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

[MistyWaters]

This is such a hard crime. My opinion has adjusted since the beginning, but one aspect I haven't been able to let go of is the possibility of two crime scenes. Members here may have been following the Scanner Thread, and know what I am referring.

All that to be said, one crime scene may have occurred on the bridge side of Deer Creek, and the the other on the cemetery side of the creek, where the bodies were found. It's that simple, IMO.

I've been following this case since the beginning and the main clues are:

1) Libby's capture of the video stills released of the suspect, the image of Abby shared on Snapchat, and the voice capture of "down the hill." (With this, the evidence from the phone or uploaded cloud data are key- we can only speculate how information came to the investigators, but either way, the important aspect is they have it).

2) The location of the bodies found about 3/4 mile from the bridge and by noon the next day (February 14) after they were reported missing the evening of February 13. This is important because, IMO, the crime happened fast.

3) The early interviews of the searchers on the night of February 13, when there was no evidence anything bad had happened to the girls, just fear it was getting cold, or they may have been abducted. IMO, it's important to go back to the beginning and take a look at the news reports before the girls' bodies were found. These are available on YouTube.

There are so many clues available on the web, and sorting them is hard, but important to do. Those are the main ones I think about tonight. Some of you may have others you would sort ahead of the ones I listed.

I agree, there's a lot of information to be found on the web and on the media thread. Some of the videos of LE press conferences are very interesting as well.

I think early on the focus on RL, the SWs of his property and everything about him created a situation where it became did he or didn't he. Now more than three months along, it's worthwhile taking a second look at information with an open mind. I recall in other cases that as time goes on, media reports get overwritten or deleted and what people think they might remember can't be found.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

Just to throw another wrench in the works, I think there's also a 3rd option. With people texting and calling LG's phone, I think there's a good chance that BG found her phone and smashed it. If he just threw it away after doing that, couldn't the SIM card be taken out and put into a different phone to find the info on it? It seems like they would have found the video/s sooner if they were stored online, but it also seems odd that he'd leave the phone with them. This just strikes me as a reasonable possibility. MOO

That could be so. LE has been known to use the media in order to play a sort of cat and mouse game with hunted criminals.

So although I don't know exactly why, but I think LE wants the perp to know they have the cellphone (or SIM card) because they've retrieved something else from it that's incriminating. Considering they've released really nothing except for the photo and audio, they're not forthcoming about other investigative details so why have the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce revealing the process of analyzing Libby's cellphone?

 

[Jethro4WS]

I think the phone(s) will be a key piece of evidence.We know of a couple of people already who have had their phones searched when being questioned by LE which says to me that perhaps the killer(s) recorded his activities of the day/night with one of their phones and perhaps sent the recording to his own phone.I believe something like that would make sense for peoples phones being searched.If the perp had a prepaid phone such as straight talk then no record of name would be associated with the number the phone has.If that is the case then maybe LE could have released the number and perhaps someone in the murderers life such as employer,friend,relative could have recognized it.Of course there is the possibility that the perp could change his prepaid number and perhaps the number would have been assigned to a different phone owned by someone else by then and possibly bring the new owner some grief for a second with their number being associated with this but that could narrow down the search considerably in my opinion.

Most likely when LE is going to hunt for a phone they use the IMSI number (it should be physically on your phone somewhere - usually under the battery in an iPhone) which is globally unique to the phone itself as no two phones anywhere in the world can ever have the same IMSI. If a prepaid phone has been anywhere else, even if the person switched SIM cards to connect to different services with different phone numbers, the IMSI number will give it away.

People are creatures of habit and even the most cautious operational security savvy people can make a mistake. So, wherever such a phone would turn up the most frequently it is likely to be a home or place of employment. Actually, anywhere else the phone was previously located is very likely to be a location tied to the individual in possession of that phone. This is one of the ways that the NSA hunts people down. It was the way the military targeted adversaries in Iraq, for example.

Concerning the one individual we know of from MSM and another we know of if you listen to the scanner (in terms of who actually found the girls) I believe that LE went through the phones to make sure there were no pictures taken of the crime scene or bodies by those individuals. LE would not want those kinds of photos making it to certain media organizations.

The key thing about the phone is this: LE has never once stated that they recovered Libby's phone. There are no media articles nor reports that say "On Tuesday (or Wednesday) LE recovered a phone", for example.They have danced around and played word games that give the impression that they have it. It may be true that they do have it. I don't believe it. I have seen this kind of word dance before. I think they are doing themselves a disservice if it turns out they don't have it.

 

[Jethro4WS]

You can probably tell I don't use any snapchat/cloud etc features so really am unfamiliar with what/how they work.

My conundrum was if, as Jethro mentioned, they didn't have the phone, where did the vid come from and did BG want the part of him on the bridge to be seen. I've always considered the possibility he recorded the actual crime.

Thanks for the replies.

Don't mean to create conundrums for you. The only other possible source aside from the physical phone would be the Cloud.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Omg. Small town. Young girls with perp on camera. But the fbi doesn't know enough to make an arrest?

So what is really going on.

This is happening in the Danielle Stislicki case as well.

 

[Bird of Paradise]

Don't mean to create conundrums for you. The only other possible source aside from the physical phone would be the Cloud.

Ah Jethro, rest assured conundrum has been solved.

I now understand phone info can be backed up automatically to a cloud. That's what was causing my confusion. I couldn't imagine Libby stopping to upload image of BG herself.

 

[Daae]

I agree, there's a lot of information to be found on the web and on the media thread. Some of the videos of LE press conferences are very interesting as well.

I think early on the focus on RL, the SWs of his property and everything about him created a situation where it became did he or didn't he. Now more than three months along, it's worthwhile taking a second look at information with an open mind. I recall in other cases that as time goes on, media reports get overwritten or deleted and what people think they might remember can't be found.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am still not convinced that LE has been able to gain access to all of Libby's KIK information. This article reveals how LE may need the Perp's phone to reveal all of the incriminating information. "Unlike some competing apps, Kik says it does not have the ability to view written messages between users, or to show them to the police. It can view pictures and videos, but retains them only until the recipient’s device has received the message. Those practices are legal."
Wildly Popular App Kik Offers Teenagers, and Predators, Anonymity https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/us/social-media-apps-anonymous-kik-crime.html

 

[Jethro4WS]

Misty, it appears from watching that clip that the phone would be in their posession. They are connecting a phone and a hard drive in the report (if I saw correctly).

I was trying to figure out why there are differing opinions and how each person comes to the conclusion that LE did or did not have the phone.

For me, with that video, if you listen to it from about the 2:45 mark or so you will here that "because of investigation is on-going the unit couldn't talk about the specifics on their role in the investigation". Right after that they showed an example of hooking up a phone that belonged to one of the media team there and pulled data. The key thing is, if they had Libby's phone that is exactly the same thing they would have done - hooked it up to a computer via a USB cable and made a forensic copy - and that would be the role they played in the investigation in terms of the phone. So, it can't be both. Either that unit extracted the forensic copy of the phone or they didn't. What other role or method could they possibly use while in physical possession of the phone that did not involve doing exactly what was shown in the example with the media person's phone?

But more importantly, considering that the FBI was processing the crime scene - not the state police nor local police - I would think the FBI has the resources to process a smartphone. That is, they would not need this unit to do that. Not to mention that the phone would have to be processed for prints and the whole chain of evidence to hand it off to this unit only to hand it back because we are told that it was the FBI that extracted and put together the images of BG from the video.

Since I have done forensic examinations of smartphones before I find the report confusing. It may be that they do have the phone. Right now, I don't believe it.

 

[Jethro4WS]

A cellphone doesn't automatically download to iCloud. Sure maybe a professional photographer might preset for instant backup but Libby was only 14 years old. For all we know she downloads her photos to a family computer with a larger storage capacity and they don't use iCloud at all. The only reference to the type of phone that Libby had iirc was that it was a smartphone.

There's absolutely no mention of iCloud associated to this case anywhere that I can find, other than on forums.

There was a mention in the special done by RTV6 about the girls that had a mention of FaceTime. Now, that is an Apple product. However, the person mentioning it may be using FaceTime "generically" (much like Band-Aid) as there are other video chat apps out there. There isn't a real way to know.

Even in the case that it truly was FaceTime and that it was two Apple devices on each end for the girls it doesn't mean that the smartphone Libby uses regularly or took to the bridge was an iPhone. That is because, if you have an old phone sitting around you don't have to pay for any phone service whatsoever to use it over Wi-Fi for example - my wife uses her old iPhone all the time and it hasn't been connected for phone service for over 4 years. Until LE tells us the make and model of the phone we can't be sure.

 

[Burnt Toast]

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.

I feel like I must have missed something, I read backwards and also searched our media but I can't find it, did the ME release the TOD? Like we know for sure it was Feb 13th for both? I believe they both were gone before 2/14 but I know there was a lot of back and forth because of the obits. Thank you in advance!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the request to seal the autopsy showed that they were both "killed" on the 13th.

 

[Bird of Paradise]

BBM

And before further information was given by others, that clip made it appear to me anyway, that they were demonstrating that in order to extract the data, they needed a phone. That's where my initial confusion began.

For me, with that video, if you listen to it from about the 2:45 mark or so you will here that "because of investigation is on-going the unit couldn't talk about the specifics on their role in the investigation". Right after that they showed an example of hooking up a phone that belonged to one of the media team there and pulled data. The key thing is, if they had Libby's phone that is exactly the same thing they would have done - hooked it up to a computer via a USB cable and made a forensic copy - and that would be the role they played in the investigation in terms of the phone. So, it can't be both. Either that unit extracted the forensic copy of the phone or they didn't. What other role or method could they possibly use while in physical possession of the phone that did not involve doing exactly what was shown in the example with the media person's phone?

But more importantly, considering that the FBI was processing the crime scene - not the state police nor local police - I would think the FBI has the resources to process a smartphone. That is, they would not need this unit to do that. Not to mention that the phone would have to be processed for prints and the whole chain of evidence to hand it off to this unit only to hand it back because we are told that it was the FBI that extracted and put together the images of BG from the video.

Since I have done forensic examinations of smartphones before I find the report confusing. It may be that they do have the phone. Right now, I don't believe it.

 

[Alethea]

Regardless of whether LE has the phone, they will (/have) subpoena official records and logs from the carrier, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, etc.

Apple's iMessage has end-to-end encryption, so if she had an iPhone, you would only be able to see iMessages (texts) on the phone or on the phone of who she communicated with.

Also, if she had accounts on services her parents didn't know about - like kik, an anonymous chat program - you would need to find her info on her phone. Sure, maybe she has a sheet of paper at home with a list of her log-ins and passwords, but maybe not.

IME, if LE states they got something "off her phone" they mean a physical phone. They often talk about the records they retrieve from other providers too. But I highly doubt anyone would say "from her phone" if they really meant they were accessing her iCloud account from a computer. I hope we're not down to debating the meaning of the words "from" and "phone" now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Evania]

I thought I would check in and I can still see no arrest

I just hate the thought of Libby not getting justice when she managed to get her killer on audio and his photo.

I know, and I feel the same. She did everything she could to try to get this guy identified. This is one of the reasons why I don't think they knew BG, and that he was a stranger. She knew this was being recorded...I think she would purposefully say his name in the audio.

Anyway, I can't stand the thought of these two innocent little girls not getting the justice they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

(snipped to replied content)

But more importantly, considering that the FBI was processing the crime scene - not the state police nor local police - I would think the FBI has the resources to process a smartphone. That is, they would not need this unit to do that. Not to mention that the phone would have to be processed for prints and the whole chain of evidence to hand it off to this unit only to hand it back because we are told that it was the FBI that extracted and put together the images of BG from the video.

Since I have done forensic examinations of smartphones before I find the report confusing. It may be that they do have the phone. Right now, I don't believe it.

While federal, state and local LE are most visible in this case, I notice frequent reference by numbers of other "agencies". It appears the specialized Taskforce works hand in hand with the FBI, considering both deal with crimes against children. Their bio is posted on their website.

Just picking an example I could find quickly, agencies and regarding tips -

"DELPHI, Ind. — With nearly two dozen agencies looking into thousands of tips, police in Dephi have established a new home base in the investigation of two slain teenagers."
http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...delphi-investigation-prompts-new-hq/98445610/

 

[MistyWaters]

I know, and I feel the same. She did everything she could to try to get this guy identified. This is one of the reasons why I don't think they knew BG, and that he was a stranger. She knew this was being recorded...I think she would purposefully say his name in the audio.

Anyway, I can't stand the thought of these two innocent little girls not getting the justice they deserve.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This reminds me of a LE comment that I read, regarding the intensity of the investigation "the biggest ever seen" or something like that, probably referring to the state of Indiana. I'll keep looking. Anyone else remember what I'm referring to?

 

[MistyWaters]

Again the reference to more than two dozen law enforcement agencies....

"Perrine (indiana State Police) told ABC News this is an "all hands on deck" investigation with more than two dozen law enforcement agencies involved, including the FBI, "because we want to bring justice to Libby and Abby's families.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/shaken-dou...orries-killer-evade-justice/story?id=46019975

 

[mtnlites]

But couldn't they still get that just by using a computer and logging into their apps that way? (FB, SC, email etc) and contacting phone provider for other stuff ? No need for phone then.

Right. They do not need the physical phone for any of those things. That information would be available through their accounts, regardless as to what device LE uses to access it.

 

[Jethro4WS]

I have to admit I'm baffled. Am I watching a different video than the rest of you?

One thing's for sure, in a case like this where very little information is released, it wasn't by sheer chance the the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce arranged the interview with the media.

LE wants the general public (who at this time also includes anyone involved in this crime) to know they have Libby's cellphone. The information released in that interview was intentional. MOO

Aside from dozens of references by the media present at the Press Conference Feb 22nd all wording their reports exactly the same, the audio was " retrieved from the cellphone" now we also know it was retrieved by a very specialized unit.

Shouldn't that be a good thing if it provided additional evidence by which to eventually convict the perp? Complete forensic evidence from the actual cellphone is far stronger than a video downloaded to iCloud.

We all want the same thing I think, for the killer/s to be caught?

It absolutely would be the best of all situations if LE has possession of the phone. It is troublesome to me that LE has never used the words "we recovered/found LIbby's phone" but rather has said things that are intentionally vague. Even in the video report that you linked the person they were speaking to never said anything like "After the phone was found they brought it to our lab and ...". Nothing like that. Nothing that firmly says they are in possession of the phone.

Again, LE could very well have the phone and are just poorly communicating that they do have it. For me, it doesn't affect my theory of the crime whether LE has the phone or not. The only thing for me is that discovering and recovering the video early on the 14th from the cloud better explains the search activities on the 14th (that I can't get into on this thread) than if LE was just working blind that day. While I believe LE had seen/heard that video early on the 14th and that would mean it was obtained from the cloud that in and of itself does not preclude LE from having the phone in their possession. It is the fact that LE is being intentionally vague about it and dancing around their words that leads me to believe they don't have it.

I could be wrong about this but as of now I don't think so.

 

[MistyWaters]

Right. They do not need the physical phone for any of those things. That information would be available through their accounts, regardless as to what device LE uses to access it.

The most interesting aspect of the cellphone, aside what might be stored in its memory, is not whether or not LE might otherwise subpoena the content of the apps.

It's where and when did LE retrieve it?

 

[Steleheart]

the request to seal the autopsy showed that they were both "killed" on the 13th.

I forgot that. We don't have it in the Media thread do we?