Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #148

[Boxer]

It's been a while since I have checked in here, but I had a question in light of today's news. Was KAK's house/property the one that was searched on Bicycle Bridge Road very early in the investigation? Thank you.

KAKs hour is on E. Canal St. in Peru. 67 e. Canal I think

 

[Willow Knight]

Wabash River search in Peru extends into week No. 2

An in-depth search of the Wabash River extends into a second week.

www.wlfi.com

From the above link

On Tuesday, more of the same: about 10 divers with wetsuits and scuba gear, or metal detectors and plastic buckets.

At least 15 police trucks and cruisers park in the grass near the river bank. The heavy police presence raises questions among locals.

*******************

Wow, to me LE is putting in some serious manpower. Just reading this alone gets my hopes up. I think/hope LE was told 'something' was thrown in the water.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I know there are a lot of people reading here who may be new to these forums, maybe this is even the first case that grabbed your attention. The following comments are really for those individuals.

I'm not new to following these forums, and I've followed them for a long time before I actually joined. No offense intended, but it is not the best source of learning what constitutes evidence and the rules that are applied to evidence and testimony in court.

I have not seen anyone post that circumstantial evidence is not usable in court. Disagreeing with what constitutes admissible evidence is not equal to not knowing what circumstantial evidence is.

A number of posts cite certain information as "evidence" and "circumstantial evidence". I have already explained why much of this is hearsay and/or not usable in court. If you disagree and think something is admissible, okay. There are many rules regarding evidence and witness testimony, and it should be acknowledged instead of thinking the jury will be the judge of that, which is not true. The judge will enforce the rules of evidence and testimony, even before the trial begins.

Here is a most excellent article, written by a District Court Judge.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...nce-rules-every-new-trial-lawyer-should-know/

 

[SuziQ]

I don't see much of a resemblance to the sketch, but I think that TK is the best candidate that we've seen for BG overall.

If TK is BG, and that sketch is supposed to represent TK, then either the witness didn't get a good look or the witness wasn't able to remember TK's features well enough to communicate them clearly to the sketch artist.

I wonder if LE showed pictures to the witnesses and if they identified TK and KK.

 

[acutename]

Just throwing this out there again because.. why not. I'm not a huge fan of side by sides but I do find it interesting, and sometimes family resemblance only plays out in past photos. This is a young TK and the YBG sketch. View attachment 363187

what is the source of the photo? was it ever used online by KK or by A_shotz?

 

[Yemelyan]

I'm not new to following these forums, and I've followed them for a long time before I actually joined. No offense intended, but it is not the best source of learning what constitutes evidence and the rules that are applied to evidence and testimony in court.

I have not seen anyone post that circumstantial evidence is not usable in court. Disagreeing with what constitutes admissible evidence is not equal to not knowing what circumstantial evidence is.

A number of posts cite certain information as "evidence" and "circumstantial evidence". I have already explained why much of this is hearsay and/or not usable in court. If you disagree and think something is admissible, okay. There are many rules regarding evidence and witness testimony, and it should be acknowledged instead of thinking the jury will be the judge of that, which is not true. The judge will enforce the rules of evidence and testimony, even before the trial begins.

Here is a most excellent article, written by a District Court Judge.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...nce-rules-every-new-trial-lawyer-should-know/

My post wasn't directed to you; sorry you thought it was addressing something you were stating.

I saw a few posts (not yours) that were talking about circumstantial evidence and I was merely making the point that many cases are decided on "mere" circumstantial evidence, which is often quite powerful. People who are new to following crime, some who only lurk here, might be interested to know this.

I have no idea what will ultimately be admissible in this particular case and wasn't trying to comment on that. We are privy to very little information on the subject of actual evidence so I've formed no opinion yet.

 

[Prime8]

To my eyes, YBG could hardly look LESS like the actual model guy from Alaska whose picture KAK used to catfish Libby and others.

I do see some, not much, resemblance between the YBG sketch here and TK in his younger picture.

However, as others have said, TK would not have looked like this in 2017. And if it's to prove that the guilty party is KAK and he resembled his father at a young age, I don't think this would be necessary.

In today's world LE could get pictures of KAK from five years ago in multiple places online.

That's not to say I'm ruling out TK or KAK. I vacillate between many suspects.

I just see less than zero resemblance to the model in this sketch.

Jmo

I'm not saying the comparison proves anything. I understand that TK wasn't 25 in 2017. I just find it interesting.

I've seen a lot of pics of KAK around the time but because they lie all the time, I don't know exactly what picture would be the most accurate representation of him in mid-Feb (pre-murder) in 2017 or even if any of the pictures are actually from that time period. They were caught trying to back-date photos. Also....also....sketches are not pictures. They are representations of what someone saw. What people tend to remember are distinguishing feature (a rounded nose, a prominent chin, etc).

 

[Prime8]

Prime8, (figured out your moniker, finally...,duh primate in the jungle. Ok, you are officially my Jane Goodall of posting.) Since thousands of people viewed at least part of the jail house interview, I agree with you... no way was it confidential.
But, if we could link it, some interesting "lies" appear.
1) BMcD asked if he had ever spoken to KG. He denies it. Yet KG specifically spoke with A_S for 5 minutes, on the night of Feb. 13 2017 while at the police station asking if he had seen/heard from/or knew where the girls were.
2) BMcD also asked if he had been to Delphi. He also denies that, too. I've never been there...then backs off to say he was there "for a football game." HE WAS IN DELPHI
3) BMcD asks about him being the last person to talk to Libby. Again KK produces another non- answer. "That's what they tell me."
Those are just a few of the 'KAK-two-step" answers. Amazingly this guy has figured out how to lie about his lies! "I don't recall" "That's what they say." "I don't remember", "I talk to lots of people." (If he spoke to so many people KAK, when did he have time to be lonely? Sounds to me as if you had quite an active social life. You had grandparents, siblings, dog, Mom, Dad, step-parent, pals you "drugged with" , drug delivery business....)
A) When does KAK lie? He lies the moment he rolls out of bed.
B) Why does KAK lie? Because he is breathing.
C) How to spot a KAK lie? See A and B

BTW..I'm not getting good vibes on the river search right now. Something is off. Ugh. Is he manipulationg LE & prosecutors? "Hey, I told you where to find the weapon. Not my fault you guys can't find it....I demand a reduced sentence for cooperating."

Ding ding ding, you win for today! Haha, love Jane Goodall!

I think what's interesting is that they continue to negotiate with him for so long, knowing he's a pathological liar. I'm sure if the search is related to Delphi, LE knows how manipulative he is. So to put some much time and effort based on his word hopefully means they are close to something.

 

[Speculaytor]

Ding ding ding, you win for today! Haha, love Jane Goodall!

I think what's interesting is that they continue to negotiate with him for so long, knowing he's a pathological liar. I'm sure if the search is related to Delphi, LE knows how manipulative he is. So to put some much time and effort based on his word hopefully means they are close to something.

As I watch them search the river, I keep wondering if they are on a wild goose chase? Would KK actually tell them the truth about something, or throw a carrot onto the wrong path?

 

[Prime8]

what is the source of the photo? was it ever used online by KK or by A_shotz?

The young TK picture was from his Facebook page.

 

[Ozoner]

I'm not new to following these forums, and I've followed them for a long time before I actually joined. No offense intended, but it is not the best source of learning what constitutes evidence and the rules that are applied to evidence and testimony in court.

I have not seen anyone post that circumstantial evidence is not usable in court. Disagreeing with what constitutes admissible evidence is not equal to not knowing what circumstantial evidence is.

A number of posts cite certain information as "evidence" and "circumstantial evidence". I have already explained why much of this is hearsay and/or not usable in court. If you disagree and think something is admissible, okay. There are many rules regarding evidence and witness testimony, and it should be acknowledged instead of thinking the jury will be the judge of that, which is not true. The judge will enforce the rules of evidence and testimony, even before the trial begins.

Here is a most excellent article, written by a District Court Judge.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...nce-rules-every-new-trial-lawyer-should-know/

Hearsay is not circumstantial evidence, and in most cases it isn't admissible in court.

Circumstantial evidence is absolutely admissible in court if the judge deems it more probative than prejudicial, and judges have quite a bit of leeway.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

Hearsay is not circumstantial evidence, and in most cases it isn't admissible in court.

Circumstantial evidence is absolutely admissible in court if the judge deems it more probative than prejudicial, and judges have quite a bit of leeway.

You need to explain this to somebody else, as I have done already.

I have literally said hearsay is not admissible, repeatedly, in a number of posts. Edit to add, I have also stated how important this rule is, essential to a fair trial.

And again, I have never said circumstantial evidence is not admissible. And again, the judge determines its admissibility.

 

[twall]

The Delphi Murders: Potential Break in Case

The Murder Sheet podcast hosts spoke to Court TV about an anonymous tip that led them to the Wabash River where they spotted authorities searching the water.

www.courttv.com

 

[Charlot123]

The young TK picture was from his Facebook page.

Honestly, this way, any male person could fit, no offense. I look at a kiddo sitting in front of me, boy does he look similar, and the person living next door, even more so! But:

The sketch has triangular face, with broad forehead and long chin that is much narrower. Proportions are different. (Same with TK - different proportions).

The sketch has wide-set eyes with evidence of strabismus (cross eyes). Have we seen it in any poi? No.

As to the nose, I am not sure witnesses provide a good story. But: the philtrum (area between the nose and mouth) is short. Does anyone fit?

As to the hair, he can be wearing it differently, color differently, may shave off. It is naturally curly.

This is all I can tell. However: the way the brows and the area above and between eyebrows look in BG and TK is somewhat similar. The eyebrows are turning upwards towards the temples. KAK has very different structure of face. (There is not much of BG’s face that we see, so I might be wrong, of course).

 

[SouthernSleuther]

We really can't know whether some of the things about this case would end up being legal hearsay, or not, at this point. We just don't have enough information about what LE knows and what evidence they really do have, IMO.

I know there are a lot of people reading here who may be new to these forums, maybe this is even the first case that grabbed your attention. The following comments are really for those individuals. You might be thinking from the general drift of this thread that direct evidence is the strong, "good" evidence and then circumstantial evidence is the tiny, weak little pieces that don't mean much by themselves but can add up. Not so. Circumstantial evidence can also be very powerful, and in fact, potentially can be "better" than direct evidence in the form of an eyewitness to a crime in some situations (eyewitnesses are often unreliable). For example, DNA, fingerprint, and ballistics evidence are all, legally, types of circumstantial evidence. A victim may not remember an attacker's face well enough to identify him but his DNA and fingerprints left behind may do so quite conclusively to a jury.

If you watch a trial that has been televised, you will see this in action. Prosecutors may not have a written or videotaped confession, no eyewitnesses to the crime itself, nor video of the crime taking place, but if they do have some combination of things like DNA, cell phone location records, fingerprints, evidence of purchases of items used in the commission/cover up of the crime, and the opinions of ballistics or tool mark experts (all circumstantial in nature), etc they will have a very strong case.

Yes, yes, yes! You said exactly what I’ve been thinking while reading this thread! There are only 2 types of direct evidence, either an eyewitness to the actual crime, or video of the crime being committed. Otherwise, everything else is circumstantial evidence, including DNA. The vast majority of crimes are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

 

[Yemelyan]

Yes, yes, yes! You said exactly what I’ve been thinking while reading this thread! There are only 2 types of direct evidence, either an eyewitness to the actual crime, or video of the crime being committed. Otherwise, everything else is circumstantial evidence, including DNA. The vast majority of crimes are convicted on circumstantial evidence.

Thank you for understanding where I was coming from and not being offended that I mentioned this. Luckily we have a lot of very knowledgeable people here but I know that questions like this have come up on many threads from people who are new (and there's nothing wrong with that, to my way of thinking). We are all here to learn and share knowledge.

 

[insearchoflight]

I was thinking KK confessed to cover for TK but LE don’t believe him so he said he threw the murder weapon in the river and that’s why he got out to show them and now they are searching BUT, it says they are searching because of an anonymous tip.

The Delphi Murders: Potential Break in Case

The Murder Sheet podcast hosts spoke to Court TV about an anonymous tip that led them to the Wabash River where they spotted authorities searching the water.

www.courttv.com

 

[Charlot123]

I've never heard it from LE or in the media, but @Charlot123 and I have speculated a lot on it quite a bit in the past.

For me, the RL affidavit is interesting in two respects. The redacted area in one spot is suspected to be stating that the murder weapon is a bladed weapon or knife. Killing with a knife, even when not including the mental aspect, is difficult. Second, the affidavit states there was no sign of a struggle. With two victims. That suggests to me that this killer did this VERY quickly. And who receives training in that sort of thing. Soldiers and Marines.

What gives me pause is that LE has knowledge of the crime scene and the autopsies. And I would think it would be more obvious to them and they've never said any such thing. Of course, LE has been tight lipped about this from the get-go so maybe they just haven't said.

I wonder. They “sort of” hinted that the poi was a person of respect. And that finding out that he was the killer would be a disappointment for some people.

And who would provide such a reaction? A local hero. You know, how people say, “thank you for your service”?

Who else would disappoint me in this role? Some old cop, who is very nice in personal and professional life. It would be like, “if even this man could…”.

JMO. If he is local, of course. A cop, a teacher, a doctor, a respected ex-military.

 

[NoSpoonFeeding]

I was thinking KK confessed to cover for TK but LE don’t believe him so he said he threw the murder weapon in the river and that’s why he got out to show them and now they are searching BUT, it says they are searching because of an anonymous tip.

The Delphi Murders: Potential Break in Case

The Murder Sheet podcast hosts spoke to Court TV about an anonymous tip that led them to the Wabash River where they spotted authorities searching the water.

www.courttv.com

Murder Sheet received a tip that a search was in progress, not LE searching because of a tip.

"The Murder Sheet" podcast hosts spoke to Court TV about an anonymous tip that led them to the Wabash River where they spotted authorities searching the water. The 2017 Delphi, Indiana murders of Abby, 13, and Libby, 14, remain unsolved.

 

[JnRyan]

I listened to an interview once where a lawyer was discussing 'circumstantial' evidence. In his discussion, he gives an example of touch DNA on a murder weapon, a gun. He states it is circumstantial. Due to the possibility of transfer of touch DNA the POI could have shaken hands with the killer and later the real killer handles the gun. Further he states the presence of DNA on a rape victim might be circumstantial unless it is found in a rape kit. Even then he states LE will likely ask the POI if he knew the victim and if he ever had sex with them - to rule out consensual sex. Even with things like fingerprints and DNA it depends on the details.