IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #55

[Shiressleuth]

I was just asking if I'm being asked to assume someone is not dead when they've been killed what is my motivation for doing so?

Take a look at the wiki entry for the Westminster Bridge terrorist incident and see they have a certain number killed (6 including the perp) but they did not all die on the day of the incident. Some were put on life support. I'm just getting fed up at people telling me what killed means and what I should think it means, as if some people are more qualified than others to understand definitions. Killed means causing the death of someone by other than natural causes. Died means when life expires.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Didn't you get your badge in the mail?

Link

Thanks skibs. I've got it now and I'm deffo not turning it in.

 

[BIC]

Here is my own opinion....i have sat on this some time as i know i will be asked to explain my rationale....but due to the content this might be tricky with the rules in place....anyway. .here are my thoughts:

1) the perp is closer to the girls/family than we think
2) i think this is an isolated case and without breaking rules i cannot discuss possible scenarios as to how i have come to this conclusion. It ties in with number 1 on my list and i would expect police to be telling people to be on their guard etc which ive not seen anything (correct me if im wrong)
3) the perp is not smart. Not really, he just has a good alibi i think and with being close to the girls the dna proves nothing
4) i agree he probably did have a kill kit, gun, knows the trail and bridge area well etc...
5) i think it will be one of those cases where the voice and build fit well but it would be 'too obvious' and unbelievable to be the guy that gets caught
6) i cant go into my rationale too much but he knew the girls would be there beforehand but didnt know he had been filmed.
I also believe that the crime itself will end up being really not that complex but proving the suspect did it will be.
I.e if BGs dna is present as he has been in contact with the girls and someone claims to have been with him at the time of the incident, the video has nothing significant and concrete to prove it was him then surely the police cannot do anything? With nothing to go on.

This is ALL my own opinions and i will try my best to explain anything i can. Im throwing it out there to get it off my chest.



Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

I think so too, and there is someone who is close that seems to resemble the pixels that have been released. IMO

 

[Shiressleuth]

Here is my own opinion....i have sat on this some time as i know i will be asked to explain my rationale....but due to the content this might be tricky with the rules in place....anyway. .here are my thoughts:

1) the perp is closer to the girls/family than we think
2) i think this is an isolated case and without breaking rules i cannot discuss possible scenarios as to how i have come to this conclusion. It ties in with number 1 on my list and i would expect police to be telling people to be on their guard etc which ive not seen anything (correct me if im wrong)
3) the perp is not smart. Not really, he just has a good alibi i think and with being close to the girls the dna proves nothing
4) i agree he probably did have a kill kit, gun, knows the trail and bridge area well etc...
5) i think it will be one of those cases where the voice and build fit well but it would be 'too obvious' and unbelievable to be the guy that gets caught
6) i cant go into my rationale too much but he knew the girls would be there beforehand but didnt know he had been filmed.
I also believe that the crime itself will end up being really not that complex but proving the suspect did it will be.
I.e if BGs dna is present as he has been in contact with the girls and someone claims to have been with him at the time of the incident, the video has nothing significant and concrete to prove it was him then surely the police cannot do anything? With nothing to go on.

This is ALL my own opinions and i will try my best to explain anything i can. Im throwing it out there to get it off my chest.



Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

Stanly, are you sure enuff to call it in as a tip because it sounds like you should?

 

[expatCanada]

:lol:

I think so too, and there is someone who is close that seems to resemble the pixels that have been released. IMO

 

[BIC]

Take a look at the wiki entry for the Westminster Bridge terrorist incident and see they have a certain number killed (6 including the perp) but they did not all die on the day of the incident. Some were put on life support. I'm just getting fed up at people telling me what killed means and what I should think it means, as if some people are more qualified than others to understand definitions. Killed means causing the death of someone by other than natural causes. Died means when life expires.

So let me see if I can manage to understand what you are trying to say here, because for the life of me I can't believe this is even a question.

BBM: Going by the bolded text, what does death mean?

<modsnip>

 

[crhedBngr]

So let me see if I can manage to understand what you are trying to say here, because for the life of me I can't believe this is even a question.

BBM: Going by the bolded text, what does death mean?

<modsnip>

I think killed is a subset of died. Passing by natural causes (dying in one's sleep) also falls under the definition of died.

 

[lizard1131]

So let me see if I can manage to understand what you are trying to say here, because for the life of me I can't believe this is even a question.

BBM: Going by the bolded text, what does death mean?

<modsnip>

I guess I kind of get it...if one of the girls was on life support on 2/14 would we say she was killed on 2/14? I think I would say killed 2/13, died 2/14. OR am I totally misunderstanding the semantics here? I'm still not sure if it makes a difference...

edited---now that I re-read this it makes less sense LOL. I guess mortally wounded 2/13.

 

[rosesfromangels]

Here is my own opinion....i have sat on this some time as i know i will be asked to explain my rationale....but due to the content this might be tricky with the rules in place....anyway. .here are my thoughts:

1) the perp is closer to the girls/family than we think
2) i think this is an isolated case and without breaking rules i cannot discuss possible scenarios as to how i have come to this conclusion. It ties in with number 1 on my list and i would expect police to be telling people to be on their guard etc which ive not seen anything (correct me if im wrong)
3) the perp is not smart. Not really, he just has a good alibi i think and with being close to the girls the dna proves nothing
4) i agree he probably did have a kill kit, gun, knows the trail and bridge area well etc...
5) i think it will be one of those cases where the voice and build fit well but it would be 'too obvious' and unbelievable to be the guy that gets caught
6) i cant go into my rationale too much but he knew the girls would be there beforehand but didnt know he had been filmed.
I also believe that the crime itself will end up being really not that complex but proving the suspect did it will be.
I.e if BGs dna is present as he has been in contact with the girls and someone claims to have been with him at the time of the incident, the video has nothing significant and concrete to prove it was him then surely the police cannot do anything? With nothing to go on.

This is ALL my own opinions and i will try my best to explain anything i can. Im throwing it out there to get it off my chest.



Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk

ICAM. Especially on point #1. He is right under their noses, IMO.

 

[WebSight]

The photo, which you can see above, was posted about 2 p.m. It was taken by Liberty German and shows Abigail Williams walking along the railroad bridge. Liberty posted it to her Snapchat account.

Source for above quote:
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/liber...ssing-snapchat-facebook-photos-family-bridge/

If we have discussed this before, please bear with me, because I am trying to reconcile something in my mind here.

The above quote says that Liberty took this photo and posted it to her account. She did not send it or publish it. I have been researching snapchat and from my reading as I understand it, photos that were taken earlier (but within 24 hours) and stored to snapchat memories file, then sent later are labelled by how many hours ago they were taken, not the time they were taken. Only pictures sent right now have the actual time.

Example: You attend a BBQ and you start taking photos but you don't want to stop and send them right now so you store them in snapchat memories. At the end of the evening you take one last snap, you go and load up all the photos that you took throughout the day. If I am understanding correctly, the only snap that will be time stamped with the actual time is the one you take and send right now. If you send all the photos to create a story, snapchat time stamps the photos with how many minutes or hours ago the photo was taken, to keep it "real" or honest so to speak.

If I am understanding this correctly, that means that the photo was stored in Libby's snapchat memories file on her phone. Because I didn't understand that time stamp I thought that meant that someone received that picture 7 hrs ago and that the elapsed time changed as it was viewed over time.

So, someone "sent" that photo around 9 p.m. It seems logical that LE accessed Libby's snapchat account and "sent" the photos, although I don't know how that would work. But if LE was able to retrieve those photos from the memories folder through Libby's account, what was the need to "send" them? Wouldn't they just load the photos to a computer and print? So, who sent the photos 7 hrs later after they were taken?

Is there someone who is familiar with snapchat that could clarify this for me? Thx!

 

[BIC]

I guess I kind of get it...if one of the girls was on life support on 2/14 would we say she was killed on 2/14? I think I would say killed 2/13, died 2/14. OR am I totally misunderstanding the semantics here? I'm still not sure if it makes a difference...

edited---now that I re-read this it makes less sense LOL. I guess mortally wounded 2/13.

Exactly. It would read: Two girls were killed in a senseless act, one died on 2/13 the other on 2/14.

ETA: It would NEVER say, two girls were killed on 2/13 in a senseless act. one died on 2/13 the other on 2/14.

 

[TheOtherChristina]

For anyone who might be bogged down in the concept of killed vs died vs fatally injured, think of it this way:

Person A and person B are attacked on X date. Person A dies the same day. Person B does not die until Z date. XYZ are sequential days.

On Y date, person A is dead and person B is alive. You can say that person A was killed yesterday, but you definitely cannot say that person B was killed yesterday, because they are still alive as of date Y.

Once person B has died on date Z, you still wouldn't say they were killed two days ago. I think there is a logic flaw occussing at this point. Person B was NOT killed on date Z, but it's also incorrect to say they were killed on date X. Person B was killed but not on either of those days. They were fatally injured on date X and succumbed to their injuries on date Z.

I think I finally fully understand why legal documents say "on or about" when citing dates!

 

[tlcya]

:sigh:

usually treated as singular The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
Example sentences
1.1 The meaning of a word, phrase, or text.
&#8216;such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff&#8217;

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/semantics

BBM for emphasis!

 

[ImnoSherlock]

:deadhorse:

 

[ab01]

In cases when there is an autopsy the death certificate is filed by the coroner electronically and the funeral director cannot process the body until that's done. I don't think they can even transport the body unless the signed death certificate has been filed. Indiana started using electronic signing and filing death certificates in 2011 and as recently as 2015 there was a public outcry due to a major backlog where people were having to wait several weeks to get their loved ones bodies transferred to the funeral homes. As for getting a notarized copy I think that can take several days or weeks. Also the autopsy must have the cause, manner and time of death and that must be provided to the family before any information, like identity, can be released to the media. Considering these laws and requirements I think it is highly likely the funeral director and family had the time of death provided by the coroner. That's not to say the date used in the obituary is a fact or why they used the 14th. Just saying what the law requires.

BBM
Wow I have never heard of families having to wait several weeks to have their loved ones released to the funeral home following an autopsy. I have family that are funeral directors/county corners and i'll check with them. But I haven't personally heard of this being very common at all....

 

[Yvettea]

Take a look at the wiki entry for the Westminster Bridge terrorist incident and see they have a certain number killed (6 including the perp) but they did not all die on the day of the incident. Some were put on life support. I'm just getting fed up at people telling me what killed means and what I should think it means, as if some people are more qualified than others to understand definitions. Killed means causing the death of someone by other than natural causes. Died means when life expires.

Yours is an interesting point. However, if a legal document says someone was killed on Feb. 13, 2017, (and killed means to cause the death) the inference is the death occurred the same day. At least that's how I see it.

 

[crhedBngr]

Source for above quote:
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/liber...ssing-snapchat-facebook-photos-family-bridge/

If we have discussed this before, please bear with me, because I am trying to reconcile something in my mind here.

The above quote says that Liberty took this photo and posted it to her account, it does not say she sent it. I have been researching snapchat and from my reading as I understand it, photos that were taken earlier (but within 24 hours) and stored to snapchat memories file, then sent later are labelled by how many hours ago they were taken, not the time they were taken. Only pictures sent right now have the actual time.

Example: You attend a BBQ and you start taking photos but you don't want to stop and send them right now so you store them in snapchat memories. At the end of the evening you take one last snap, you go and load up all the photos that you took throughout the day. If I am understanding correctly, the only snap that will be time stamped with the actual time is the one you take and send right now. If you send all the photos to create a story, snapchat time stamps the photos with how many minutes or hours ago the photo was taken, to keep it "real" or honest so to speak.

If I am understanding this correctly, that means that the photo was stored in Libby's snapchat memories file on her phone. Because I didn't understand that time stamp I thought that meant that someone received that picture 7 hrs ago and that the elapsed time changed as it was viewed over time.

It seems logical that LE accessed Libby's snapchat account and "sent" the photos, although I don't know how that would work. But if LE was able to retrieve those photos from the memories folder through Libby's account, what was the need to "send" them? Wouldn't they just load the photos to a computer and print? So, who sent the photos 7 hrs later?

Is there someone who is familiar with snapchat that could clarify this for me? Thx!

I'm not familiar with SnapChat, but your question piqued my curiosity. I double-checked my Samsung Galaxy s3 photos. These photos have both the complete date (20170311, which is March 11, 2017) and the time the photo was taken in military time (1322 would be 1:22 p.m.).

I'm thinking SnapChat would reference the photo date and time in a similar fashion.

 

[her]

Take a look at the wiki entry for the Westminster Bridge terrorist incident and see they have a certain number killed (6 including the perp) but they did not all die on the day of the incident. Some were put on life support. I'm just getting fed up at people telling me what killed means and what I should think it means, as if some people are more qualified than others to understand definitions. Killed means causing the death of someone by other than natural causes. Died means when life expires.

There is nothing wrong with your theory, it's yours and that's good enough. I may not believe it till I see facts that indicate it but, nobody should feel piled on for their beliefs.

 

[Owl4]

I pray soon that today could be the day he is caught. Often wondered once he seen he was videoed and his voice was caught on audio if he killed himself? So many unanswered questions. When my brother was murdered in 2009 LE did not share everything they found. I found a lot of my questions answered 4 months later at the trial of the who killed him. Especially when the Pathologist who did his autopsy and showed the horrendous pictures that he was stabbed 63 times. When my family and I were under the impression it was only twice. I understand LE cannot let all the cats outta the bag but I feel if they do have more audio share it. The family I'm sure doesn't know all the facts either. This whole case is beyond heartwrenching. Those poor girls and families deserve justice. They deserved it from day one. I will keep my faith in LE. I can't imagine what they have seen and how hard they are working on this case. Love reading everyone's great sleuthing. Some of you should be in law enforcement!
Quick question.. I'm using Tapatalk from my cellphone. If you accidently touch a comment and it turns blue what does that mean? Then you retouch it and its back to white. I'm clueless. Haha.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using Tapatalk

 

[Gisjoe]

Source for above quote:
http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/liber...ssing-snapchat-facebook-photos-family-bridge/

If we have discussed this before, please bear with me, because I am trying to reconcile something in my mind here.

The above quote says that Liberty took this photo and posted it to her account, it does not say she sent it. I have been researching snapchat and from my reading as I understand it, photos that were taken earlier (but within 24 hours) and stored to snapchat memories file, then sent later are labelled by how many hours ago they were taken, not the time they were taken. Only pictures sent right now have the actual time.

Example: You attend a BBQ and you start taking photos but you don't want to stop and send them right now so you store them in snapchat memories. At the end of the evening you take one last snap, you go and load up all the photos that you took throughout the day. If I am understanding correctly, the only snap that will be time stamped with the actual time is the one you take and send right now. If you send all the photos to create a story, snapchat time stamps the photos with how many minutes or hours ago the photo was taken, to keep it "real" or honest so to speak.

If I am understanding this correctly, that means that the photo was stored in Libby's snapchat memories file on her phone. Because I didn't understand that time stamp I thought that meant that someone received that picture 7 hrs ago and that the elapsed time changed as it was viewed over time.

So, someone "sent" that photo around 9 p.m. It seems logical that LE accessed Libby's snapchat account and "sent" the photos, although I don't know how that would work. But if LE was able to retrieve those photos from the memories folder through Libby's account, what was the need to "send" them? Wouldn't they just load the photos to a computer and print? So, who sent the photos 7 hrs later after they were taken?

Is there someone who is familiar with snapchat that could clarify this for me? Thx!

When Libby took the photo of Abby on the bridge she posted it to her story right after she took the photo. Here is an example of a snapchat that I added to my story this morning. The photo says posted 6 hours ago

The second photo is a photo that I took yesterday and saved to my camera roll. I uploaded it to my snapchat story just now to show you this. It shows the time stamp of when I took the photo. So that people who are watching the story know it's not a photo from "now".
So my guess is that the time stamp on her snapchat photo is a screenshot from her snap story. And the "7 hours ago" is from the time they took a screen shot of it from her story. If anyone else has any questions about snapchat feel free to tag me. I've been using snapchat for a long time now. Hope this helps!

ETA: I'm not Nancy Grace!! That just and edited snap name that my friends see. Sorry for any confusion!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk