Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #90

[mtnlites]

Very, VERY early on in the investigation a sketch was passed around the internet but it didn't have any official basis. I'm not even sure where it originated. We weren't allowed to discuss it here because it seemed like some random person had come up with it. And once the official sketch was released, it didn't look anything like that one so it was more or less forgotten. In hindsight, though, it was pretty dang close to the one released yesterday.

 

[deugirtni]

I have noticed that people have many words available (especially because we all watch TV and movies) and they instinctively choose to use different ones in different contexts. Abducting two people isn't the same as asking them if they want pizza.

For example, it's interesting that on this forum we don't call Abby and Libby 'guys', but we do use the word to describe the perp.

A police officer who is about to arrest you and your accomplice won't say "Guys, put your hands up." Someone might say to police "Guys, I'm innocent", but smarter ones will say "Officers".

As the detective said, this crime was about power. The word 'guys' is used in an everyday context, because it avoids expressing power. When you want to express your power, or acknowledge someone else's, you don't normally use that word.

What if the recording is cut off in a strategic location (by police) to just give the public one more speck of voice, but the perp is not saying 'guys' at all, and it is really a *portion* of a cut-off word.. such as 'disguise' for instance. ie 'yeah, I'm wearing a disguise, get down the hill'..

 

[Nancee Drue]

Could these sketches be of two different guys? Maybe the second guy was seen somewhere in Delphi. Perhaps the second guy is an acquaintance of Killer.

 

[bmacmillan1]

Some random thoughts or mainly questions having slept on it:

The car: No one will remember if they saw a car at that location during those hours on that day two years ago, especially not without a description. If LE knows there was a car there they would know kind of what it looked like, so why wouldn't they mention it? And if they don't know what it looked like, how do they know it was there? What was the point of mentioning the car?

The audio: Why didn't they release that before? Surely they don't think BG is the only person in the world who says "guys." Seemed like a pointless update to me, but I'm sure it wasn't. How could it be relevant?

The video: Yeah, look at him moving, but don't take note of his limp, that is because the bridge is difficult to walk on. Seems equally pointless as the added audio that adds nothing new, and you'd think they could have released from the beginning. Why show it if we're not to take note of his gait?

The sketch: Was a game-changer for sure. Where does it come from? How do they know he doesn't have a beard and looks scruffy anymore? How do they know he might appear younger than his age? ???????

The message to BG: Lots of religious references, talk about conscience and shame, calling him a coward. It was very specific imo. Did BG leave something at the scene that makes them think he's this kind of person?

I feel this whole news conference was for the killer, from how they announced it in advance inviting the public, his emotional behaviour and the way he was looking around the room, mention of the car that the public unlikely can remember, the choice of words. Etc.

I'm 50/50 on if they actually know who it is, or if it's just a new tactic to lure him out using what they know. It was certainly the strangest news conference I've ever watched.

 

[WillenFan21]

I remember when this case happened but I don't think that I followed it as closely as some of you I just know bits and pieces of it. Anyways I just watched the presser from the other day. Am I the only one that thinks the girls did NOT know BG? I feel like if it was someone they knew that Libby wouldn't have felt like she needed to take her cell phone out and start recording the person. Like I get this vibe she did it because he was a stranger. I know for me personally if someone I knew close was following me I wouldn't take my cell phone out to record them. Although on second thought it could be she knew who the person was but wasn't close to them so that's why she took it out. Cause I would if it was me if someone I knew that made me uncomfortable I may pull the phone out then. IDK what do u guys think?

 

[Yellow Rose]

I’m just very curious about the use of the term “change of direction.” I’m still trying to figure out how that was a taunt to the killer.

 

[distracted]

So what's the "new direction" the investigation is going? What is the "big news" they teased prior to the press conference, but didn't deliver? As far as I can tell, nothing has changed and no new information was released. A short clip of the guy taking a couple of steps isn't any more helpful than the still pic that we've had for two years. The audio clip has one extra word in it which doesn't get us any closer. They are still trying to identify the guy on the bridge and apparently still don't have any other leads. Is this new sketch supposed to be the guy on the bridge or a different suspect?

I'm getting the feeling that the only purpose of the press conference (and big buildup beforehand) was to get this case back into the spotlight (which is a good thing, of course). Sadly, there really has been no new development at all.

Still hoping for justice for Abby and Libby!

You may be right, but I'm thinking they know who it is and they need just need someone to corroborate what they already know. To me, that means they're close to making an arrest, which is why they have released more detail.

I also think that, after two years, he may think he has gotten away with it. This news conference should worry him and perhaps force make a mistake. Or, force someone who knows him, who was hoping the murders would be forgotten, to come forward.

 

[Tssiemer]

Maybe they kept the old sketch for make the real guy feel secure they weren’t on to him.

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Imho, very humble, I think the loving policeman is wrong on a couple of points. One, that he told anyone. No, I don't think he would. Two, that someone knows or noticed a change of behavior, no, I don't think so, most family psychopaths stun their family and friends when they are found out. Big shock. Three, that he has a conscience left, doubt it. By reminding him how his family will feel about him brutally murdering two little angels, it won't cause him to fess up, but to go deeper into hiding.
The usual scenario is abused child, violent tendencies, set fires as a child, bed wetter, abused other kids animals( or girls in bed....s and m sort of sex,) *advertiser censored* habit. He must have had a pistol to control two athletes. Living there makes sense, to know the trails, at least in the past. I hope they arrest him soon. I hope the FBI helps or they can hire some outside experts, like NYPD detectives. God bless them and God speed to catching him. The girls couldn't have seemed sweeter or more innocent.

 

[bmacmillan1]

I believe LE are trying to draw him out of his den. Taunting him, to get any reaction that they can out of him. This change of tactic hopefully works. I do not feel they have an actual suspect yet.

 

[TL4S]

You may be right, but I'm thinking they know who it is and they need just need someone to corroborate what they already know. To me, that means they're close to making an arrest, which is why they have released more detail.

I also think that, after two years, he may think he has gotten away with it. This news conference should worry him and perhaps force make a mistake. Or, force someone who knows him, who was hoping the murders would be forgotten, to come forward.

Yeah, part of me is wondering if the PC was dually directed at the killer, and also someone they suspect is not coming forward. They are adamant in saying ONE person committed the crime. They're offering a sort of safety net for someone who knows but isn't talking, while at the same time putting a little pressure on because maybe the car or the sketch somehow links that person to the crime via the killer, which is why they didn't need to be more detailed? Jmo

 

[Sheila Terranova]

I think the guy's voice sounds a little bit older than 40. But, if Killer looks more like the second sketch, than the first, I am guessing he is in his late 20s.

In the beginning I kinda thought Killer was a stranger just wandering through town. I am now thinking Killer knows someone in Delphi, and perhaps he was visiting, there, or maybe working that day.

I don't think Killer just went out for a sunny afternoon stroll, on the bridge. I think Killer went out looking for trouble. He may have known the schools were closed that day.

Someone has to recognize the guy from the video.

Yes! Went there looking for trouble is brilliant. As mother used to say, ( homocide reporter) the best place to get murdered is on secluded privately owned property....such as railroad property, or in Phoenix, the electric company or was it the water company owned arroyos with jogging paths, bam, two decapitations while I lived there ( my paperboy,eek) . Why? She said murderers knew there were no police patrols ever on privately owned property, so no chance of randomly getting caught.

 

[distracted]

Yeah, part of me is wondering if the PC was dually directed at the killer, and also someone they suspect is not coming forward. They are adamant in saying ONE person committed the crime. They're offering a sort of safety net for someone who knows but isn't talking, while at the same time putting a little pressure on because maybe the car or the sketch somehow links that person to the crime via the killer? Jmo

Yes, the press conference was for an audience of ONE.

 

[emmeeks]

Here are my thoughts, my opinions, for what they’re worth:

1. Mention of the movie The Shack was not a reference to a real shack. It was a plea to BG’s conscious. I’ve not watched the movie (yet) but my understanding is that it is about God’s presence with the victim, victim’s family & the killer; salvation & forgiveness. Carter was telling BG that even though he did this horrendous act, he can be forgiven & that the girls are not hurting anymore. Urging BG to come forward.

2. There is no doubt in my mind the purpose of this PC was to communicate directly with BG. The additional audio & video, as well as the sketch, could be considered secondary to the true purpose. Every single word was deliberate & direct. Is it possible that BG has communicated with law enforcement & this was the response? Would he wait so long to do so?

3. I believe that the use of “guys” to address the girls is simply part of BG’s everyday vocabulary. I don’t perceive any significance it’s use.

4. I’m not sure what to make of Carter’s plea for patience because they’re just beginning/just getting started (sorry, I don’t remember his exact quote). Thoughts?

*as always, jmo

 

[TL4S]

Here are my thoughts, my opinions, for what they’re worth:

1. Mention of the movie The Shack was not a reference to a real shack. It was a plea to BG’s conscious. I’ve not watched the movie (yet) but my understanding is that it is about God’s presence with the victim, victim’s family & the killer; salvation & forgiveness. Carter was telling BG that even though he did this horrendous act, he can be forgiven & that the girls are not hurting anymore. Urging BG to come forward.

2. There is no doubt in my mind the purpose of this PC was to communicate directly with BG. The additional audio & video, as well as the sketch, could be considered secondary to the true purpose. Every single word was deliberate & direct. Is it possible that BG has communicated with law enforcement & this was the response? Would he wait so long to do so?

3. I believe that the use of “guys” to address the girls is simply part of BG’s everyday vocabulary. I don’t perceive any significance it’s use.

4. I’m not sure what to make of Carter’s plea for patience because they’re just beginning/just getting started (sorry, I don’t remember his exact quote). Thoughts?

*as always, jmo

I fully agree with all your points, although I don't think he's contacted LE in any way.

 

[CluelessWonder]

There is a reason they didn't identify the car. I think something related to the vehicle is still in possession of the perp. By not naming the vehicle, no innocent person would know to get rid of the possession. But the perp would. That might help for prosecution.

My issue is that none of these it looks like so-and-so types of tips are going to lead to an arrest unless they can interview someone and get DNA and/or a confession.

 

[deugirtni]

For me, to discover the fact that they've had this drawing, and this witness who made the description for the police artist, since 3 days after the crime, .. it changes everything that I had been initially thinking about that press conference. This is not new information.

This has got to be a rehash.. for some reason, it seems like the police did not put any, or enough, weight into this witness's account and description at the time. Perhaps because it *seemed* to be so different from the actual phone recording they had obtained from the victim herself? Perhaps because the info seemed *unbelievable* at the time, for some unknown (to us) reason?

(ie as one example, the witness may have had a known, pre-existing prejudice of some sort, and perhaps had been bringing attention to someone (or a member of some group) in particular, but police, knowing about this specific witness's/person's prejudice, discounted the witness altogether, and especially since the drawing did not seem to match the actual footage? Just a possibility for why this witness account would not have been put out there from day#1?)....

But now it seems they have gone back to square one, re-examining with renewed eyes (perhaps new sets of eyes too?), and it bopped them in the head that this witness's rendering could in fact be the same person in the footage afterall. It could explain the "you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy, but we have", and the request for media to leave family alone for 2 weeks (to digest this new course of thinking), and the high emotion from Supt. Carter even after 2 years on the case with the exact same information at hand. (One would beg to ask why a seasoned LE would be so highly emotionally charged while delivering 2-year-old information?) They may have been handed the perp right away, but completely discounted him based on different factors? Possible?

For two years it seems they've been focusing on 'outside' of their community, wanting the photo, drawing and recording to reach out and be exposed across the nation.. people in the community likely became 'comfortable' within *themselves*, feeling the perp was someone unknown to them and from far away - someone they didn't necessarily need to worry about, nobody close needed attention paid to them. This seems a wake-up call that the killer IS amongst them, could even be in this room right *now*, - look who is beside you, think about your neighbor afterall, and if you had a weird vibe about your son, nephew, guy at the church, then YES, bring that to us.

I'm feeling very cautiously optimistic. Just my take after finding out this 'new' drawing is in fact the first drawing from over 2 years ago.

 

[Andreee]

I'm a bit confused re. the car part of things. A car had been parked by the old building. Is this the same car that LE referred to being abandoned by the side of the road and if so, what was the timeline for that.

 

[Jim_M]

IMO everyone in this thread needs to remember there are TOS that MUST be adhered to. If we can keep to these rules, we will keep this thread open.

I would like to bring forth a post from the previous thread, and add some thoughts to it. This may, or may not, provide a worthy perspective. Or, I may just be feeding off the emotions from that presser.

I watched and rewatched the presser. Carter was addressing the perp. I think he knows who he is but not solid evidence yet. And Carter is angry.

1). He has a position of authority in Delphi but maybe not LE or the Clergy.

2) he is young enough to have known and worked with kids in the area. Only 3000 population. Likely about 30-40years of age. Has small children.

3) is sick, evil, twisted.

4) helped authorities and stayed close to searches and investigation.

5) arrogance led him to believe no one would suspect him.

6) during Murders, he disguised himself. He didn’t know Libby filmed him. He was smart enough to throw LE and townspeople off.

ETA: Carter is hoping perp has just a smidgeon of conscience. Doubt that!

ITA! and if I may?

7) This new drawing IS, "THE person responsible, for these two murders."

No explanation on why so definite. Was this another video capture? Was this Parabon, but they turned that into a drawing? What about THIS monster, discards the first BG? He stated, that the first sketch has "become secondary." IMO they look nothing alike on the surface. And the date on that sketch?! Did they (LE) really have this all along?!

8) "Guys, (Go) Down the Hill." It almost sounds like he 'knows' the girls. It makes me wonder if they still didn't understand the danger they were in at that time? I would think (IMO) we would hear one of the girls asking, "Why?" And be caught on the audio saying something like that. Perhaps they didn't question his (apparent) authority?

9) "The Shack." This was no random (IMO) mention of a specific movie. Or "A" book. He mentions "Evil, Death, and Eternity." There is something in there. I can smell it, I just cannot put my finger on it. Yet.

10) "The girls were brutally murdered."

No details, but reminds me of a long ago mention of the word 'nightmares.'



May the peace of the universe envelop the girls, Abby & Libby, their families, and their friends.

This is from Gray Hughes. He doesn't interrupt...too awful much

 

[MntnHiker]

Wow I was shocked to hear this new sketch was from just a few days after the murders. All of this is IMO. I wonder if he was, in fact, wearing a disguise that day and one person saw the man with the hat/facial hair and then another witness came forward to describe doing something odd but he was the clean-shaven, no hat guy. Maybe LE thought witnesses saw two different people initially, but really one just saw BG before the crime and one after once he removed the disguise?

I'm curious what the witness saw him doing that prompted them to call. Maybe walking up from the woods? Possibly wet? Or maybe saw him at the car putting odd things in the trunk?

IMO I don't think the girls knew him, at least not the person with the disguise ( I guess they may not have recognized him, though?), just for the simple fact that she started videoing for a reason. If it was someone they knew and felt comfortable with, I don't see a reason for the tape. Now it's possible it's someone they didn't realize they knew, like a clerk at the grocery store, etc.--someone they see occasionally in life. I still just feel like even though BG planned to show up there and harm someone that day, it wasn't targeted toward Libby and Abby, that they were tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time. Wasn't it kind of a last minute decision that they go to the trails that day? So not a whole lot of time for others to find out?