and girls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since yesterday, and my walk along the trails, I’ve had to rethink a lot of my previous thoughts.

Whoever did this expended a LOT of energy, hiking, up and down hills and in his escape. He needed to be fit IMO.

It's important to not discount the ability of adrenaline and excitement. He didn't need to be fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
132
Guests online
3,097
Total visitors
3,229

Forum statistics

Threads
602,732
Messages
18,146,053
Members
231,517
Latest member
JustinCaseBreakGlass
Back
Top