IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #40

[xmsmadex]

maybe they are currently in custody

Lets hope he is.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[ninij9]

I wish we could get an update. Even though they don't owe us one. I just wish we knew how far along they are...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[SoccerMotha]

I for one understood exactly what you meant. People should follow their gut instincts more. I most definitely have been in a park and noticed an unsavory character or two and have adjusted my path to not cross with them. If you ask me, too often we are too polite to listen to our inner alarms. It's what criminals depend on, your politeness.
Keep on keeping yourself safe.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

YUP! I couldn't agree more. We're too polite and we teach our kids to be polite. We need to also teach them about that lil voice/instinct when they come upon a stranger that's creeping them out, that it's ok not to be so polite if they feel uncomfortable.

 

[ocgrad]

Is it just speculation BG had a weapon? ..... or has this been reported?
Sorry ..... these threads move way too quick.

You can practically see one under his jacket, the outline of it for sure.

 

[No it's not]

we could learn little to anything after an arrest. The suspect can choose to say nothing and LE is under no obligation to disclose anything.

I completely agree with you. Maybe we will just be able to talk about things, we are not able to talk about now.

-Nin

 

[ninij9]

Gee, just want to say that I in no way subscribe to the thought that these girls didn't follow their instincts. I think they DID. I think that they were just outplayed by an evil dude.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[tml]

hey y'all! first time poster in this forum...a few questions/comments/thoughts today:

1. I'm confused as to why many posters seem to be sure that the one picture of BG on the bridge also has Abby in it, leading to the theory that this is where BG pulled a gun or otherwise subdued the girls. Why do people think this? I'd be more inclined to think the slight blur/dark spot on the left side of the picture is simply a smudge or a finger, as Abby was not wearing a blue or purple or black jacket that day, in fact from the Snapchat photo of her we see that she was wearing a tan, LIGHT jacket that day. Is there some evidence or clue I'm missing here?


2. To be honest I don't think there is enough public, LE sourced evidence to speculate on ANYTHING about how this crime went down. Yes, we can make educated guesses, and yes we can hypothesize and we may get close or even hit on the truth, but I'm simply failing to feel the confidence that other posters seem to feel about their version of events. For example, the most obvious method for subduing two people at once is a gun. I can get behind that. But I don't think the girls were shot, and I think if they were there would have been people who heard the shots, so now we're talking two weapons. It's not at all uncommon to carry a handgun particularly in more rural areas and I'm not sure about Indiana's concealed carry laws, but let's assume this guy carries a gun at all times and on this particular day also had another weapon. This assumption has huge implications - it matters for motive, premeditation, and who this person is. Already I'm off track because I'm guessing based on other guesses.


IMHO the number one clue we have right now is not necessarily the picture of BG - because first of all, BG might not be our guy, and also because the picture itself really tells us very little until we have a suspect in front of us to compare it to. The number one clue is only this: An adult person abducted and murdered two girls in broad daylight and got away with it for 7 weeks and counting. Who would do something like that, and how would they get away with it?


Who would do something like that:
We have two options, a serial offender or an opportunist. I know most people lean serial offender because of there being two victims among other reasons, but to me this was a crime of opportunity. I am NOT saying this guy hasn't offended before, but I'd be willing to bet it's been primarily sexual based offenses against similarly aged girls, not resulting in death, and this is of my own admission pure gut feelings and speculation.


Based on what we do know of this crime, I don't think it was premeditated. I think that by this point in time LE would have tracked the victims' social media accounts and interactions and would know if one of the girls had met someone on there or planned to meet in person. There is no way a random person could know the girls were going to be there on that day at that time, and alone, unless it was someone they knew and had discussed plans with (including people at school). HOWEVER, in this scenario, would the girls not have known their attacker? Of course, we don't know that they didn't, but under the presumption that there is more to the audio LE recovered from Liberty's phone, and neither girl named their attacker, I feel comfortable saying they either didn't know him or didn't know his name.


This + lack of prior interaction/relationship through social media + random day off school + unseasonably warm temps allowing for outdoor activities + 2 victims = opportunity. I think the two victim part is really important - why would someone who planned this crime PLAN to deal with two people, outside, in a public location, during the day? It was a thrill kill.


Moving on. Premeditated or crime of opportunity, who would do something like this? What is the motivation? Well, unfortunately and though we have no confirmed evidence of it, the motivation here seems to be fairly clear. There are more than enough examples of murderous rapists honing in on young girls to make it a subset of forensic psychology in and of itself. If the girls were not sexually assaulted, the next clearest motivator to me is pure anger and arrogance, seeing what he can get away with. But honestly, I don't think that's it. The voice on the audio is calm and clear and steady - there's even a hint of reassurance in it when I listen, and that to me says ickier things than just anger.


Look at the choice of victims as well: he didn't choose CHILDREN, either because that's not attractive to him or (more likely) the younger the child, the harder to get alone. He chose young, healthy, white teenage girls. I don't think it was a situation where he would have picked someone else if the girls hadn't have wandered into his path; I think he saw a SPECIFIC chance and he took it. Taking a chance like this also says something to me about this guy's personality and mindset. Either 1, he's ridiculously arrogant, or 2, the possibility of getting caught heightened the crime for him, or 3, he really didn't think he WOULDN'T get caught, although this is a hard one for me to swallow unless this guy does turn out to be a serial offender who desperately wants to stop but needs help. IMHO this was sexual assault turned murder.


Second part; How would they get away with it?
Like this. By keeping a low profile up to now, by not murdering before or at least not like this, by not being in any systems. We have a lot of info on this guy (if BG is the guy) - we have his face, his body, his gait, his voice, potentially his DNA. What we don't have is anything linking all these together. Guy would have known this about himself, but what he couldn't know was 1. when the girls were to be picked up, 2. that no one was waiting for them on another part of the trail, 3. that family and searchers wouldn't find the girls that first night, 4. that the girls wouldn't survive their attacks, 5. that no one saw him on the bridge/in the woods/with the girls, 6. etc. There are a LOT of unknowns from unsub perspective - the number one thing he has going for him so far is his marked lack of links to any prior criminal activity. Again, this to me says crime of opportunity.


And that's it! I think that as sleuthers our best use is in thinking in these directions. Just saying "this guy is evil!" does not help in analyzing the type of person who could actually go through with these actions, and I think that's honestly all we have to go on at this point. Thanks for reading y'all!

 

[Yellow Rose]

YUP! I couldn't agree more. We're too polite and we teach our kids to be polite. We need to also teach them about that lil voice/instinct when they come upon a stranger that's creeping them out, that it's ok not be so polite if they feel uncomfortable.

Get the book by Gavin De Becker called THE GIFT OF FEAR. I guarantee if they read/you read it you will stand a better chance at ANYTHING. I think it should be in every library.

 

[xmsmadex]

DNA is absolutely not circumstantial evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you! If they have a match they arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

It's true that DNA is considered circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence and often leads to an arrest when a match comes back, but we don't know if they have DNA from the crime scene or if they have found a match.

No, not circumstantial all. Especially in a case like this.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Bemused]

Thank you! If they have a match they arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

What if a murder happened in your home but you weren't the murderer? You're saying because police collect your DNA on or around the victim you should be arrested for murder? I don't think it works that way nor should it.

 

[margarita25]

Get the book by Gavin De Becker called THE GIFT OF FEAR. I guarantee if they read/you read it you will stand a better chance at ANYTHING. I think it should be every library.

(Cool, thanks)

 

[xmsmadex]

Yes, it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence.

No, I dont care what Wikipedia says, not the best source anyway. If there is dna evidence it is enough for an arrest, sure not enough for a case and conviction, they definitely have to have more than just dna but it is enough for an arrest especially in this case.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[ocgrad]

What I cant wrap my head around is the fact that this appears to be a crime of opportunity. No one could have known those girls would be there unless they were family or it was discussed at school and someone overheard.

Who goes to a seemingly empty trail with weapon(s) on hand? What purpose would he have to be carrying any kind of weapon out there on his own?

If he did just happen upon the girls and decided to approach them, which we can only speculate as to why, especially without more information on COD, he would have had to be fairly confident no one else was out there. Although, its a very rural area there are homes nearby, cemetary etc. He had to have been familiar enough with the area to believe no one would see, hear or come along that way.

I just cant see how he just happened upon them, ready with a weapon and the mindset to attack. Makes me believe he had done this before giving him the confidence to do it in an open area and with two victims.

I also wonder if it was premeditated and he was someone who knew they would be out there so he came prepared.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I agree with you that it is very unlikely someone would go hang out on an empty trail packing whatever all he has under that jacket and just happen upon 2 girls. No, I don't believe this was a crime of opportunity at all. I believe it was planned.

 

[michiganmod]

It was mentioned in MSM that one or both of the girls had taken a self protection class locally. Which leads me to think that they did alot of the right things. I don't think they froze or maybe one did which lead to them having to fight and/or run but it wasn't enough. MOO

My own granddaughter is 14 and since this tragedy I've told her repeatedly if in the same situation to run and scream (and hope a friend does the same) because there is a chance the will run off. At the least she can get help because 1 can't run in two different directions. I've also stressed that having a buddy while out isn't enough. I told her if someone tries to put her in a car to kick and scream with all her being because that is certain death- never go quietly if caught.
Today I dropped her downtown for a walking fieldtrip with school and said if they do the buddy thing stick with several groups- pairs are not enough. I think the whole pick a buddy and you'll be safe theory is gone forever. The world has changed so much

MOO

Good post. I agree with you. Libby seems to have done things right or we wouldn't have almost 40 threads here mostly discussing her footage of BG.

I was in a situation where split second thinking was important. Know what I learned? It's not just "flight or fright". They left out "froze". That moment where your brain disbelieves what's happening because it's so unimaginable.
An full sized adult man with evil intent on his mind? These poor kids were no match for him. They were out doing teenage things, thinking teenage thoughts when they crossed paths with him. He had intent. They couldn't have imagined what would befall them. [emoji17]

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[cluciano63]

Jmo, it depends what the DNA is sometimes. If a family member finds a loved one murdered, their semen should not be on the victim, i.e, whereas hair, skin cells, etc may be there legitimately.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

No, I dont care what Wikipedia says, not the best source anyway. If there is dna evidence it is enough for an arrest, sure not enough for a case and conviction, they definitely have to have more than just dna but it is enough for an arrest especially in this case.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Respectfully, what you are talking about has nothing to do with circumstantial vs direct evidence. DNA is, in fact, circumstantial evidence.

 

[xmsmadex]

What if a murder happened in your home but you weren't the murderer? You're saying because police collect your DNA on or around the victim you should be arrested for murder? I don't think it works that way nor should it.

Thats why I said in a case like this. If someone lives with the victim then its obvious how their dna would get on them. These girls were killed out in the woods, not at home. If they found dna on them, and depending on where they found it and what kind, sperm, under fingernails, bite marks, its safe to assume its the killer. All of this is taken into consideration with dna, I thought this went with out saying.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[margarita25]

What I cant wrap my head around is the fact that this appears to be a crime of opportunity. No one could have known those girls would be there unless they were family or it was discussed at school and someone overheard.

Who goes to a seemingly empty trail with weapon(s) on hand? What purpose would he have to be carrying any kind of weapon out there on his own?

If he did just happen upon the girls and decided to approach them, which we can only speculate as to why, especially without more information on COD, he would have had to be fairly confident no one else was out there. Although, its a very rural area there are homes nearby, cemetary etc. He had to have been familiar enough with the area to believe no one would see, hear or come along that way.

I just cant see how he just happened upon them, ready with a weapon and the mindset to attack. Makes me believe he had done this before giving him the confidence to do it in an open area and with two victims.

I also wonder if it was premeditated and he was someone who knew they would be out there so he came prepared.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I wonder if he had been stalking this area/ trail for a while in the days before this and happened to finally have a clear opportunity on that day due to school being out and the girls being alone. Again, ARS attacked an adult female jogger months before he killed little Jessica Ridgeway. Maybe he would have attacked any female, if given the opportunity...if he planned this he likely scoped it all out before hand? Unless a crime of opportunity and he happened to be there hunting, fishing, etc.

 

[ninij9]

Thats why I said in a case like this. If someone lives with the victim then its obvious how their dna would get on them. These girls were killed out in the woods, not at home. If they found dna on them, and depending on where they found it and what kind, sperm, under fingernails, bite marks, its safe to assume its the killer. All of this is taken into consideration with dna, I thought this went with out saying.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Lol, but with all due respect NOTHING goes without saying here on Websleuths...[emoji12]

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk