IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #46

[expatCanada]

https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=377&LayerID=5553&PageTypeID=1

Click on each plot.

It might make a difference if it ended up on someone elses property. From memory of looking at the property maps, this piece of RL's land is only a 2 acre section directly south of the cemetery so it is quite small. An acre is about 200 ft x 200ft only so this piece could be only 400ft x 200ft. Perhaps someone could check my figures here, just to be sure.

 

[asyousay]

RL said he knew both families. Does anyone know if he attended the viewings or services for the girls?

Ooh I didn't know this but I don't consider him a suspect as he is not BG imo

 

[Burnt Toast]

If mental disturbance is the reason that the suspect murdered the children, why did he take them to a secluded location? He could simply throw them off the bridge.

that could be risky. They could survive the fall.

 

[otto]

We don't know that he didn't, do we? He could've knocked one off the bridge and when the other went "down the hill" to help her...disposed of the witness.
He could've taken them out of public view because he knew killing them would take a minute and didn't want to be seen doing so.
He could've taken them out of public view to yell at them or scare them and somehow the situation escalated into him killing them.
He could've used a stun gun on the trail and then drug their bodies down there out of sight.
We could imagine many scenarios.

I'm going to assume that the reason two girls were abducted in a rural park, told to walk in a certain direction, taken to a secluded location, and murdered is because the suspect is a pedophile. We can imagine all sorts of other things, but without anything to support another motive, I'm going to assume the obvious: this was a sexual assault.

 

[NightOwl77]

I am not leaning toward SA, but if it did occur, I would guess the water would help make DNA harder to retrieve after the fact.

The amount of struggle would depend on the weapon and the amount of control he was able to maintain over them. If he threatened to kill one if either screamed, it might not have been a loud, long struggle.

I have no doubt I would fight with all I had to survive in that scenario. But I also know that, realistically, when I have gotten into water or snowball fights etc with--say--my brother or husband, it becomes obvious to me how quickly they can overpower me.

I hope they fought though. I hope to God they fought and clawed and screamed and left more evidence to turn up soon.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree on most of this, but if gun not used (which would be heard - shot), both can't be killed at once. So if one is killed and you see other murdered, IMO a person would do everything in their power to be heard after that or to fight. I think that would add to time and possible discovery and the killer would know this. I really think this had to take some time, especially if arms and feet had to be tied. How would someone do that while the other person is free. You can only tie or tape one at a time, and you can't really hold a gun while tieing someone. It's all too complicated for rage or psychological w 2 victims (again in IMO)

 

[Bemused]

i don't think the killer woke up that day and decided he was going to murder two young girls. It is something that just happened and likely escalated quickly. In my opinion time was of the essence and there was NO time for a SA. They needed to get home so they could begin putting together a alibi.

One of the first things LE would do is interview family, friends and neighbors, asking who would want to hurt these girls. That's just basic common sense to me. If people that've been interviewed mention the same person, or related their own experiences interacting negatively with a person, LE is going to be very interested. If LE has some hint that the PO could or may be responsible, they're going to be knocking on doors and asking people what can you tell us about Mr. PO.

I think many people are making a lot of unfair assumptions that LE are not doing a professional or thorough job or aren't intelligent enough to solve these murders. I'll bet no one outside the families want to see the responsible person arrested, tried and convicted more than those LEOs, some of whom shed tears in front of cameras. IMO

 

[asyousay]

RL said he knew both families. Does anyone know if he attended the viewings or services for the girls?

Ooh I didn't know this but I don't consider him a suspect as he is not BG as I just don't see any resemblance in my eyes.

 

[Jax49]

Agree on most of this, but if gun not used (which would be heard - shot), both can't be killed at once. So if one is killed and you see other murdered, IMO a person would do everything in their power to be heard after that or to fight. I think that would add to time and possible discovery and the killer would know this. I really think this had to take some time, especially if arms and feet had to be tied. How would someone do that while the other person is free. You can only tie or tape one at a time, and you can't really hold a gun while tieing someone. It's all too complicated for rage or psychological w 2 victims (again in IMO)

It has been accomplished in the past by forcing one victim to tie the other up...

moo

 

[asyousay]

I'm going to assume that the reason two girls were abducted in a rural park, told to walk in a certain direction, taken to a secluded location, and murdered is because the suspect is a pedophile. We can imagine all sorts of other things, but without anything to support another motive, I'm going to assume the obvious: this was a sexual assault.

I go with this as well as it's the most logical , two pretty young girls out by themselves and he saw his chance and took it.

 

[stellamickey]

My theory on them not knowing him is as simple as Libby being so freaked out by him she took a photo of him.

I see no reason why Libby would of been so alarmed if she knew the person.

What if they caught him cheating?

 

[Jax49]

https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=377&LayerID=5553&PageTypeID=1

Click on each plot.

I'm surprised how low the value is for the land. Maybe the retail value is a lot higher. moo

 

[St. Anthony2017]

Ooh I didn't know this but I don't consider him a suspect as he is not BG as I just don't see any resemblance in my eyes.

Time will tell I guess. Don't even know if BG voice is one on tape.

 

[MistyWaters]

It wasn't a robbery. What is the reason that a stranger would abduct two young girls, take them to a secluded location, and murder them?

And meanwhile I also wonder what is the reason for family members or LE to immediately presume two girls were murdered and begin a ground search for dead bodies, simply because they weren't where they're supposed to be picked up. This search was also occurring while LE indicated no foul play was expected in their disappearance.

It's far more likely searches were taking place directly under the bridge or other areas where they might have accidentally fallen, at other familiar locations where the girls might have went to around town, tracking down friends, relatives , etc. Isn't that generally what a missing persons search within the first few hours consists of?

So if not a search for bodies, why would the location where the bodies were found the next day have been previously searched? And where's the proof that it was already search or is that based on rumour? If it's rumour, I don't think it happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 155000]

I'm going to assume that the reason two girls were abducted in a rural park, told to walk in a certain direction, taken to a secluded location, and murdered is because the suspect is a pedophile. We can imagine all sorts of other things, but without anything to support another motive, I'm going to assume the obvious: this was a sexual assault.

That's cool. I for sure think it's possible there was SA involved. Since there were two girls, since police have yet to say conclusively that they have DNA (without taking it back), and since the perp would need to make a quick getaway, etc just leads me to stay open minded about the motive until we have more info.

I lean toward it being a local, it not being SA, it being a quick murder and cover up...but obviously I am just theorizing same as you. My hypotheses might go right out the window if and when an arrest or evidence is made public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NightOwl77]

i don't think the killer woke up that day and decided he was going to murder two young girls. It is something that just happened and likely escalated quickly. In my opinion time was of the essence and there was NO time for a SA. They needed to get home so they could begin putting together a alibi.

Just happened? Just happened like how? Could you expand upon this theory? What motivated it and why did it escalate? (Just curious trying to follow your line of thinking, not being argumentative)

 

[St. Anthony2017]

What if they caught him cheating?

Cheating what??

 

[jenthern]

i was surprised he told inside edition that he went to buy a tropical fish rather than just saying he was running an errand. There was no need to be specific for the press. To me, it was just odd.

In the video interview does he say, "I was in Lafayette buying tropical fish?" Or does he say he was in Lafayette and the reporter says, "he told us he was in Lafayette buying tropical fish"? Because to me, those are two different things - he could have just said, I was in Lafayette and then been asked by the reporter, "doing what?" to which I would think most people would reply with the truth, even if they didn't initially reveal the reason for their trip.

 

[otto]

And meanwhile I also wonder what is the reason for family members or LE to immediately presume two girls were murdered and begin a ground search for dead bodies, simply because they weren't where they're supposed to be picked up. This search was also occurring while LE indicated no foul play was expected in their disappearance.

It's far more likely searches were taking place directly under the bridge or other areas where they might have accidentally fallen, at other familiar locations where the girls might have went to around town, tracking down friends, relatives , etc. Isn't that generally what a missing persons search within the first few hours consists of?

So if not a search for bodies, why would the location where the bodies were found the next day have been previously searched? And where's the proof that it was already search or is that based on rumour? If it's rumour, I don't think it happened.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I have never read that the bodies were found in a location that was previously searched. As you point out, searchers were looking for two live, missing girls between 3:30 and 5:00 with the assumption that they either lost track of time, or got lost. I can't see anyone searching in an area that would be difficult to access from the bridge or without crossing the creek. Fortunately there were footprints leading to the missing children, or they would very likely still be there.

 

[expatCanada]

Exactly. I posted the youtube yet again so folks can see for themselves. RL said Laf. Reporter said to buy tropical fish.

In the video interview does he say, "I was in Lafayette buying tropical fish?" Or does he say he was in Lafayette and the reporter says, "he told us he was in Lafayette buying tropical fish"? Because to me, those are two different things - he could have just said, I was in Lafayette and then been asked by the reporter, "doing what?" to which I would think most people would reply with the truth, even if they didn't initially reveal the reason for their trip.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I don't see any comparison that can be made of RL to Huntley.

Me neither. Someone else hinted that all his media interviews were similar to Huntley inserting himself into the investigation. I was disagreeing respectfully hopefully.