IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #57

[SomeoneElse333]

Maybe because it is possibly a just very quick video clip, like microseconds? Maybe that's all they have that shows him, the part they released as stills? And that itself they had to enlarge, enhance, etc? It might be all they have on the bridge visually, especially if Abby was trying to be discreet while recording.

I don't know, this question just stumped me...

I have wondered if it's because it perhaps shows one or both of the girls before things got horrible.

When I watch a documentary about a crime and see victims moments before they died, it jars me. Perhaps by not releasing more of the video, law enforcement is sparing the public or the families that same sense.

Just a thought.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I don't believe he is BG so unless there was more than one person involved that rules him out for me. When I look at that photo I do not see a 77 year old man. Then I add in the fact RL has a huge middle and that also can't be seen on BG , he is chubby but that's down to a jumper and a jacket and finally RL is a lot taller.

And I take LE at their word and not considered a suspect means he is not a suspect.


I know you was replying to somebody else but this is what I think!

Right I'm going to bite. I don't think RL is BG but I also don't rule out the possibility of his involvement e.g. his barn, his vehicle, for example, without his knowledge. Or he is intimidated/threatened by the perp perhaps, if he knows anything, for example.

 

[BoggLed in Ohio]

Another question for thought (Great answers for my first one, everyone): Do you believe LE has a better idea of what BG looks like than the public does, assuming they have more footage of him than we do? If so, an official police sketch would seem appropriate in this situation.

No I do not think LE has any better idea at all or we would have had a sketch by now. I do recall them saying (possibly the same interviewee I'm referring to my post them above ) from a radio interview State something like " you should have seen the video to begin with before we cleaned it up"

 

[Yvettea]

Another question for thought (Great answers for my first one, everyone): Do you believe LE has a better idea of what BG looks like than the public does, assuming they have more footage of him than we do? If so, an official police sketch would seem appropriate in this situation.

Since each still seems to differ I would think they have other ideas of what BG looks like. Better is subjective.

 

[margarita25]

Another question for thought (Great answers for my first one, everyone): Do you believe LE has a better idea of what BG looks like than the public does, assuming they have more footage of him than we do? If so, an official police sketch would seem appropriate in this situation.

I don't think they have more footage of him, otherwise imo they would attempt to release a better, clearer stillshot in hopes of identifying him, I would think...they could remove any images of the girls, weapon, etc...

I have wondered about a sketch as well. This is usually the first thing they do if they have the means for an attempt at artistic re-creation (eyewitness, etc.)...

Which brings to mind a question I posted in the image thread, let me find it and post it here as it relates to why a sketch has not been released:

Eta:

There is a software LE uses which helps create suspect sketches; I saw it mentioned on Forensic Files (same episode I mentioned upstream).

Can we maybe try to determine facial feature distances and work up a sketch or 3D Model like Forensic Anthropologists do using pegs?

I see Michael responded to this:

There is a really powerful, open-source and free, piece of software that might fit the bill called MakeHuman
http://www.makehuman.org/

rsbm

So, I would think with all the technology available today they could attempt a sketch, but perhaps they don't want to mislead anyone in case the sketch is off, so maybe they think they can not make a reliable sketch based on the limited images they have. Idk....

 

[whiskers]

Does LE actually ever come out and say: NO! They are absolutely not a suspect.

It seems to me they don't always tie up loose ends. If BG is found, I could still see people wondering about RL because LE hasn't formally made some sort of announcement.

 

[mtnlites]

Let's get back to discussing about how the reporter asked Sheriff Leazenby if he felt like he was looking for a "phantom" and he said he could see how some people could think that. What do you think that means? I think it could be a copycat SK they are trying to catch and he does seem to be somewhat of a phantom. However there is no perfect crime or criminal and I think LE may surprise us this week with an arrest.

I take that reply as being that he can understand how some people think the case is unsolvable and that BG is unidentifiable and will never be found. But I also take it to mean that he knows better and remains optimistic because he knows more.

 

[Deleted member 196796]

There might be more images of him walking along the bridge or trail but they're even more useless than these. The stills we've been shown are the best quality. If there are others of equal or better quality they show him with the girls or in action harming the girls. I'm sorry. I don't know how to say it delicately.

Why couldn't LE just go ahead and release 3-5 seconds or more of the original video as to give us some insight to BG's gait and body language (pace)? I mean you don't get better quality with a captured still since it can only be as good as the original source, the video.

 

[Shiressleuth]

BBM

I was under the impression if we give a theory it needs to be based on facts or as below, something to back it up.

From Page 1.

"...Same thing with any random person you happen to bring up. These people do not deserve to have their lives spread out and accusations made against them based on a theory with nothing to back it up."

If it is based on fact surely it is not a theory or opinion but is a fact. I think the girls were on the bridge that day is a fact not a theory. What you quoted was regarding random people - we are giving an opinion on BG and RL who are not random people so we are allowed to theorise, I think anyway, but I'm not a mod. So MOO.

 

[asyousay]

Right I'm going to bite. I don't think RL is BG but I also don't rule out the possibility of his involvement e.g. his barn, his vehicle, for example, without his knowledge. Or he is intimidated/threatened by the perp perhaps, if he knows anything, for example.

Was his barn used ?


I know his truck was checked but didn't know he had a barn or that it had been used in the crime.

 

[St. Anthony2017]

I take that reply as being that he can understand how some people think the case is unsolvable and that BG is unidentifiable and will never be found. But I also take it to mean that he knows better and remains optimistic because he knows more.

Yes and the reporter may know some facts and media seems to have agreed not to comment at this time or to ask pointed questions to give investigation more time to develop. I think this is admirable because they know when LE is ready they will get the scoop. Sources are everything to Reporters and they don't want to lose the trust of LE especially.

 

[*Verdigris]

I think what has some confused is what it says further down the page; and it is real odd considering they had already said it was a crime scene/foul play..."Right now it is considered a 'death investigation' and is not classified as a homicide"


That is just in there, not sure if it is a direct quote from LE or if it is the reporter's opinion.

BBM

...

The Daily Mail regulary updates articles/titles within just the first few lines, and rarely (if ever) update the rest of it. Often, they'll update a missing person article on being found, then as you contInue to read it'll say that a new search is planned for the weekend, or something...
they often will add to the same article numerous times, so it gets really convoluted. Perhaps might be the same with this article.

 

[Burnt Toast]

BBM

I was under the impression if we give a theory it needs to be based on facts or as below, something to back it up.

From Page 1.

"...Same thing with any random person you happen to bring up. These people do not deserve to have their lives spread out and accusations made against them based on a theory with nothing to back it up."

this is from the first page. this is why we have been given the ok to sleuth RL. i must say i agree with her totally about "common sense"

Let me try and clear this up for you.


Always remember hardly anything on Websleuths is Black and White. Websleuths has lots of gray areas.


Rarely do police ever say someone is a suspect unless it is obvious like Bridge Guy.


What we have to do in certain cases is use our common sense.


Why did the police get a search warrant for RL the land owner where Abby and Libby's bodies were found?


Why did the police violate his parole? If someone could find a link verifying this. I will retract if I am incorrect.


Why was RL given over three years in prison for driving convictions?

Didn't the police say he was not cooperating? You have to wonder if there is a deal to be made with RL if he cooperates.


Is there anyone else the police are looking into that has anything close to the connection to the case like RL other than BG?


To get a search warrant for his house police needed probable cause.


As the owner of Websleuths, it is up to me to make these decisions about who can be discussed and who can't. I do so by following the Websleuths guidelines along with discussing among the mods and using common sense.


Here is another good example. The murder of Dr. Teresa Sievers.


Her husband Mark wasn't ever pointed out as a suspect until shortly before he was arrested. However, his behavior made it obvious he was hiding something. This is why early on Websleuths allowed Mark Sievers to be discussed as a suspect. Same with his friend Wayne.


We take each case on its merits.


In this case, because the police had probable cause for a search warrant members can sleuth RL ONLY. Not his family, not his friends. Also, we have stated over and over no one is saying he is guilty. If someone calls him a murderer please alert and we will remove.


So when a member feels like a guy that used to date Abby or Libby's mom kind of looks like BG and wants to sleuth him we say absolutely not.


RL owned the land the bodies were found on. We did not allow sleuthing him at this point at all. It was only when the police served the search warrant did we allow members to sleuth.


Police have said he is not a suspect. They said this before, during, and after the search warrant of RL's home.


You have to use common sense and go by what police have done in the past to make these decisions.


One more thing, we only allow the initials of RL. Why? So when someone Googles his name Websleuths won't come up.


However, you go to all the other sites on the Internet, and they are tearing RL apart, using his real name and sleuthing God knows what about his past.


At Websleuths we do our best to balance between letting you discuss and being sensitive to people's situations.


You will not find any other forum on the Internet that works harder than we do to be as fair as possible.


Remember, if it too much for you and you feel it's wrong no one is forcing you to stay.


Thank you,
Tricia

 

[margarita25]

Does LE actually ever come out and say: NO! They are absolutely not a suspect.

It seems to me they don't always tie up loose ends. If BG is found, I could still see people wondering about RL because LE hasn't formally made some sort of announcement.

Yes, I have heard them say in other cases that so and so has been officially cleared. For instance, MJK as a suspect in L and L's murders (which BTW I'm still suspicious of him, but if LE says they cleared him I guess they cleared him...).

 

[Bird of Paradise]

this is from the first page. this is why we have been given the ok to sleuth RL. i must say i agree with her totally about "common sense"

My original comment had nothing to do with RL.

 

[Area52]

Let's get back to discussing about how the reporter asked Sheriff Leazenby if he felt like he was looking for a "phantom" and he said he could see how some people could think that. What do you think that means? I think it could be a copycat SK they are trying to catch and he does seem to be somewhat of a phantom. However there is no perfect crime or criminal and I think LE may surprise us this week with an arrest.

May your statement go from your lips to God's ears. We can only hope and pray for this monster to be caught!

 

[margarita25]

I think because he pulls out his gun and possibly has Abbey in a headlock. Just my opinion I hate writing this. There is a reason they are not releasing the recording I think it's because it is too distressing.

Thinking out loud and jumping off your post gregjrichards, I wonder if they could release more audio of just single words, ones that do not contain graphic references, like say, "the" or something....I know that sounds goofy...actually, they have already said this is the best of the audio they have to release, or something to that effect. I'm not so sure the whole thing was recorded, moo. Not saying it wasnt, but if so, couldn't they snip something additionally to "down the hill"? Idk...

 

[margarita25]

Please do not take this as fact but I swear I remember hearing one of the persons interviewed on the radio show that was part of law enforcement say something about several minutes of video (the number 6 minutes) is sticking out in my head but I could have totally misheard or be wrong. does anyone else recall hearing what I'm talking about?

Iirc, they said in the PC they did have additional recording which they were not going to release. Now whether or not this is true...

They likely do have more, and yes it is likely too distressing. The content must be terrible after "down the hill" if they can't even snip a few more words?

 

[Bird of Paradise]

Thinking out loud and jumping off your post gregjrichards, I wonder if they could release more audio of just single words, ones that do not contain graphic references, like say, "the" or something....I know that sounds goofy...actually, they have already said this is the best of the audio they have to release, or something to that effect. I'm not so sure the whole thing was recorded, moo. Not saying it wasnt, but if so, couldn't they snip something additionally to "down the hill"? Idk...

Indiana State Police Capt. David Bursten said investigators possess more footage from German's phone, but it will not be released due to the ongoing investigation of her death alongside 13-year-old Abby Williams.

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...lip-released-delphi-double-homicide/98241826/

 

[Ghosthunter]

OK I'm confused and yes I'm the village idiot...here goes..if you're not a suspect why would you need to be cleared? Cleared of suspicion that doesn't exist? Anyone picking up what I'm laying down? If you're not a suspect you are under no suspicion so how can you be cleared of suspicion that doesnt exist? Just curious...