Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #96

[Boxer]

deleted for not thoroughly reading the post I was commenting on.

 

[Joolz1975]

I'm not a criminal, dont have a shady past, I'm adopted but know my biological family. And I still have zero intentions of giving up my DNA.

I'd give my DNA voluntarily.

Maybe I am really naive but I've never committed a crime, I have no intentions of ever doing so (unless my husband keeps snoring every night) so I believe I having nothing to hide so no reason not to.

I don't even mind if it helps nail a family member for something they may have done in the past or in the future.

I admit I have not thought about the ramifications of it in great detail or what it may be used for but at this point I'd give it.

 

[ab01]

Also just something that I remind myself of often.

A friend of mine who is a detective always says “A good investigator doesn’t direct evidence, the evidence directs them”.

 

[Joolz1975]

so, as I was reading previous threads, I read a comment that gave me a thought. it was about the BG stills/video and how it's zoomed in and pixelated. I thought maybe, just maybe in the "full shot" of the stills/video LE have, it's clearer, and they're able to see some of the details better than we are. for example, it might be obvious he's xx years old, or he does/n't have facial hair, wearing a hoodie, or what have you.

I think they have a clearer shot than what we have seen but obviously not a crystal clear one.

 

[taximama24]

Go look for an interview with Kelsi. She mentions exactly what they were doing the previous two weekends. It's a taboo subject here so you need to do your own research.

I've seen this mentioned as being a taboo subject a few times but totally missed why that is - is it possible to elaborate on why we shouldn't discuss that particular activity (I did as you suggested and looked up what it was they were doing)?

 

[ocgrad]

I’ve been lurking here for a week, so this is my first post. This case breaks my heart. I see myself at 13 when I look at those 2 sweet girls. I grew up in the 70’s - a different time, although these kinds of murders still happened then. But their carefree, artistic nature reminds me of myself, and it tears my heart out that someone took their beautiful lives from them. Having said that, This is my take on things (FWIW).

The main goal of LE, as I see it, is to bring a solid case to trial - a case which a good defense attorney can’t bring forth enough reasonable doubt to get the guy off. I appreciate the time they are taking, and the fact that they are willing to publicly change directions (despite the backlash they’ve received) to get this case solved, but solved beyond reasonable doubt. I want them to dot every “i” and cross every “t”. I think they know who this guy is, but they HAVE to place him on that bridge on Feb. 13, 2017 at 2:30 ish, with those girls. The parked car, I believe, is key. I think they have DNA, most likely. I think they’re trying to put these final pieces together for a solid case. We don’t have any idea what they have! There is no way for us to know. I think we’ll be shocked at what we learn when this comes to trial. But I, for one, want to be patient and I want this guy NAILED for this crime!

As far as the sketches, obviously the second sketch is the “one”, but I also think we’ll be surprised at how this guy may look like elements of the sketch, but not exactly like it. I think the CHIN - the protruding chin - is key. I heard someone discussing this on a video and I wish I could remember which one, but they mentioned “focus on the chin”. It is an unusually long chin - prominent enough that it was memorable to the witness. I’m a portrait artist. It’s a difficult task to draw a likeness of someone even from a photo or if they’re sitting in front of you. Why? Because everyone has their own perception of how a person looks. I’ve drawn/painted some portraits and people thought they looked EXACTLY like the portrait I produced, and others thought it favored the person, but didn’t look exactly like them. My perception was, I had captured the likeness. You see? People look at things differently, from their own perspective. So to expect this sketch to look exactly like the guy is folly. What is the most prominent element? The large nose and the chin. Often when people meet someone in passing, only the most prominent features actually stand out.
That’s simply an artist’s take on it, and MOO.

As far as the video and stills, pixelation fools the eye. I’ve been sent badly pixelated photos before (I’ve done a bit of photo retouching in Photoshop in my career). This was a video with stills captured from it. The movement causes such “screen trash” and pixelation, you think you see all sorts of things which aren’t really there. It looks like, in the video, he is talking. That movement would cause even MORE pixelated screen trash around his head.

I think the stills and the video were released as a general reference for the public, i.e., does this person generally look like someone you have seen or know? If I saw my husband, for instance, in a short video, no matter how pixelated, I would still know it was him most likely. I’ve put BG’s photo in photoshop and tried to make it out. I get something different with every filter I use. Its going to be hard to get a good enough view of his face from that video. Some people think the first sketch looks more like him. Not really. Not when you look at each frame. Someone posted his head not too far back in this thread. That is the BEST enhanced still shot I’ve seen. There again - I see a LONG chin. I’m not sure about the hair, or if there’s a cap or his hood is up.

There again, this is strictly MOO, based on what limited knowledge I have. I hope they nail this piece of excrement!

Welcome to WS! Amazing 1st post!

 

[Tiger Stripes]

at first I thought it highly unlikely that the perpetrator "confessed" to someone but it's not really that far away from a real possibility.

Not "far away" -- from being either a "real possibility" or... in "real life" not very far away: Here's a tidbit to think about: Wonder what the possibilities are that someone knowledgeable of this crime currently attends one of 2 very nearby, well-known universities -- one, just 15-20 minutes' drive from Delphi, and the other, just a 2-hour drive from Delphi? (Talk about opening the case up to many potential interviewees...)

NB: I have attended both of the 2 universities in the past, and know for a fact that an individual can seemingly "become invisible" among the thousands of students present on those campuses. I also know that a huge number of students at both of those universities come from their home state of... Indiana. Wondering if both of those 2 main campuses have plenty of posters of the new POI up in the key campus gathering areas (coffee shops, entrances to libraries, at bus stops, at the various entrances to classroom buildings and to the campus bookstores and gift shops...)? Just a thought.

 

[tfanny341]

My son attended a military academy. On the first day, a photographer took photos and posted them online that night. I could pick my son out of a crowd of uniformed kids even when I could only see his ear.

 

[ab01]

DBM

 

[wary]

Search the forum for the poster ‘Tricia.’ (Owner of websleuths.) Look for her April 24th post. She discusses her reasons for banning a particular subject, and says that her decision is not to be discussed in the public forum.

 

[gitana1]

Greetings, fellow WS-ers,

Just now seeing this post of last evening, and the concept intrigued me, so I wanted to put down my 2 cents... (not worth much, but...maybe if we put together everyone's "2 cents' worth", we'll have a lot!).

Although I am not a licensed member of the clergy, I *am* a licensed educator in my home state (not Indiana, but that is where I spent a good part of my childhood and young adult years). *All* licensed educators are **required** by law (hence, the term "mandatory" in the phrase "Mandatory Reporter") to report any signs/evidence/information that we receive during the course of our workday that indicates that one of the children in our care has been/may have been subject to abuse (of any type). Thus, my teacher-ears "perked up" when I read the "mandatory reporter" phrase.

Here's what I've found thus far regarding clergy as mandatory reporters, with respect to the state of Indiana:

Indiana
Ind. Code Ann. § 31-33-5-1 In addition to any other duty to report arising under this article, an individual who has reason to believe that a child is a victim of child abuse or neglect shall make a report as required by this article.

(quoted directly from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf)

In other words, if an Indiana member of the clergy were to learn (whether via a confession, or during the course of a private ministerial counseling session, etc.) that an individual had abused a child, or children ("abuse" could most certainly cover violence, as well as sexual abuse), then that member of the clergy is legally obligated to report that information to LE. Period.

Side note: Could physical violence or sexual abuse preceding the taking of life qualify as "abuse", per the guidelines? Certainly does to me -- but I'm not an attorney. Let's check with Gitana or another of our WS members to verify.

By the way, as an aside, even if I (a licensed educator) am not at school, and learn about/observe child abuse (i. e., over a weekend, or during summer vacation when school is out), does that mean I'm "off the hook", and don't have an obligation to report abuse? No! Per the guidelines, part of my being a responsible member of society and as a member of the teaching profession, I take seriously this responsibility. Not to report could mean the loss of my license -- not to mention the loss of a clear conscience (which I view as even worse than losing my license -- though I would not like to lose either).



**Italics added to the original post are my own, and not in the original quotation.

In Indiana, everyone is a mandatory reporter. Clearly and teachers don't have a separate duty to report.

Further, if abuse is disclosed during a religious confession of some sort, clergy do have privilege that can override the mandatory reporting law. Indiana does not do away with the clergy privilege.

Finally, failure to report in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor which means it carries a penalty of UP TO 180 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine.

As to whether abuse before murder would be reportable well murder is also abuse. So either way. But if the victim is already dead the duty to report might be mitigated as there is no on-going risk to that victim.

But I'm not sure on that.

 

[CrimeDawg123]

I'd give my DNA voluntarily.

Maybe I am really naive but I've never committed a crime, I have no intentions of ever doing so (unless my husband keeps snoring every night) so I believe I having nothing to hide so no reason not to.

I don't even mind if it helps nail a family member for something they may have done in the past or in the future.

I admit I have not thought about the ramifications of it in great detail or what it may be used for but at this point I'd give it.

I would not give it voluntarily. For example I'd be worried about being denied affordable health insurance because it turns out I have XYZ genetic pre-existing condition. There are too many people looking to do bad things with our DNA IMO, plus we don't know what future advances in technology could do with DNA. Once we give it up we have no control.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

I've seen this mentioned as being a taboo subject a few times but totally missed why that is - is it possible to elaborate on why we shouldn't discuss that particular activity (I did as you suggested and looked up what it was they were doing)?

Iirc, it was considered sleuthing the family?. Yes, she does have her blog that is open to everyone but I believe we are not allowed to discuss it here.

 

[gitana1]

If there was it would be a lot less subtle and easily seen I can assure you that.

And if some think it’s a careless mistake all I can say is rest assured no significant info is going to be presented by a shortcut on a desktop moo

I'm not sure about the first part. If they were certain he would be present the icons could be a lot clearer to someone in the room.

And of course there was no careless mistake.

 

[moonlessnight]

and if he does attend one of the nearby universities, he may be coming home to live and/or work in/near Delphi for the summer...

Not "far away" -- from being either a "real possibility" or... in "real life" not very far away: Here's a tidbit to think about: Wonder what the possibilities are that someone knowledgeable of this crime currently attends one of 2 very nearby, well-known universities -- one, just 15-20 minutes' drive from Delphi, and the other, just a 2-hour drive from Delphi? (Talk about opening the case up to many potential interviewees...)

NB: I have attended both of the 2 universities in the past, and know for a fact that an individual can seemingly "become invisible" among the thousands of students present on those campuses. I also know that a huge number of students at both of those universities come from their home state of... Indiana. Wondering if both of those 2 main campuses have plenty of posters of the new POI up in the key campus gathering areas (coffee shops, entrances to libraries, at bus stops, at the various entrances to classroom buildings and to the campus bookstores and gift shops...)? Just a thought.

 

[moonlessnight]

There is a stricter requirement to hold the sacrament of confession among Catholics. Probably not relevant here, but they can be prohibited from reporting.

In Indiana, everyone is a mandatory reporter. Clearly and teachers don't have a separate duty to report.

Further, if abuse is disclosed during a religious confession of some sort, clergy do have privilege that can override the mandatory reporting law. Indiana does not do away with the clergy privilege.

Finally, failure to report in Indiana is a Class B misdemeanor which means it carries a penalty of UP TO 180 days in jail and a $1,000.00 fine.

As to whether abuse before murder would be reportable well murder is also abuse. So either way. But if the victim is already dead the duty to report might be mitigated as there is no on-going risk to that victim.

But I'm not sure on that.

 

[MistyWaters]

I wonder if that law was not retroactive? The deputy convicted last December who is said to resemble BG1 was arrested in Sept 2017. Perhaps since this went into effect in Jan 2018 they didn't have a right to get his DNA until his conviction. Of course they could have taken it through other means but maybe they were willing to wait to have all the Ts crossed. Then when it didn't match they changed course in the whole investigation.

I don’t think the law could be retroactive because prior to the passing of it, it was illegal for LE to obtain a DNA of an accused prior to conviction. I recall in reading about the passage of the bill, DNA taken from an accused must be destroyed if a conviction is unsuccessful.

That’s why I’m also uncertain if DNA data banks collected from innocent people is even a legal reality. If LE does not conduct this investigation scrupulously, within every single legal parameter, the suspect stands a good chance of walking much like what occurred in the OJ Simpson trial. The general public hate it if police circumvent the rules, while expecting the rest of us to follow the law.

 

[Joolz1975]

I would not give it voluntarily. For example I'd be worried about being denied affordable health insurance because it turns out I have XYZ genetic pre-existing condition. There are too many people looking to do bad things with our DNA IMO, plus we don't know what future advances in technology could do with DNA. Once we give it up we have no control.

I have to admit I've never given it any further thought other than for crime reasons so I appreciate your input on that.

Maybe if I looked into it more I wouldn't.

 

[ocgrad]

I don't think there is anything taboo there. I believe she may have been referring to them doing the Geocache during the previous two weekends. I don't see how saying they were Geocaching would be considered to be taboo.

It is though.

 

[moonlessnight]

I wonder if part of the problem of identifying the /POI in the sketch is bc he is not usually so stoic. Possibly the face in the sketch lacking facial expression is connected with the mode or mood he was in prior to or after the murders, but he may usually be much more expressive in public and not show that type of focus.