IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #60

[Shiressleuth]

LE doesn't have enough evidence that points to it being a SK. They can't know if it's a SK or not until they arrest the killer. LE says things such as this all the time. If you look at pretty much every thread here at the beginning of a missing person's case, LE usually says, "There is no evidence of foul play at this time". (Of course, we all know this not to be true). Evidence. They need evidence.

You (collectively) have to understand LE speak in order to actually 'get' what they are saying. As I said plenty of times, on this thread and elsewhere, they cannot rule out a SK until they know who the killer is.

It's obvious that they don't know who the killer is since the last time we heard from them, they were once again begging the public for tips in identifying BG. (again, who is not RL)

LE doesn't ask for tips on a perpetrator unless they actually need them.

MOO

So if they have no evidence, how do LE know it is a homicide?
If they have no DNA, does that mean no SA?

 

[MistyWaters]

Sorry u don't sleep when two young girls are missing

I'm sure family members didn't.

But without good reason, organizing an overnight search by volunteers in the dark in a rugged area without permitting them to sleep jeopardizes their personal safety as well.

I've noticed nothing to indicate blame whatsoever should be directed to how events unfolded, especially because the families continue to be strongly supportive of LEs continuing efforts to solve the case.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I'm sure family members didn't.

But without good reason, organizing an overnight search by volunteers in the dark in a rugged area without permitting them to sleep jeopardizes their personal safety as well.

I've noticed nothing to indicate blame whatsoever should be directed to how events unfolded, especially because the families continue to be strongly supportive of LEs continuing efforts to solve the case.

These searchers were not just volunteers but experienced fire personnel and LE. It was coordinated by LE till midnight and continued after midnight unofficially I understand.

 

[Eileen730]

I'm sure family members didn't.

But without good reason, organizing an overnight search by volunteers in the dark in a rugged area without permitting them to sleep jeopardizes their personal safety as well.

I've noticed nothing to indicate blame whatsoever should be directed to how events unfolded, especially because the families continue to be strongly supportive of LEs continuing efforts to solve the case.

Imo
There was a reason LE called off the search.
I do not think they called it off because of darkness. I think they were led to believe they were probably safe.
Moo

 

[MistyWaters]

NP! FYI I love the grandfather. He's 100% class.

The above is just my opinion.

Yes, thank you, I agree. That family members continue to speak to the media keeps the case in the spotlight and that's a very good thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Shiressleuth]

I see nothing whatsoever that raises red flags in the grandfathers interview with the media. The grandfather spoke to the media and attempted to describe various possibilities to explain the girls disappearance but that did not make him a spokesperson. For one thing, Libby didn't live with him.

Secondly it appears LE had absolutely no evidence that first evening to indicate foul play. Searches are simply not very effective in the darkness and people need their sleep to function. That they got a few hours sleep so they can be prepared to begin again the next morning is how things work in smaller centres with limited resources.

Further to that, in my world people and especially teenagers are not always 100% responsible all the time and are not where they're supposed to be. What he describes is very commonly the thoughts of the family to rationalize an unexplainable absence. "Maybe, maybe, maybe this or that......". But unless there is evidence of foul play, it would be downright wierd for family members to presume the girls were victims of homicide. This is the very same reason that families of missing children still maintain hope for years and even decades that the missing loved one will be found alive. MOO

Two young girls go missing - their phones ping for a couple of hours but they cannot be found. If they have never done this before and there has been no argument or reason to explain it - does that alone not indicate foul play? Is it because of the age? If they were younger would it have made a difference whether the search continued?

 

[MistyWaters]

Imo
There was a reason LE called off the search.
I do not think they called it off because of darkness. I think they were led to believe they were probably safe.
Moo

LE routinely releases the statement that "no foul play is expected" when they have no evidence of foul play at hand however it certainly does not rule out an accident, nor suggest they had information that the girls were safe.

By the following morning, an organized search took place, the command post at the fire station. That to me indicates LE took the disappearance very seriously. There is also a YouTube video of an early LE interview mentioning the entire search area was 20 to 25 miles in distance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jax49]

Upstream from the bridge means upstream from the north section of the bridge that goes over the creek. However, they were downstream from the south end of the bridge. I.e. from the south end of the bridge "down the hill" to the CS was actually in a downstream direction I believe.

They had the SC pictures so they would have searched from the South end to Abbeys house maybe knocking on doors (as they did with RL) and the other way to the creek along both banks and also along the bridge on the land underneath its length all the way along IMO, as well as checking all friends and relatives. That search on the 13th involved scores of people.

RBBM.

No. Upstream is upstream on both sides of the creek.

The definition of upstream is against the current

ETA: Or am I misunderstanding your point?

 

[MistyWaters]

Two young girls go missing - their phones ping for a couple of hours but they cannot be found. If they have never done this before and there has been no argument or reason to explain it - does that alone not indicate foul play? Is it because of the age? If they were younger would it have made a difference whether the search continued?

Cellphones are not an automatic indicator of foul play because of irregular battery power.

"If they have never done this before and there has been no argument or reason to explain it - does that alone not indicate foul play?"

The flip side - is every teen who is generally responsible, no recent arguments, or other obvious reason to explain where they have disappeared to, is that automatically indicative they are a victim of foul play?

As a parent my answer is - most definitely not.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Crwhitlock]

So if they have no evidence, how do LE know it is a homicide?
If they have no DNA, does that mean no SA?

Determining it was a homocide had nothing to do with DNA and was likely abundantly clear at first sight. The girls didn't die of a natural cause. strangulation or stabbing are very easy deaths to identify as homocide.

If somehow they didn't find DNA on the bodies that doesn't mean it wasn't a SA, only that the killer knew what he was doing and how best to avoid leaving DNA.

 

[St. Anthony2017]

Organized crime often operate under the veil of secrecy and by a structure somewhat similar to layers of a pyramid scheme. Those af the bottom often have no idea who are the leaders sitting at the top. Part of the reason is because the activities of the enterprise are obviously illegal, therefore the trust level is low. Just an example, somebody selling drugs on the street would likely not know the origin of the drugs that they are selling.

Creating the complexity, the leader/s who issue the orders are generally not be the person/s committing the crime. That person is without motive, other than fear of their own life if they don't follow through.

Why would they not kill the person who betrayed them rather than their kids?

 

[crhedBngr]

BBM

I'm not a screamer either, and haven't been since I was a toddler. When I was 13, I woke up about 5 am to find a drunken stranger sitting on my bed; I sat there and talked to him for an hour before I was able to get past him and go to wake my mother (we lived in a duplex at the time and he was there to kill his ex-wife who lived upstairs), I also went through rapes at 14, 16 and 18, and didn't scream during any of them either in spite of the bruises, etc. I ended up with. I've been really lucky that none of them had planned to kill me because I was about Abby's size and wasn't much of a fighter. I think they may have been like me and thought they should save their energy for trying to get away since there wasn't likely to be anyone within hearing distance of them anyway.

MOO

I'm so very, very sorry you went through all of that.

{{{HUGS}}}

 

[Shiressleuth]

Cellphones are not an automatic indicator of foul play because of irregular battery power.

"If they have never done this before and there has been no argument or reason to explain it - does that alone not indicate foul play?"

The flip side - is every teen who is generally responsible, no recent arguments, or other obvious reason to explain where they have disappeared to, is that automatically indicative they are a victim of foul play?

As a parent my answer is - most definitely not.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

i disagree. If my 13/14 year old daughter had gone missing with a friend in daylight mid afternoon we would definitely have known something was amiss. Because it would be out of character. And my daughter was an active outdoor teenager with a reasonable amount of freedom within normal boundaries ( I.e drop off and pick up times.) I definitely would suspect foul play or accident for sure, a parent knows right?

 

[Eileen730]

i disagree. If my 13/14 year old daughter had gone missing with a friend in daylight mid afternoon we would definitely have known something was amiss. Because it would be out of character. And my daughter was an active outdoor teenager with a reasonable amount of freedom within normal boundaries ( I.e drop off and pick up times. I definitely would suspect foul play or accident for sure, a parent knows right?

I agreed 100 percent.

 

[Ember123]

Where the heck did they think the girls were? Had they ever gone off before? I'm afraid I just cannot follow this thinking at all. MOO.

In fractured/blended families there are a lot if limbs in the family tree and often some animosity between even the most-well-meaning non-biological duos so ... one of the girls could have threatened in past to flee to another family members house? Maybe there had been recent arguments?? Teens can be u predictable for sure...

 

[MistyWaters]

These searchers were not just volunteers but experienced fire personnel and LE. It was coordinated by LE till midnight and continued after midnight unofficially I understand.

I think only in hindsight has the focus become only the area where the bodies were discovered. The Delphi trail includes a link into the town of Delphi and as I recall, the total length of it is 10 miles long. We also know the Snapchat photo put Abby on the bridge at 2:07 and they were to be picked up at 3:00 or 3:30pm. So I imagine it was also considered that they left the bridge area, intending to call their ride "pick us up at (another location) instead" which opens a lot of possibilities that they could have walked to in less than an hour, including the town of Delphi.

 

[cluciano63]

LE has called off searches before this, to resume at first light. Searching in the dark is dangerous and generally unproductive. They could not know for the girls had not left the area and gone elsewhere. And in this case, I feel 100% sure it was too late to save them even by 3-4pm. Jmo

 

[Eileen730]

Imo
We don't know Jack.
We have no idea what they were going to do.
I think the pick up place was pre set.
So who.was to get them?
One person or 2 or 3?
What happened when they got there?
I'm very curious.

 

[cluciano63]

So if they have no evidence, how do LE know it is a homicide?
If they have no DNA, does that mean no SA?

Goodness, evidence is not required to tell if a murder has taken place, other than the body of the victim. And not all sexual crimes leave DNA behind. Even if they do, it only helps if they can match it to a suspect.

 

[Shiressleuth]

RBBM.

No. Upstream is upstream on both sides of the creek.



ETA: Or am I misunderstanding your point?

I think you may have. I'm talking about thr fact they were found "upstream from the bridge" and what is meant by that . Here it could mean they searched initially downstream from the north end which crosses the Creek because accident would be the first thought I.e. falling off bridge into the creek and being taken downstream with the current. That is the opposite of where they were eventually found. My point is they were found downstream of the South end of the bridge - I.e. north of the south end of the bridge, which is actually therefore downstream of the south end. Now I'm confusing myself so don't worry.