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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
whiskers said:
I don't feel LE are 'keeping their cards close' and 'building a case' right now. More power to them if they are...however, I don't think/feel they have too much to build on.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. That the public has confidence and places trust in the role of LE is important to police forces everywhere. There job is to catch lying criminals but the public does not expect to get lied to by LE. Trustworthiness is especially important in asking for tips in this case and any case.

Once somebody is charged, evidence will be heard and if LE has been needlessly pleading for tips and raising public concern for the past three months, making it appear they are not close to solving the case, all the while having their eye on a suspect for ages as evidence is accumlating, in my opinion that goes against their integrity.

That why I believe everything they say is truthful and why they ask for "somebody who knows this person" to call it in.

I've never heard of a case where LE would intentionally create fear and unease in the public for no good reason.
 
Jethro4WS said:
The other fire company that was called out the night of the 13th to search is known to have an infrared camera/viewer. It is used to find fire within walls/floor joists, etc. It is not known, however, if they used it when searching.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. I've been wondering if infrared cameras were used during the search the 1st night. I know they said they didn't suspect foul play right away. Regardless, why wouldn't they use it if they had it?!
 
MistyWaters said:
I agree with you. That the public has confidence and places trust in the role of LE is important to police forces everywhere. There job is to catch lying criminals but the public does not expect to get lied to by LE. Trustworthiness is especially important in asking for tips in this case and any case.

Once somebody is charged, evidence will be heard and if LE has been needlessly pleading for tips and raising public concern for the past three months, making it appear they are not close to solving the case, all the while having their eye on a suspect for ages as evidence is accumlating, in my opinion that goes against their integrity.

That why I believe everything they say is truthful and why they ask for "somebody who knows this person" to call it in.

I've never heard of a case where LE would intentionally create fear and unease in the public for no good reason.
Click to expand...

I'm not commenting on this case in particular, but as you know, prosecutors have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove each element of a crime according to the law of the state. There could be a situation where LE believes they have the person responsible for the crime, but the prosecutor just doesn't think they have enough evidence to prove it. Or the prosecutor only thinks the evidence they currently have would support a lesser homicide charge. Maybe two different DNA samples were found at the crime scene and LE wants to identify both to either make sure everyone responsible is brought to justice, or to be able to answer when the defense bases its case around the "killer still out there." NOT saying that is the case here, it is just an example that popped into my head.

If LE is asking for tips, I think it's safe to say they're either still looking for the person(s) responsible for the crime, or they are looking for genuine evidence of the crime to help their case. I don't think they would make manipulative statements, as you mentioned, it would really shake public faith in the agency.
 
Alethea said:
I'm not commenting on this case in particular, but as you know, prosecutors have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove each element of a crime according to the law of the state. There could be a situation where LE believes they have the person responsible for the crime, but the prosecutor just doesn't think they have enough evidence to prove it. Or the prosecutor only thinks the evidence they currently have would support a lesser homicide charge. Maybe two different DNA samples were found at the crime scene and LE wants to identify both to either make sure everyone responsible is brought to justice, or to be able to answer when the defense bases its case around the "killer still out there." NOT saying that is the case here, it is just an example that popped into my head.

If LE is asking for tips, I think it's safe to say they're either still looking for the person(s) responsible for the crime, or they are looking for genuine evidence of the crime to help their case. I don't think they would make manipulative statements, as you mentioned, it would really shake public faith in the agency.
Click to expand...

Good post - thanks!
 
Jo in Calif said:
Could someone give me a really, really good reason why RL could not possibly be involved in the murders?
Click to expand...
Firstly he is "involved" because the crime occurred on his property.This question should be asked in reverse.You need to give a really really good reason why he would be responsible.Show me the proof that he did anything other than violate his DUI probation.RL doesn't need to prove his innocence.He's lived on that property for 53 years without any history of attacking girls.Idle speculation based on a SW doesn't lead anywhere.There are 500 POI in this case
 
Two things bother me about RL:

1. He seemed so very willing to give interviews to MSM. I don't know if they contacted him (I'm assuming that they did), and that may not matter. I DO know if someone had been found murdered on my property, I'd be too shocked and stunned to talk to reporters. Couldn't giving interviews possibly jeopardize the investigation? IDK - just thinking about all this.

2. RL described the crime scene as "pristine". How did he know that? The crime scene may have looked pristine, but once LE had it taped off, how could anyone know this for certain, other than those gathering evidence? Granted, there seemed to be a lot of leaves and twigs on the ground, but still . . .

The above comments are MVHO only.

Thoughts?

ETA: I'm watching X-Files episodes; maybe my brain is overloaded with questionable possibilities :thinking:
 
Alethea said:
I'm not commenting on this case in particular, but as you know, prosecutors have to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove each element of a crime according to the law of the state. There could be a situation where LE believes they have the person responsible for the crime, but the prosecutor just doesn't think they have enough evidence to prove it. Or the prosecutor only thinks the evidence they currently have would support a lesser homicide charge. Maybe two different DNA samples were found at the crime scene and LE wants to identify both to either make sure everyone responsible is brought to justice, or to be able to answer when the defense bases its case around the "killer still out there." NOT saying that is the case here, it is just an example that popped into my head.

If LE is asking for tips, I think it's safe to say they're either still looking for the person(s) responsible for the crime, or they are looking for genuine evidence of the crime to help their case. I don't think they would make manipulative statements, as you mentioned, it would really shake public faith in the agency.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I agree with everything you say. While no police force is perfect, in my opinion we're needlessly harming their reputation if we must assume they're untruthful only in order to justify personal opinion. Yes they might not have evidence, which means they cannot know if they have a suspect in sight or not. Earlier I linked a LE quote that mentioned the ups and downs investigators face throughout the course of the investigation.

Just another thought but when SM jumped on the accusation bandwagon early on, LE was under absolutely no obligation to defend him so adamantly if they had the slightest notion that he might become a suspect in the murders. The only logical reason I can think of regarding why they declared he wasn't a suspect, not once but numerous times, was so the public wouldn't be wrongly influenced. MOO
 
efhds said:
Firstly he is "involved" because the crime occurred on his property.This question should be asked in reverse.You need to give a really really good reason why he would be responsible.Show me the proof that he did anything other than violate his DUI probation.RL doesn't need to prove his innocence.He's lived on that property for 53 years without any history of attacking girls.Idle speculation based on a SW doesn't lead anywhere.There are 500 POI in this case
Click to expand...

I tend to agree based on the little info we have thus far. However, it is plausible that he has peripheral involvement through an association. Or, somone could have had an axe to grind in general, and this would have been one heck of a payback to implicate him to leave the bodies on his property.

But yeah, i dont see him as particularly noteworthy.
Been wrong before, time will tell.
 
MistyWaters said:
This quote is from April 25th.

BBM

"Investigators have received more than 16,000 tips and interviewed 500 different people in connection with the murders.

The numbers are daunting for someone on the outside looking in, but confidence inside the Delphi investigation team remains unfettered.

"Today is the day we're going to get closer to the end," said Indiana State Police First Sergeant Jerry Holeman. "Today is the day we're going to get closer to justice for Abby and Libby."

Sergeant Holeman is the lead investigator in the case.

He leads a team of hundreds, but even with so many people and resources at their disposal, going through the thousands of tips hasn't been easy.

Like many on his team, he's spent sleepless nights and hundreds of hours poring through evidence that might put them closer to finding the girls' killer.

Holeman says they've chased dozens of leads - but so far they haven't received that one tip they need to solve the case.

"It's a roller coaster ride," said Sgt. Holeman. "You're up - you think you've got something good, and for some reason it's eliminated or whatever. That's tough on anybody."

http://www.theindychannel.com/longform/delphi-the-investigation
Click to expand...

This is the one, the last sentence.
 
crhedBngr said:
Two things bother me about RL:

1. He seemed so very willing to give interviews to MSM. I don't know if they contacted him (I'm assuming that they did), and that may not matter. I DO know if someone had been found murdered on my property, I'd be too shocked and stunned to talk to reporters.

2. RL described the crime scene as "pristine". How did he know that? The crime scene may have look pristine, but once LE had it taped off, how could anyone know this for certain, other than those gathering evidence? Granted, there seemed to be a lot of leaves and twigs on the ground, but still . . .

The above comments are MVHO only.

Thoughts?

ETA: I'm watching X-Files episodes; maybe my brain is overloaded with questionable possibilities :thinking:
Click to expand...


Those are good questions and I can see how people would have them or find them perplexing. I'll try to answer from my perspective.

1.) I don't think I'd talk to the media, but I can guarantee you if this happened where my father lives he'd be out there talking to anyone. Maybe even cooking breakfast for the reporters and inviting them in for coffee. My dad is midwestern and loves nothing more than talking. The roles are reversed and I now remind him not to open the door for strangers. He'd love it if some reporter knocked on his door. Unfortunately.

2.) Pristine. I think maybe he walked down to where it was taped off and had a look. He didn't see anything super gruesome so he thought it looked somewhat normal. The leaves still looked matted to the ground like 'normal' so perhaps he thought it looked fine and not like a horrible crime scene.

Just my thoughts! I think they are good questions.
 
crhedBngr said:
Two things bother me about RL:

1. He seemed so very willing to give interviews to MSM. I don't know if they contacted him (I'm assuming that they did), and that may not matter. I DO know if someone had been found murdered on my property, I'd be too shocked and stunned to talk to reporters. Couldn't giving interviews possibly jeopardize the investigation? IDK - just thinking about all this.

2. RL described the crime scene as "pristine". How did he know that? The crime scene may have looked pristine, but once LE had it taped off, how could anyone know this for certain, other than those gathering evidence? Granted, there seemed to be a lot of leaves and twigs on the ground, but still . . .

The above comments are MVHO only.

Thoughts?

ETA: I'm watching X-Files episodes; maybe my brain is overloaded with questionable possibilities :thinking:
Click to expand...

1. It could be said RL thought he was doing the right thing by allowing the media access to his private property in order to assist in elevating the case in the public eye, in turn helping to solve it. As the landowner, if he'd refused them permission to enter his land, slammed his door shut or gave the media a stern "no comment", that type of uncooperative behaviour would be far more questionable, in my opinion.

2. IIRC, during that interview he commented he went to that area after the crime tape was removed.
 
Burnt Toast said:
yes, LE have cleared people in high profile cases, especially when SM was rampant with rumor or speculation. If you go into Bemused post history she provided links to some cases where they have done this.
Click to expand...

Remind me who/what SM is?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Getting ready to shut down the thread for the night in a few minutes.
 
Thread will open in the morning.

G'night,
Tricia
 
Based on the discussions last night about searches of barns, is it possible the girls could have been taken elsewhere (e.g. a barn) and then taken back to the final location where they were found? Also, why were two searches done (March 10th and 17th) ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 241 more.
Total: 562 (members: 242, guests: 320)

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
320
Total visitors
562
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
607,970
Messages
18,232,231
Members
234,260
Latest member
ghosts in my closet
Back
Top