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

[deedee21]

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

Yes, thats her. There was also a boy who disappeared from his front yard in the Bx. Hes still missing too.

 

[Shiressleuth]

It's in response to the idea the creek was higher that day. Accepted. When someone points out in a picture that it's shallower near the crime scene, that is also a fact, and will remain a fact regardless of the depth of the water.

The likely scenario, is that they crossed the creek on foot, rather than go around or over it, and that they chose the shallowest area to do so. That's all I read into that person's post. I found the lecture on facts and mic dropping a bit beyond the pale.

WADR its not an idea it was higher but a fact, from the body tasked with measuring it, based on volume. Also, I personally cannot remember having seen searchers in ankle deep water in the helicopter video of the Creek. It is obvious it will be shallower at the Creek edge or on the sandbar. If anyone wants to post the time in the video when this is in that video, then I am happy to look again. I don't remember any lecture only discussion on facts. What is mic dropping?

 

[Shiressleuth]

Say what?

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.

How do you know "no one was washed away" when we do not know if, when or where they entered the Creek? If they headed across the Creek at the end of the private drive then it's feasible they waded, got partly carried along at some points to scramble out where they did, only to be pursued or even shot from the far bank. We have absolutely no idea of exactly what happened. But we do know the creek flow was high that day.

 

[Shiressleuth]

True but he wasn't asked that question. The answers he gave didn't confirm it either way. Just curious. The idea does intrigue me.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

He didn't want to give away the witnesses location so he said "pretty much" to the question asking if the witnesses saw BG walking around that day, so this could have been before or after the crime, on or off the trail - LE are not saying for obvious safety reasons IMO.

 

[DarkSkink]

How do you know "no one was washed away" when we do not know if, when or where they entered the Creek? If they headed across the Creek at the end of the private drive then it's feasible they waded, got partly carried along at some points to scramble out where they did, only to be pursued or even shot from the far bank. We have absolutely no idea of exactly what happened. But we do know the creek flow was high that day.

Since no body (perp or victim) was found two miles down the creek, and no searcher was drown and washed away during the search, it's a fairly safe assumption no one was washed away down the creek. Although we cannot also say for sure that Aliens didn't come down and commit the murders, it's also safe to presume aliens didn't come down and commit the murders.

Even in your scenario, they crossed the creek like the investigator said. So...

 

[DarkSkink]

He didn't want to give away the witnesses location so he said "pretty much" to the question asking if the witnesses saw BG walking around that day, so this could have been before or after the crime, on or off the trail - LE are not saying for obvious safety reasons IMO.

Are you stating that as a fact, or are you speculating?

 

[Jethro4WS]

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

It was never reported that footprints were followed along the creek. The only thing reported was that searchers found the girls by following footprints. Though I would advise you to look through or search the scanner thread for this case but also point out that it is against TOS to discuss anything posted on the scanner thread outside of that thread.

 

[Shiressleuth]

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.

You are exactly right on your analysis IMO Jethro. Perhaps LE don't exactly know. If they had all gone through the brush wouldn't that route have been taped off to look for broken branches, items of evidence like footprints etc? I do find this strange they have neither confirmed or denied, and that MSM have not asked that specific question. Perhaps LE have told them not to ask that directly, and not to ask about the COD as they want to keep that close to the chest for obvious reasons? AJMO.

 

[Jethro4WS]

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

Nope. Not necessary to do so since that has nothing to do with what my post is about nor the posting to which I was replying. The person I was responding to wasn't claiming LE was speculating but rather claiming LE was stating an affirmative fact. I disagreed with that and pointed out why I disagree.

 

[DarkSkink]

You are exactly right on your analysis IMO Jethro. Perhaps LE don't exactly know. If they had all gone through the brush wouldn't that route have been taped off to look for broken branches, items of evidence like footprints etc? I do find this strange they have neither confirmed or denied, and that MSM have not asked that specific question. Perhaps LE have told them not to ask that directly, and not to ask about the COD as they want to keep that close to the chest for obvious reasons? AJMO.

I would assume once the bodies were found, the trail itself was closed off.

 

[DarkSkink]

Nope. Not necessary to do so since that has nothing to do with what my post is about nor the posting to which I was replying. The person I was responding to wasn't claiming LE was speculating but rather claiming LE was stating an affirmative fact. I disagreed with that and pointed out why I disagree.

Oh, well in the same interview, the investigator describes how they have no evidence of certain things, but they speculate, reason, and form theories, then act on those theories.

It's sort of like what happens here. They don't discuss only the facts, and strictly just the facts. They speculate on what the facts could possibly mean, and then investigate the possibilities.

 

[Shiressleuth]

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.

DTH is also to the private empty residence so seclusion for ablutions would certainly have been no problem DTH for any of the reasons in your post was right there on that property and nobody was going to be passing by so it would not have been necessary to cross the creek for seclusion. As they were already within a large secluded private property right there just off that bridge, it follows that if they did cross the creek, I believe the girls made a break for it and it was not a carefully planned move of BG's. Why go to all that subterfuge and then not destroy L's phone? BG was not some mastermind who planned a fully flowing creek crossing in freezing temperatures just to avoid detection IMO.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I would assume once the bodies were found, the trail itself was closed off.

You can check on facts like that in the scanner thread but items in the scanner thread have to stay there and not be brought up here or copied anywhere else. FYI.

 

[Deleted member 189081]

I am so totally confused now. I thought the girls had crossed the bridge which crossed the creek and then told to go down the hill. Rightly or wrongly I just assumed they were led up the side of the creek on land to where they were found. Where am I going wrong other than assuming? :shame:

 

[Shiressleuth]

Are you stating that as a fact, or are you speculating?

It clearly says it is IMO .

 

[Shiressleuth]

I am so totally confused now. I thought the girls had crossed the bridge which crossed the creek and then told to go down the hill. Rightly or wrongly I just assumed they were led up the side of the creek on land to where they were found. Where am I going wrong other than assuming? :shame:

Assuming or speculating is fine but LE have never confirmed nor denied it. Much like they have never confirmed or denied a vehicle involved, nor a TOD, nor a COD, nor a weapon, nor SA, nor catfishing, nor a second perp, nor a rucksack......In fact it may be a good idea to come up with a list of facts that we haven't got - but IMO we wouldn't be able to agree on it.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Assuming or speculating is fine but LE have never confirmed nor denied it. Much like they have never confirmed or denied a vehicle involved, nor a TOD, nor a COD, nor a weapon, nor SA, nor catfishing, nor a second perp, nor a rucksack......In fact it may be a good idea to come up with a list of facts that we haven't got - but IMO we wouldn't be able to agree on it.

That would be funny if it weren't such a sad state of affairs. We know so very little that just about everything we talk about is speculation.

 

[Deleted member 189081]

That would be funny if it weren't such a sad state of affairs. We know so very little that just about everything we talk about is speculation.

You are so very right we actually know nothing.

The girls went out at short notice to take photos, they were found a day later very sadly dead, we actually don't know any of the circumstances. Therefore speculating is the only thing we can do.

All we have been asked for by LE is

Help in identifying a photograph or video still
Help in identifying a sketch which may or may not be the same person in the video still
Help in recognising the voice.

Cause of Death	Unknown
1 or 2 perpetrators	Unknown
Weapon used	Unknown
Perpetrator get away	Unknown
Time of Death	Unknown
Voice the same as the picture	Unknown
Sketch same as the picture	Unknown
Local/Transient	Unknown
Transport used	Unknown
Reason for causing Death	Unknown
Pre- Planned or spur of the moment.	Unknown
Perpetrator escape route	Unknown

KR
Reacher

 

[Jim_M]

Yes, that's her. There was also a boy who disappeared from his front yard in the Bx. Hes still missing too.

She has a thread here. Sadly, not as much activity as our more modern cases. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...8-Bronx-12-Aug-1985&highlight=equilla+hodrick


While our sleuthing colleagues are busy discussing the creek, or stream I've seen it called, "Two bodies found along a northern Indiana stream", and then explains it is called Deer Creek. No more stream! Poof! I am trying to Post the very first post from the Media, Maps, and Timelines thread. I hope this is okay? If not, please feel free to delete as needed.

Please post media maps & timelines here. *NO DISCUSSION*


MISSING: Two 13-year-old girls dropped off to go walking at Carroll County trail

Police ID bodies of Indiana girls

Two bodies found along a northern Indiana stream are those of two teenage girls who went missing Monday and their deaths are being investigated as homicides, authorities said on Wednesday.

State Police Sgt. Kim Riley said autopsies performed Wednesday determined that the bodies are those of Liberty German, 14, and Abigail Williams, 13, both of Delphi.

Their bodies were found Tuesday afternoon along Deer Creek near Delphi, about 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis. Police said the girls’ bodies were about three-quarters of a mile from an abandoned railroad bridge where they were dropped off Monday to go hiking

(RBBM - Indiana Stream & Deer Creek)

Just lightening the mood a little.

I know.

I respectfully ask LE if they determined that the children crossed the creek? 6 weeks plus, and still looking for tips. We should really be able to answer this one question! Or, were they unable to determine this, from the evidence found?

The Investigative questions we should be asking?

Do they have a motive, or motives? I highly doubt this can be divulged.

Do they have any foreign DNA? Or, too much DNA? Again, highly doubtful to be divulged.

I am wondering how long they will keep all of the information, close to the chest? Another 6 months? Or do they hopefully have something brewing, before we get to the one year anniversary? I hate to write these words, I really do, I think all of their hard work is to find justice for these two young girls. All IMHO and Peace & Love to all.

 

[Shiressleuth]

WADR its not an idea it was higher but a fact, from the body tasked with measuring it, based on volume. Also, I personally cannot remember having seen searchers in ankle deep water in the helicopter video of the Creek. It is obvious it will be shallower at the Creek edge or on the sandbar. If anyone wants to post the time in the video when this is in that video, then I am happy to look again. I don't remember any lecture only discussion on facts. What is mic dropping?

Are you stating that as a fact, or are you speculating?

Dark, unless it is opinion, please could you provide the still or the time in the video where searchers are pictured ankle deep in the Creek and explain the "mic dropping" comment. TIA.