IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 - #35

[abstr]

That's really interesting information... Liberty's obituary indeed lists her date of death on the 13th, yet the same site lists Abby as having died on the 14th. Pardon me if that is common knowledge on here.

Of course this is from a crude internet search, and if it's on the internet, it must be true....

I had assumed that the attacker controlled them by threatening harm against the other one and the crime occurred on-site or nearby. The bodies were found close enough to the bridge for that to sound plausible.

If they were taken away from the park, why in the heck would the perp(s) bring them back to an area where an active search was being conducted?

So either the obit is a typo, or Abby was kept alive in to the 14th.

I understand why they haven't, but I can't help but wish LE would release more information. There is so much speculation in this case.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Technically that is a death notice. They are paid notices placed by the funeral home and/or family of the deceased. An obituary is an article written by writing staff of the paper. I know the terms are used interchangeably but just a little info.

I don't believe it is a typo. In cases where a person is found deceased and the exact time of death is not known, the family can chose a date for the death notice. It can be placed before the coroner has officially given a date or even if after because it is not an official document. It is a notice. I will say IMO because that is the case in my state. I don't know the case for every state but I believe all the discussion about the dates in the death notices is moot.

 

[Bemused]

Not sure if this was posted yet.

Here's the link to the transcript from last night's Primetime Justice on HLN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1703/20/ptab.01.html

Interesting to me that the attorney seemed taken aback by Banfield's question regarding the alibi discrepancy. I'd think he'd be armed with notes and familiar with basic facts by now. Seemed odd to me. I watched so I heard the inflection in his voice when he replied.

 

[Mcumings]

:turkey::noooo:

so sorry.

Mashed potatoes and gravy......stat!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Inthedetails]

Perhaps for some reason, they wanted the bodies to be found on RL's property. I wonder if any locals have a problem with RL. Or a non local but an Indiana resident. I wonder how, before all of this, RL was seen in the community.

If the bodies were placed there (and I do think that is a possibility), it could be that the perp thought the search was completed for that area so it was safe. OR he wanted the bodies to be found. He wouldn't be the first murderer to display his victims.

IDK what happened, but "displaying" the victims is something I think is a strong possibility.

jmopinion at the moment

 

[karst_runner]

Perhaps for some reason, they wanted the bodies to be found on RL's property. I wonder if any locals have a problem with RL. Or a non local but an Indiana resident. I wonder how, before all of this, RL was seen in the community.

It's hard telling... His involvement makes everything a bit stranger. I'm befuddled by them taking "armloads" of items from his house. (I read that on here, but can't quote the passage)

Of course this is only my opinion, but if those obituary dates are correct, it would seemingly mean with certainty that they were abducted and returned.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Jax49]

Interesting to me that the attorney seemed taken aback by Banfield's question regarding the alibi discrepancy. I'd think he'd be armed with notes and familiar with basic facts by now. Seemed odd to me. I watched so I heard the inflection in his voice when he replied.

Maybe he didn't expect AB to mess up the facts so badly. The only problem with his explanation is she combined the two days.

MOO

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Remember the clown sightings in the woods back in the fall that were reported from various states? Maybe that's the "twist" and the reason for the multistate broadcast. Maybe that's why we can't see the rest of the video - he is in disguise. And that is all the stuff we see under the jacket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most of those sightings ended up being a houx or completely made up. JMO

 

[Burnt Toast]

Dont forget hes carrying a bag of booze also. Possibly smoking.
Quite a feat for someone even half his age

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

what leads you to the conclusion that he is carrying a bag of "booze"?

 

[jillycat]

Interesting to me that the attorney seemed taken aback by Banfield's question regarding the alibi discrepancy. I'd think he'd be armed with notes and familiar with basic facts by now. Seemed odd to me. I watched so I heard the inflection in his voice when he replied.

No attorney is going to answer these kinds of questions, least of all in the public arena. I'm not sure why he agreed to talk to her at all, other than it was another opportunity to declare his innocence.

 

[KyMom]

MOO - I believe the girls were killed in same area they were found & that whoever did this didn't try to conceal or move the girls because he/they either wanted to get out of there fast and/or just didn't care about leaving the girls there or the girls being found soon because 1) it wasn't his/their property and 2)he/they may have figured no one was around to see so no one will know he/they did this and that he/they aren't going to be caught.


jmo

 

[Sisyphus]

Something I'm currently hung up on: I rewatched the WLFI news clip from the night of 2/13 when Libby's grandpa said her phone was pinging all over town. That quote has been discussed much, as have the fact that he (and Abby's mom) seem relatively calm. After watching the clip with fresh eyes, I think they did think the girls had just probably run off somewhere (though there is a hint of nervousness that it's something else), and I think it was the "pinging" cell phone that gave them that false assurance. Many (myself included) have speculated that it was those pings that led them to execute a SW at the Bicycle Bridge Road location within the week.

But here's thing thing: If it was those pings that led them to BBR, and when LE seemed to think there was no immediate danger that first evening, why were the searching around the trail and in the woods, and not around town where the phone was pinging? This tells me that either they weren't using an app like Find My iPhone or Find My Friends that first day; and if they did use cell phone tower data, it took a few days to narrow it down to a general area (they had to get a warrant to compel the phone company to release the data, do the triangulation, etc., and then ended up in BBR vicinity as a result)...but then what did he mean that the cell phone was pinging all over town, and why was the search so focused on the trail instead of parts of town?

All of this leads me to think that in the first hours, there was (understandably) a lot of confusion, and I'm not sure that the grandpa understood what he was saying (probably something LE mentioned that he latched on to for hope?). I'm now taking a more skeptical view of that comment as possible proof that there were removed from the location and brought back (which has never been compelling to me anyway), and to the extent I think it helps clarify anything at all it only makes it slightly more likely that BG took the phone with him (but again, if they thought her phone was elsewhere in town, why was the search focused around the trail). In other words, I think the "cell phone pinging all over town" is IMO a bit of a red herring (unless someone has a better theory here that makes more sense).

 

[Bemused]

Maybe he didn't expect AB to mess up the facts so badly. The only problem with his explanation is she combined the two days.

MOO

He should've been armed with basic fact notes & refuted it. Maybe there have been larger questions from LE about his whereabouts on both days & the lawyer was confused.

 

[Mcumings]

I have often pondered this situation. What if RL is indeed cooperating after a few days of refusing to do so and then had a change of heart? Could he have told them :
1. I'm afraid of what will happen to me ( or someone else, unknown) if I tell you what I know.
2. Could RL possibly be blackmailed by the murderer in a way that makes him an accomplice, in that , the murderer threatens to reveal illegal ( tho not murder) information about RL , that would cause him to lose money, land, freedom , if RL tells about the murders.
3. Is it possible that RL found evidence on or in his properties, buildings, barn, AFTER the murders were discovered, that someone unknown to him had been holed up, staying there , commited the murders there, or found evidence of murder and was inclined to not reveal this in order to not implicate himself.
4. Possibly LE agreed to protect him while evidence is being processed? AFTER he does the 15 (?) day probation violation time? But, in the meantime he is being protected by serving time he brought on himself.
5. Possibly , only after being reassured by LE they would protect him, his property, his $$, and person's unknown, etc. Then he started talking, revealing what he knows.

I seem to swap out what side of the fence I'm on lately. So now I'm just going to sit on it.

Do we know a positive height on RL? To do a comparison to BG? If not, can his height be determined (approx) by the same means some of our fellow members have used? By using a known measurement nearby in a photo or video of RL, then doing calculations to determine approx height?

IMOHO ^^ all above

I can do RLs height using the same method i did BG. I just need a full length photo of RL and something I can use for scale reference. If anyone can help me with that. Im at work right now and will be on the road to camp atterbury shortly.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

So here's my theory on RL. I believe in that first interview it was clear he had a green strap under his jacket. It was theorized here that it was a gun holster.

I believe that is what it was. As a convicted felon he was not allowed to own or carry a firearm.

I think he went to his attorney to try and have his prior convictions (alternate treatment) reduced to misdemeanors in order to carry a gun. Too little too late.

I believe LE asked him about a gun and he denied having one. Perhaps tips, the photo, and his lawyers motion got LE convinced he lied and they wondered what else he lied about.

I believe he knew he was going to be arrested, which is why the motion by his attorney was dropped. I think they were searching for a gun and probably found it.

I think this guy made some really bad life choices. I do not think he had anything to do with killing the girls.

I hope he didn't, as someone suggested yesterday, unwittingly give BG a ride.

JMO

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Your theory is plausible, which could also lead into the possibility RL is serving as a convenient distraction. It's sometimes a ploy used by LE, to make it appear they are focused on a certain person while observing another suspect who doesn't realize they're even under suspicion. LE hopes that suspect will develop loose lips because they come to see themselves as somewhat invincible.

This is one reason why LE media releases are not always geared toward informing the public on the progress of an investigation, if it's believed the guilty culprit is also listening to the news.

 

[Mcumings]

I have often pondered this situation. What if RL is indeed cooperating after a few days of refusing to do so and then had a change of heart? Could he have told them :
1. I'm afraid of what will happen to me ( or someone else, unknown) if I tell you what I know.
2. Could RL possibly be blackmailed by the murderer in a way that makes him an accomplice, in that , the murderer threatens to reveal illegal ( tho not murder) information about RL , that would cause him to lose money, land, freedom , if RL tells about the murders.
3. Is it possible that RL found evidence on or in his properties, buildings, barn, AFTER the murders were discovered, that someone unknown to him had been holed up, staying there , commited the murders there, or found evidence of murder and was inclined to not reveal this in order to not implicate himself.
4. Possibly LE agreed to protect him while evidence is being processed? AFTER he does the 15 (?) day probation violation time? But, in the meantime he is being protected by serving time he brought on himself.
5. Possibly , only after being reassured by LE they would protect him, his property, his $$, and person's unknown, etc. Then he started talking, revealing what he knows.

I seem to swap out what side of the fence I'm on lately. So now I'm just going to sit on it.

Do we know a positive height on RL? To do a comparison to BG? If not, can his height be determined (approx) by the same means some of our fellow members have used? By using a known measurement nearby in a photo or video of RL, then doing calculations to determine approx height?

IMOHO ^^ all above

#3 i think you are on the right track however i think he knows who did it and is covering for him.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[karst_runner]

Technically that is a death notice. They are paid notices placed by the funeral home and/or family of the deceased. An obituary is an article written by writing staff of the paper. I know the terms are used interchangeably but just a little info.

I don't believe it is a typo. In cases where a person is found deceased and the exact time of death is not known, the family can chose a date for the death notice. It can be placed before the coroner has officially given a date or even if after because it is not an official document. It is a notice. I will say IMO because that is the case in my state. I don't know the case for every state but I believe all the discussion about the dates in the death notices is moot.

Thanks for the information. That means the published date might not be hard "fact".

I guess we'll have to wait for LE to release more information. My opinion is that the crime occurred there, in the woods, and that the suspect fled from the park area.




Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[IllinoisMissing]

Maybe he didn't expect AB to mess up the facts so badly. The only problem with his explanation is she combined the two days.

MOO

She did combine both days and this will create more confusion. Lafayette on Monday, Delphi on Tuesday. It's not rocket science. Smh

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Jax49]

She did combine both days and this will create more confusion. Lafayette on Monday, Delphi on Tuesday. It's not rocket science. Smh

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

A majority of people who hear that will believe it, making RL look like a blatant liar. Obviously not many people follow the details like WSers. Really makes me angry and sad.

 

[Burnt Toast]

Is there a link to confirm that their immediate families were informed about COD? Or are you thinking this is standard procedure? I was wondering about this. Tia.

it was said before the family's press conference. I believe the same day.

 

[Eileen730]

Interesting to me that the attorney seemed taken aback by Banfield's question regarding the alibi discrepancy. I'd think he'd be armed with notes and familiar with basic facts by now. Seemed odd to me. I watched so I heard the inflection in his voice when he replied.

Maybe they are not questioning his alibi?
Food for thought.