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

[Steleheart]

Only if there were any evidence they had planned to meet someone IMO.
Eta.cross post with BOP.

If they planned on meeting someone I am 100% positive LE would have them in their sights. In todays world with SM there seems to be no way they didn't have some communication electronically.

ETA - I hope it was someone they were there to meet because it seems much easier that LE can track them down.

If they were meeting someone secretly then they may not have arranged it via SM at all. Or they could have used an app that doesn't keep a record. That would be difficult to trace if that were the case. MOO.

RE the meeting someone or catfishing - I am unsure now but in the beginning LE was saying that they had no evidence of that. Now I know what it means when LE says "we have no evidence of that" - it could change at some point, but the FBI and especially the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force have the best means of tracking electronic foot prints - even behind a firewall. I feel that was high on the list of early priorities the first day.

With that I am confident that what Slocum said is true. From the media thread;

2/22/17
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1702/22/ptab.01.html


<snipped>
"CASAREZ: Now, I know that you had also gone into today about whether this was someone that they were intending to meet or a stranger crime or someone
that knew the girls. But it appeared as though you were leaning upon a chance encounter was unlikely, but that they knew -- that maybe he knew
that those girls would be there.
SLOCUM: Well, we`re not quite sure if it was a chance encounter or -- evidence indicates at this time that we don`t have any leading us to they
were meeting. We believe it was two teenage girls going out on a nice day and enjoying a beautiful trail."

2/21/17
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1702/21/ptab.01.html

<snipped>
"CASAREZ: Do you believe that these young girls at all could have been innocently communicating with someone who may have even not led to his real
identity, to meet that person at this trail for a couple of hours?
SLOCUM: Well, anything`s possible, but the evidence we have thus far has not revealed that to be true. Unfortunately, these young ladies were just
doing what teenage girls do. They were -- they were enjoying a beautiful day on a beautiful trail in a beautiful part of Indiana, and these crimes
occurred.

 

[MistyWaters]

If they planned on meeting someone I am 100% positive LE would have them in their sights. In todays world with SM there seems to be no way they didn't have some communication electronically.

ETA - I hope it was someone they were there to meet because it seems much easier that LE can track them down.

I agree. If LE believes this person is known to at least one of the girls, the circle of possibilities becomes much smaller.

 

[Steleheart]

From the conversation on Thread 55 (Gisjoe's posts have SnapChat picture examples):

"2:07" versus "7 hours ago"

From Gisjoe: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?336825-IN-Abigail-Williams-13-amp-Liberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348029#post13348029

From Alethea:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348069#post13348069

Another from Gisjoe:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348145#post13348145

These posts were very informative in helping me to understand the time stamp issue (which I am embarrassed to say I could not give a coherent explanation to anyone myself, thus the links).

Now I know why I'm confused. Every time Snapchat comes up I get a headache and scroll. Srryyyy.

 

[Alethea]

From the conversation on Thread 55 (Gisjoe's posts have SnapChat picture examples):

"2:07" versus "7 hours ago"

From Gisjoe: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?336825-IN-Abigail-Williams-13-amp-Liberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348029#post13348029

From Alethea:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348069#post13348069

Another from Gisjoe:http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-55&p=13348145#post13348145

These posts were very informative in helping me to understand the time stamp issue (which I am embarrassed to say I could not give a coherent explanation to anyone myself, thus the links).

One thing to add. If you view a snap the same hour it was posted, it will say how many minutes ago it was posted. So if Liberty posted the picture of Abby to Snapchat at 2:07, and a friend viewed it at 2:17, it would say "10 minutes ago" and you would know it was published to Snapchat at 2:07. After the hour, it will just say how many hours ago. So in the published photo, where it says 7 hrs ago, you would need to know the time the snap was accessed to know the time it was taken. If it was posted on Facebook at 10pm, you know the photo was taken NOT LATER THAN 3pm (but possibly earlier).

 

[Jethro4WS]

Thank you. That image of Abby is so distributed around the world in the case.

Looking back, I do recognize the cloud isn't exactly the same as Snapchat, but they are both host servers who store images for users so they can access them on multiple devices or computers. I see "the cloud" as being any service that does that, not just iCloud.

I agree with you- the investigators have made statements that they have the actual phone via quotes like that. They appear to be the ones who pulled the videos and voice captures directly off the phone, and that makes sense, or the fuller video and voice capture we aren't privy may have been shared on FaceBook as well.

Another LE statement, looking back at the (to me, shocking, as I watched it) press conference, where it was first revealed the image of BG did come from Liberty's phone, and the new reveal of the voice capture saying "down the hill," something else came up is the likelihood this suspect was known in some way to one or both girls. That was shocking to me, too, since I figured, at the time, it was likely a transient man with some sick tendencies.

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that LE has Libby's phone at all. The activities on the morning of the 14th only make sense to me if LE had recovered the video early that morning several hours before the girls were found.

 

[Jethro4WS]

This is absolutely true AFAIK. It was someone else who got it from their own SC account 7 hours after and LE didn't know that exact time stamp;

"CASAREZ: No, the photograph that is the Snapchat photo that is tragically taken by one of the girls -- there it is right there -- of her friend, this
was taken at approximately what time? What is the timestamp on the photo?

RILEY: Well, because it`s a Snapchat, there is no timestamp on it, so we`re not sure of the exact time. We know it was after the time that they
were let off. But the exact time, we do not have that.



CASAREZ: Now, there`s a lot of things going on social media that nestled in the foliage there may be a human being that is lurking. Have your
forensic investigators looked at that photograph to determine if there is someone amongst the branches behind her?

RILEY: We have looked at it. We`ve blown it up. As a matter of fact, that was done right after we got the picture -- we had access to the
picture
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1702/16/ptab.01.html


*******************

So at some point they got "access" to the picture. Now that I think of it where did the 2:07 time come from? Anyone?

What is ironic about that interview is that Riley states that "they are not sure of the exact time". However, if LE had possession of Libby's phone they would know exactly when that photo was taken - to the second. The phone would have recorded when the photo was taken in a database on that phone. Also, the activity logs would show the time and duration when SnapChat was used.

 

[MistyWaters]

What is ironic about that interview is that Riley states that "they are not sure of the exact time". However, if LE had possession of Libby's phone they would know exactly when that photo was taken - to the second. The phone would have recorded when the photo was taken in a database on that phone. Also, the activity logs would show the time and duration when SnapChat was used.

I noticed that as well. But the CNN show was aired Feb 16th so it's possible the completed analysis of the cellphone hadn't reached Sgt Riley's desk yet or the cellphone was recovered later than the 16th.

 

[MistyWaters]

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that LE has Libby's phone at all. The activities on the morning of the 14th only make sense to me if LE had recovered the video early that morning several hours before the girls were found.

What activities on the morning of the 14th are you referring to?

 

[Rott Mom]

I just tried to post this...why was Libby living w/ her grandparents? Why wasn't she living w/ her Bio-Mom???

 

[Rott Mom]

Anyone?

 

[Steleheart]

What is ironic about that interview is that Riley states that "they are not sure of the exact time". However, if LE had possession of Libby's phone they would know exactly when that photo was taken - to the second. The phone would have recorded when the photo was taken in a database on that phone. Also, the activity logs would show the time and duration when SnapChat was used.

Agreed, but that interview was only on 2/16 and Riley sounds vague about timing. "Access" to the picture? Does that mean after the FBI turned it over? Or did ISP have it on the 14?

But this interview with ISP Sgt. Slocum RE the BG pic on 2/21;

"SLOCUM: Well, we don`t know if he worked alone or not, but this is our prime suspect. We are actively looking for this person. Evidence thus
far, the totality of the evidence that investigators have collected, has led to this person in the picture that we distributed. And that`s why we
have identified this person not as just someone we want to talk to but as the person who is a suspect in a double homicide.

CASAREZ: What you`re telling me right there is DNA, forensic DNA, but that`s difficult because you don`t know his identity, but there`s something
there that correlates with him. Is there a timestamp on that photograph?

[20:25:06]SLOCUM: Well, we believe -- the photograph came in our possession I believe on Tuesday, a week ago today. But as far as evidence,
we`re not going to release information that`s germane to our investigation. Again, some of the facts related to the case are known only to
investigators and to the person and/or persons who committed this crime.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1702/21/ptab.01.html

*************

'Came in our possession... a week ago today'. That was Tuesday 2/14 - the BG picture came in their possession. (ISP)

So according to Slocum, ISP had the BG photo on 2/14 and according to Sgt.Riley (ISP) they "had access to the picture" (Abby).And not saying when that was.


So it seems, at least from Sgt Slocum that ISP had the BG picture on the 14. It's possible that the creek searchers found the phone early that day, IMO

I have to go back and search the scanner as far as timing of certain things. IMO it's still possible they found the phone on Tuesday.

All JMO of course

 

[Jethro4WS]

I noticed that as well. But the CNN show was aired Feb 16th so it's possible the completed analysis of the cellphone hadn't reached Sgt Riley's desk yet or the cellphone was recovered later than the 16th.

The image of BG was released the night of the 15th sometime between 7pm and 8pm. If LE had Libby's phone they would have known by then when exactly the SnapChat photos were taken as the phone would have been completely examined forensically by that time.

 

[Burnt Toast]

I just tried to post this...why was Libby living w/ her grandparents? Why wasn't she living w/ her Bio-Mom???

there are a lot kids these days who are raised by their grandparents. it is not uncommon at all, and it looks like her grandparents did a pretty good job. libby was a good kid. the "why" doesn't really matter.

 

[Jethro4WS]

I just tried to post this...why was Libby living w/ her grandparents? Why wasn't she living w/ her Bio-Mom???

We can't get into that due to TOS.

 

[Jethro4WS]

What activities on the morning of the 14th are you referring to?

The search activities. I can't get into it too much on this thread because I would have to talk about things that can only be discussed on the scanner thread.

 

[LaneGirl]

RE the meeting someone or catfishing - I am unsure now but in the beginning LE was saying that they had no evidence of that. Now I know what it means when LE says "we have no evidence of that" - it could change at some point, but the FBI and especially the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force have the best means of tracking electronic foot prints - even behind a firewall. I feel that was high on the list of early priorities the first day.

With that I am confident that what Slocum said is true. From the media thread;

Thank you for bringing that forward I was looking for that several pages back.

I never have thought they were meeting anyone. If they did I think this case would have been solved by now.

 

[MistyWaters]

The image of BG was released the night of the 15th sometime between 7pm and 8pm. If LE had Libby's phone they would have known by then when exactly the SnapChat photos were taken as the phone would have been completely examined forensically by that time.

I linked a video just upthread of the cellphone analysis conducted by the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce, not local law enforcement. I can only imagine the complexity in coordination of the huge flurry of activity occurring between all the various divisions that were involved in those first few days. The photo of BG was created from the video by the FBI iirc. The order in which various pieces of evidence got released or received may not be significant of anything other than it didn't occur simultaneously but it's likely the release of the BG photo was a priority amongst them all.

 

[rosesfromangels]

there are a lot kids these days who are raised by their grandparents. it is not uncommon at all, and it looks like her grandparents did a pretty good job. libby was a good kid. the "why" doesn't really matter.

From a societal perspective, I agree. However, in this particular situation, we have two little murdered girls. So every aspect of their lives, and their extended families lives, are being examined. It would be interesting to know what interaction Libby had with the bio parents,and who they hung out with....all of that should (or is, no doubt), being scrutinized.

 

[Jennifer17]

From a societal perspective, I agree. However, in this particular situation, we have two little murdered girls. So every aspect of their lives, and their extended families lives, are being examined. It would be interesting to know what interaction Libby had with the bio parents,and who they hung out with.... that should (or is, no doubt), being scrutinized.

Yes, I think that this should be looked at too.except for Abby who had her mother, the bio parents seem to have been quit, wut of Libby's life. I know she had a mother, who was not living with her. Why was that girl not living with her mother?

 

[Stanly]

Checking in and seeing if there are any new developments. I still stand by my previous post especially in light of no news on the DNA side of things.........

Copied and pasted .... and this is all my own thoughts and opinions.....

"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


Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk