IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #66

[Jerrod]

BBM

- What is their purpose for the misinformation?

- The witness did not have perfect recollection according to the article referenced. Only that they were not blue.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-66&p=13589807#post13589807

- If you say there is a link please post the link or the post number. Otherwise it is rumor or opinion and should be referenced as such. Thanks.

It goes without saying that LE and the news media have a strained but symbiotic relationship. LE wants to control the release of information to protect the integrity of an investigation, while the media continually craves additional information for the sake of their viewers (and ratings). Having had the opportunity to speak with various LE reps and media reporters over the years, I've learned that LE regards the media as a tool to manipulate for their own purposes, if it offers them a strategy to confuse and mislead a suspect, to make an arrest, and to secure a conviction. (The end justifies the means.) The media is well aware of that, to their frustration, which sometimes leads to contentious press conferences. Misinformation takes many other forms: Illegal search & seizure, crime reporting stats, and so on.

Here is the link to the excellent article I was referencing from upstream, in which it's essentially confirmed that eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable: "Why Science Tells Us Not To Rely On Eyewitness Accounts"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

 

[Lollygagging]

First time poster but long time lurker, I just wanted to say that I respect all the research and fact checking that everyone has contributed to this thread, it's been so interesting to read.
Like others here, my opinion is that this wasn't someone local but someone who had familiarity with the area. I also feel that this wasn't a first time experience, this is someone who is experienced with hunting their victim/s - it's just too brazen to be a first time. I think he was waiting for an opportunity that day.

Crossing my fingers and toes that more information will come to light soon and an arrest can be made. This case hasn't had much coverage in Australia so I've been enjoying everyone's opinions and the depth of information. These poor girls haven't been far from my thoughts since I came upon this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Owl4]

First time poster but long time lurker, I just wanted to say that I respect all the research and fact checking that everyone has contributed to this thread, it's been so interesting to read.
Like others here, my opinion is that this wasn't someone local but someone who had familiarity with the area. I also feel that this wasn't a first time experience, this is someone who is experienced with hunting their victim/s - it's just too brazen to be a first time. I think he was waiting for an opportunity that day.

Crossing my fingers and toes that more information will come to light soon and an arrest can be made. This case hasn't had much coverage in Australia so I've been enjoying everyone's opinions and the depth of information. These poor girls haven't been far from my thoughts since I came upon this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome Lollygagging [emoji5] I Don't miss a beat when it comes to this thread. I have not commented here in a long while. I just continue to pray the dirtbag will be caught. Justice will prevail for Abby and Libby [emoji72] [emoji175]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using Tapatalk

 

[Rott Mom]

We share your sorrow RM. The sketch revived interest in the case but that is all we have now.

7 months is far too long for such a blatant crime to remain unsolved. Every night I pray let today be the day. Are straws all we have? No. We have faith.

Thank you so much! I have my niece every summer vacation, but not this year. I live really close to Delphi, and there was no way my sister and her husband (and me) would let her allow her to come to my house.

We went through the same thing with the "Honeybee Killer" years ago.

 

[deedee21]

Yes, that was the horrifying thought I had. Only because I had read about a child abductor in Fort Wayne that was taunting LE and IIRC has never been caught and vowed to do it again. He would leave notes on the kids bicycles. You'll have to search these threads on L&A to find my post. It was a while back.

Oh my lord! What case is this? How long ago did this happen?

 

[deedee21]

Say what?

Someone pointed out that the creek is shallower right near the crime scene... Then they got lectured on facts in a rather strange manner. I'm not the only one that found it odd that they pointed out the fact the creek is more shallow there, then was told to stick to the facts.

Fact is, since no one was washed away by the alleged raging river, video or no video, they likely crossed the creek, and perhaps looked for the shallowest spot possible to cross. Fact is, water only a few feet deep is quite transparent as to see the ground.

My thoughts exactly. They did not cross a fast moving river. The killer brought the girls to a secluded area. For privacy.
Where is this *advertiser censored*?

 

[Yemelyan]

Oh my lord! What case is this? How long ago did this happen?

This is the April Tinsley murder. I wrote a giant treatise on it in the thread previous to this one but others have also brought it up as a case thst should be looked at for its possible similarities to the Delphi murders. It occurred in 1988 and the killer taunted police/the community for 14 years. There is also an extensive thread here on Websleuths about it. If you check out my previous post you can even see a Parabon snapshot of the killer to compare to the sketch of BG. Fort Wayne is 95 minutes from Delphi. It's a fairly straight shot down SR 25 from Fort Wayne to Delphi. The killer of April Tinsley is thought to be in his late 40s to late 50s now.

 

[Jerrod]

......... I suspect the witness may have been another victim in another location that he was tied to by DNA. Hence, the statement "the victim was close enough to him to say that he did not have blue eyes." My suspicion is that the witness is a victim of another crime he committed involving SA against her and she was afraid to speak up.........
All JMHO and speculation.

BBM

The actual quote was, "the witness who saw the suspect was close enough to him to say that he did not have blue eyes, but was uncertain of his eye color." (Big difference!)

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/state-and-regional/indiana/update-witness-aided-in-sketch-of-suspect-in-indiana-teens/article_968b0a4c-bab9-5fdb-9112-d0d0cebf0488.html

 

[Jethro4WS]

BBM
It was clearly stated in one of the recent interviews with LE that they crossed the creek. POST #186 Thread 65. Spellbounds transcription.

A: When you walked down and I walked through, that was private property right where the bodies were found. Looking at it logistically from where they were on the bridge and to where their bodies were found, I know we talked about the terrain in the past. I know it's not an easy thing to navigate. Usually you might have to be familiar with the area. I mean, would it have been difficult for the girls to [travel] from where they were on the bridge to where they were found?

H: [10:49] Yeah. Absolutely. I think it would be difficult, obviously. They have to go through some pretty steep terrain in a wooded area, sticker bushes and things like that, so it's uh ... and then to cross the creek. The creek, and obviously it's February, it's probably not the warmest . The weather was a warm day that day, but still the water temperature is probably cooler than the air temperature. So yeah, it would have been difficult for .... I mean, I don't think anybody, say on a walk, would walk that way.

That is the part. I added a word that was missed by Spellbound (bold blue in brackets). The reporter talks about going down to the crime scene area and mentions the difficulty of getting to there from the bridge.

Her question is: "would it have been difficult for the girls to [travel] from where they were on the bridge to where they were found?"

Not asking how they got to where they were found. Not asking for a walk-through of the flow. Simply asking would it have been difficult.


Holeman in his answer describes the difficulty and the journey it would be. In my opinion he doesn't actually say that they did, in fact, go that way. Nor did the reporter even ask it. It is apparently a well-known given that the girls got to where they were found that way. At no prior time has LE ever said it. Not even before that question. It would be one thing if this were a followup to LE describing the flow of the crime to ask how difficult it would be. But it isn't.

I find it odd that the reporter would ask about the difficulty of a hypothetical, since LE has never stated the crime flow, rather than ask the basic question "How did the girls get from where they were to where they were found?" See. A simple question. Not asked.

It is also the use of his words.

"They have to go through some pretty steep terrain" - "They have to" rather than "They had to".
"so it's uh ... and then to cross the creek" "then to cross" rather than "then they had to cross"

Why does he avoid using the proper past tense of the verb "to have" in the first part of the sentence and omitting it completely in the next part sentence?

Throughout this case LE has been playing around with language. At numerous opportunities with certain questions in this case LE continues to dance a jig. The media has been very compliant in not asking direct questions. I don't understand it.

I haven't figured out why people are treating that question as if, at the moment of the question, it is a well-known fact, stated by LE previously, of what the crime flow was and asking and answering about the difficulty of such a flow is confirmation of this unstated (by LE) fact.

 

[cluciano63]

I don't know where the DNA examination etc comes into the eye color statement, if all LE has said is that the witness said his eyes are not blue.

I am not sure sure LE has perp's DNA. The times they have discussed DNA in regards to this case are some of the most garbled, nonsensical statements I have ever read. I have no idea what LE is doing to solve this case, other than hope they get the " right tip". I have no idea why they think keeping every detail such a secret is the best way to go when they seem no closer to catching the killer. Jmo

 

[BIC]

That is the part. I added a word that was missed by Spellbound (bold blue in brackets). The reporter talks about going down to the crime scene area and mentions the difficulty of getting to there from the bridge.

Her question is: "would it have been difficult for the girls to [travel] from where they were on the bridge to where they were found?"

Not asking how they got to where they were found. Not asking for a walk-through of the flow. Simply asking would it have been difficult.


Holeman in his answer describes the difficulty and the journey it would be. In my opinion he doesn't actually say that they did, in fact, go that way. Nor did the reporter even ask it. It is apparently a well-known given that the girls got to where they were found that way. At no prior time has LE ever said it. Not even before that question. It would be one thing if this were a followup to LE describing the flow of the crime to ask how difficult it would be. But it isn't.

I find it odd that the reporter would ask about the difficulty of a hypothetical, since LE has never stated the crime flow, rather than ask the basic question "How did the girls get from where they were to where they were found?" See. A simple question. Not asked.

It is also the use of his words.

"They have to go through some pretty steep terrain" - "They have to" rather than "They had to".
"so it's uh ... and then to cross the creek" "then to cross" rather than "then they had to cross"

Why does he avoid using the proper past tense of the verb "to have" in the first part of the sentence and omitting it completely in the next part sentence?

Throughout this case LE has been playing around with language. At numerous opportunities with certain questions in this case LE continues to dance a jig. The media has been very compliant in not asking direct questions. I don't understand it.

I haven't figured out why people are treating that question as if, at the moment of the question, it is a well-known fact, stated by LE previously, of what the crime flow was and asking and answering about the difficulty of such a flow is confirmation of this unstated (by LE) fact.

To me it's plain and simple, he is saying they crossed the creek. Trying to decipher every word just makes something so simple become way too complicated. How is he playing around with language? It's clear to me what he is saying.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DarkSkink]

That isn't a fact. At no point ever has it been reported that the girls and BG crossed through the creek. For all we know they could have been marched back across the bridge and through the woods on the North side to where the girls were found. For all we know the girls could have been taken elsewhere and then returned later. All are valid. It is only a matter of one's opinion as to which one they believe is the case. This is something that is unknown, though LE could clear it up at any time.

But, if someone is going to go with the theory that the girls were marched through the creek then they should take into consideration the conditions of the creek at the time. The one theory we can actually test, the one we do have information about that we can apply to it, is the theory the girls were marched across the creek.

The main problem is it leads to the notion that BG had some kind of "perfect knowledge" of the way to march the girls to the creek, exactly the best place the cross, and on to where the girls would later be found. It suggests a high degree of familiarity of the area and the creek. However, if that is the case then it should also be the case that BG would recognize that the creek is running over 4 times above normal and that the water is very cold. And that would suggest at least a few other considerations.

The first is that BG, as part of how he wanted to do things, was going to cross that creek come hell or high water. That is, the water - depth, current, nor temperature - was of no consideration whatsoever. Which then would lead me to question (don't know about anyone else) why it would matter at all where they crossed. And that also suggests some importance to requiring the crossing through the creek. This is despite there are also areas that are just as secluded (if not more) on the South side of the creek West of the bridge where this crime could have been completed without crossing through the creek at all.

The second thing is that this would suggest that BG had one consideration - finding an available victim(s). Nothing else mattered. Seemingly, no barrier that would make him think twice - like crossing a very cold creek running 4 times above normal. If there was a victim(s) he would just figure it out as he went using his "perfect knowledge". No matter what, BG was committed to driving home cold and soaking wet (likely up over his waist based on his height) as a result of his requirement to march across the creek.

It seems to me that the desire to march through the creek was paramount above all other things. He wasn't forced to do it. It wasn't the best of all bad options because there were all kinds of options available that do not include marching through the creek. I am hard pressed to figure out someone that has a mandatory requirement to cross a cold creek running well above normal in 43 degree weather in February that hasn't been caught yet.

The important thing is there is no proof we have been given whatsoever that BG and the girls marched through the creek just as there is no proof given whatsoever that they didn't march through the creek. Only one of those theories is testable. Hence, the back and forth on this subject and not just on the basis of water conditions of the creek. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it was. Just because someone thinks it is most likely doesn't mean it happened.

I know I never said it was impossible to cross through the creek but I do point out the realities of doing so.

Unfortunately, you didn't read my post thoroughly enough. Fact is, no one was washed down the creek. It's likely they crossed the creek.

The killer said "down the hill", not "back across the bridge", or "get in the car". Down the hill leads to the creek.

As others have pointed out, one of the investigators also says they likely crossed the creek. He mentioned the water temperature, but not that it was raging and they are lucky they didn't get swept away.

Anyone who has been on a hike and had to do #2, or decided to sneak in some love making along the path can testify how hard it is to find privacy. Just when you think you have it, you see someone on a part of the path you didn't know you were exposed to... so you go further in, and further in, and over, and further in.

If you have ever been lost on a hike and had to cross a creek, you'll also know that you follow the creek until you find a shallow spot that you think you can cross. You don't need previous knowledge of the creek. You just look.

Crossing the creek makes a search later more complicated. Family will likely spend time looking on the trail side long before crossing the creek. Crossing the creek also utilizes the running water sound to cover noises, as the creek is between the crime and witnesses within earshot. Crossing the creek doesnt leave footprints. Crossing the creek can interfere with dog searches. There are plenty of logical reasons to cross the creek without having prior knowledge of the creek.

 

[deedee21]

This is the April Tinsley murder. I wrote a giant treatise on it in the thread previous to this one but others have also brought it up as a case thst should be looked at for its possible similarities to the Delphi murders. It occurred in 1988 and the killer taunted police/the community for 14 years. There is also an extensive thread here on Websleuths about it. If you check out my previous post you can even see a Parabon snapshot of the killer to compare to the sketch of BG. Fort Wayne is 95 minutes from Delphi. It's a fairly straight shot down SR 25 from Fort Wayne to Delphi. The killer of April Tinsley is thought to be in his late 40s to late 50s now.

Theres a little girl my daughter use to play with that disappeared. She was about ten yrs old. She was never found. She was last seen near an icecream truck. Her name is Equilla. Im not sure if thats the correct spelling.

 

[mpnola]

We also know that the crime scene was found by following footsteps along the creek. I would like to know more about that! How many sets? Away from or to the scene? What size shoe and style of shoe was it!!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[deedee21]

The DNA might have been logged from a past crime, but if the criminal had not been arrested and swabbed before there would be no name-to-DNA association.

It does sound like they had a DNA match to a previous crime. But, it also sounds like there is no association of the DNA to a known person yet.

What year did LE start collecting DNA? Anyone arrested before that was excluded from DNA collection.

 

[DarkSkink]

That is the part. I added a word that was missed by Spellbound (bold blue in brackets). The reporter talks about going down to the crime scene area and mentions the difficulty of getting to there from the bridge.

Her question is: "would it have been difficult for the girls to [travel] from where they were on the bridge to where they were found?"

Not asking how they got to where they were found. Not asking for a walk-through of the flow. Simply asking would it have been difficult.


Holeman in his answer describes the difficulty and the journey it would be. In my opinion he doesn't actually say that they did, in fact, go that way. Nor did the reporter even ask it. It is apparently a well-known given that the girls got to where they were found that way. At no prior time has LE ever said it. Not even before that question. It would be one thing if this were a followup to LE describing the flow of the crime to ask how difficult it would be. But it isn't.

I find it odd that the reporter would ask about the difficulty of a hypothetical, since LE has never stated the crime flow, rather than ask the basic question "How did the girls get from where they were to where they were found?" See. A simple question. Not asked.

It is also the use of his words.

"They have to go through some pretty steep terrain" - "They have to" rather than "They had to".
"so it's uh ... and then to cross the creek" "then to cross" rather than "then they had to cross"

Why does he avoid using the proper past tense of the verb "to have" in the first part of the sentence and omitting it completely in the next part sentence?

Throughout this case LE has been playing around with language. At numerous opportunities with certain questions in this case LE continues to dance a jig. The media has been very compliant in not asking direct questions. I don't understand it.

I haven't figured out why people are treating that question as if, at the moment of the question, it is a well-known fact, stated by LE previously, of what the crime flow was and asking and answering about the difficulty of such a flow is confirmation of this unstated (by LE) fact.

Did you also note how many times he says that LE does "speculate" like many here?

 

[Bird of Paradise]

I don't know where the DNA examination etc comes into the eye color statement, if all LE has said is that the witness said his eyes are not blue.

I am not sure sure LE has perp's DNA. The times they have discussed DNA in regards to this case are some of the most garbled, nonsensical statements I have ever read. I have no idea what LE is doing to solve this case, other than hope they get the " right tip". I have no idea why they think keeping every detail such a secret is the best way to go when they seem no closer to catching the killer. Jmo

BBM - agree.

Precisely why accurate quoting of facts is important to the discussion here.

 

[Jim_M]

Theres a little girl my daughter use to play with that disappeared. She was about ten yrs old. She was never found. She was last seen near an icecream truck. Her name is Equilla. Im not sure if thats the correct spelling.

O/T but had me curious. Was this her? http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hodrick_equilla.html

 

[Confusion]

<SNIP>
Crossing the creek makes a search later more complicated. Family will likely spend time looking on the trail side long before crossing the creek. Crossing the creek also utilizes the running water sound to cover noises, as the creek is between the crime and witnesses within earshot. Crossing the creek doesnt leave footprints. Crossing the creek can interfere with dog searches. There are plenty of logical reasons to cross the creek without having prior knowledge of the creek.

BBM
The biggest problem with the bolded statements is that they would have crossed the creek to the side where the trail is, not the opposite side. The creek would have been between the crime and the trail/potential witnesses if they had stayed on the south side. MOO

 

[bostonslikk]

O/T but had me curious. Was this her? http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/h/hodrick_equilla.html

Apologies for this also being off topic, but IIRC, this was just 15 miles from where Etan Patz vanished. I remember Equilla case as well, although the media didn't cover the case much if at all.

Sent from my Z981 using Tapatalk