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

[DarkSkink]

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.

First, you need to find a post where I said anything of the sort.

Second, have a look at post #762.

 

[Shiressleuth]

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

To add to list as unknown

Catfished?
Sexual assault?
Motive?
Place of death?
Creek crossed?
Perp DNA isolated?

Anyone want to try coming up with a known list?

 

[Shiressleuth]

First, you need to find a post where I said anything of the sort.

Second, have a look at post #762.

Ok. Will get back to you.

 

[Jethro4WS]

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.

Yes I did read your entire post thoroughly. Just like I read this post of yours thoroughly. There is much to unpack here so it will take more than one reply.

First things first. This strawman you introduced about raging water and no one swept away and all the related nonsense you built into that strawman - don't do that. It is silly and won't get you anywhere.


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

Here is what we know about the video on which "Down the hill" is heard: At some point Libby started recording. At some point after the recording starts BG is seen in some of the frames. We do not know how long Libby was recording by the time BG is seen. What we do know is that BG was at least 60 feet away from Libby at that time. We do not know when the words "Down the hill" were spoken. We don't know what other things were said, let alone any other directives nor how specific any other directives might be. We don't know how long the total recording is. As you can tell, most of what we know about the recording is what we don't know.

It is always possible that on the audio recorded we have a voice saying "that way" and maybe BG is pointing across the bridge. And off they go. After that the voice could say "that way" again and be pointing at the path just past the north end of the bridge that will take you to at least two spots where there are paths that go downhill that will put you in the area of where the girls were found (one of them right to it). And when at either of those places the voice then says "down the hill". Because we don't know how long it was into the recording that "down the hill" is heard there is no way to rule this out.

You also can't rule out a car. At that south end of the bridge where the girls are there is a path down the hill. However, this path does not go to the creek. It goes down to the road. You have to then cross the road before you then come to another hill. At least two hills. It could very well be the case that when the voice says "down the hill" that is referring to right there at the bridge down to the road below. It is also possible at that time the phone was discovered by the killer(s) and the recording ended right then and there. We just don't know.

It could also mean that "down the hill" means down the hill to the creek. Naturally, after going down the first hill. Maybe even had to tell them to go down that as well, maybe he just gestured or pointed down the first hill. Who knows?

Any one of the three possibilities are valid. There is nothing known as of now that eliminates any one of those. Anyone and everyone can have a different opinion of which one they believe is more likely than the others but it is only an opinion. All are valid.

You have an opinion of what exactly "down the hill" is referring to and it is perfectly valid. But it is not the only possibility.

Next you mention that: "one of the investigators also says they likely crossed the creek". Not true. Never has LE said "they likely crossed the creek". LE was answering a question about difficulty not about how the girls from where they were to where they were found. You have an interpretation of what LE was saying but they have never said anything directly about it.

LE did mention the water temperature. That is true. LE did. Again, the strawman of raging water and other nonsense doesn't do you any favors.


Now this:

"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."

I don't know what this is about. Are you suggesting that after taking control of the girls the killer(s) was wandering about trying to figure out where to go with them? That the killer(s) were winging this entire thing from soup to nuts? Not that it isn't a valid theory. It is. I am just not sure where you are going with this part.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...melines-NO-DISCUSSION&p=13163455#post13163455
(Abby/Libby pics)

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.



(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.

Thanks for the image of Libby. As I suddenly thought yesterday: Libby's eyes, eyebrows, NOSE (nasal bridge) look similar to the suspect's sketch (if you change the colour of the eyebrows), IMO. I couldn't find a pic with Libby and her nice lips closed. So I don't know if her lips also would match (rather think NOT). Now I am :thinking: about this cognition ....

 

[her]

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.

Yes, a poster made a comment agreeing with Jethro stating mic dropping. It's a thing when someone lays it all out there and it's supposed to be a fun thing.
There is no picture that I have seen.

 

[Shiressleuth]

He may even had them walk in the creek for a while before crossing in order to make tracking them harder, like they used to do in old TV westerns and books.

The crime may have even taken place on this side of the creek, and the bodies deposited on the other side afterward to make them harder to find during the initial search and buy some getaway time.

So they couldn't walk along the creek for a couple hundred feet in the 6 inches of water along the edge?

The above view shows an area not that far from the crime scene. The view is looking west so the south side is to the left and north to the right. Here we can see one searcher on a sand bar where it isn't so deep. We also see 6 searchers in the water not too far from that searcher. The water is rather deep. We don't know how tall those searches are but it is a good bet they are taller than the girls.

In the best case possible the creek is about 65 feet wide. There is at least 30 feet (and probably a bit wider) of water of a that kind of depth. And it would have been deeper 24 hours earlier on the 13th.

Regardless of the sand bars that exist in the creek - all of which were underwater on the 14th and more so on the 13th - it is simply not possible to have crossed that creek without going through water of similar depth for half the distance. There is no magical walkway through it. That is what it is. And that is in the very best case. Also, keep in mind that you will also see in the helicopter video that there are trees under the water as you can see where they stick out or there is a small amount of whitewater flowing around where a part of the tree barely protrudes. That means that they would also have to get over or around any debris so an optimal straight-line path on the shortest crossing point may not have been the easiest path.

None of this precludes crossing the creek. There was nothing stopping anyone from crossing the creek if they wanted to do so. But there are realities to doing so.

It does a great disservice to people if we have people believing that there is some ankle deep walkway across it on the 13th by emphasizing only the images of searchers on the sand bars or shallow water on the 14th and/or showing what the creek looked like a month later. Even on the 16th there are images and videos that show sand bars well above water and the tree debris that was underwater to give you an idea of just how fast the Deer Creek drainage area empties.

The water gage that provided the data is located not far upstream at all from the crime scene - if you follow the post I linked a few posts back. The volume of water can be seen in the graphs. When you get to the stretch of the creek where the crime scene is located the creek is narrower than the stretch of creek East of it. This means that for the same volume of water that was flowing through a wider part of the creek to pass through a much narrower part of the creek the water must rise to do so since all of that water has to go somewhere and there are phyiscal barriers (the banks on either side) that prevent it from simply widening out. This is simple physics and the behaviors of a fluid like water.

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.

Ok found your posts mentioning 6 inches deep and where you mention "mic dropping". Also quoted Jethro post. So just asking about a link to show searchers in ankle deep (6 inches as you state) water, if you have one .

 

[DarkSkink]

Yes I did read your entire post thoroughly. Just like I read this post of yours thoroughly. There is much to unpack here so it will take more than one reply.

First things first. This strawman you introduced about raging water and no one swept away and all the related nonsense you built into that strawman - don't do that. It is silly and won't get you anywhere.


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

Here is what we know about the video on which "Down the hill" is heard: At some point Libby started recording. At some point after the recording starts BG is seen in some of the frames. We do not know how long Libby was recording by the time BG is seen. What we do know is that BG was at least 60 feet away from Libby at that time. We do not know when the words "Down the hill" were spoken. We don't know what other things were said, let alone any other directives nor how specific any other directives might be. We don't know how long the total recording is. As you can tell, most of what we know about the recording is what we don't know.

It is always possible that on the audio recorded we have a voice saying "that way" and maybe BG is pointing across the bridge. And off they go. After that the voice could say "that way" again and be pointing at the path just past the north end of the bridge that will take you to at least two spots where there are paths that go downhill that will put you in the area of where the girls were found (one of them right to it). And when at either of those places the voice then says "down the hill". Because we don't know how long it was into the recording that "down the hill" is heard there is no way to rule this out.

You also can't rule out a car. At that south end of the bridge where the girls are there is a path down the hill. However, this path does not go to the creek. It goes down to the road. You have to then cross the road before you then come to another hill. At least two hills. It could very well be the case that when the voice says "down the hill" that is referring to right there at the bridge down to the road below. It is also possible at that time the phone was discovered by the killer(s) and the recording ended right then and there. We just don't know.

It could also mean that "down the hill" means down the hill to the creek. Naturally, after going down the first hill. Maybe even had to tell them to go down that as well, maybe he just gestured or pointed down the first hill. Who knows?

Any one of the three possibilities are valid. There is nothing known as of now that eliminates any one of those. Anyone and everyone can have a different opinion of which one they believe is more likely than the others but it is only an opinion. All are valid.

You have an opinion of what exactly "down the hill" is referring to and it is perfectly valid. But it is not the only possibility.

Next you mention that: "one of the investigators also says they likely crossed the creek". Not true. Never has LE said "they likely crossed the creek". LE was answering a question about difficulty not about how the girls from where they were to where they were found. You have an interpretation of what LE was saying but they have never said anything directly about it.

LE did mention the water temperature. That is true. LE did. Again, the strawman of raging water and other nonsense doesn't do you any favors.


Now this:

"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."

I don't know what this is about. Are you suggesting that after taking control of the girls the killer(s) was wandering about trying to figure out where to go with them? That the killer(s) were winging this entire thing from soup to nuts? Not that it isn't a valid theory. It is. I am just not sure where you are going with this part.

There was no strawman. The fact no one was washed away was pointed out in response to the "Raging River" theory. Someone pointed out where it was more shallow in the creek, and was blasted about how raging the water was. It is the logical response to the theory.

I simply pointed out no one was washed away, during the search or the crime. If you find logic silly, then I can't help that.

The seeking privacy in the woods point was made in response to the "He Knows The Area Well" theory. Most people who have searched for privacy in the woods will agree that you don't always end up where you initially thought was safe. I used examples people can relate to.

During the interview, the interviewer asks if it was a difficult journey 'from the bridge to where they were found'. He says yes, it's through dense brush, and WITHOUT BEING PROMPTED, he discusses crossing the creek. He is describing where he thinks they went. The investigator who knows more than we do gives it some thought, and adds that they crossed the creek. He doesn't say "We don't know which way they went." or, "We can't get into the details of which way they went." He would be doing a big disservice to the case, and to any witnesses that may not have come forward yet that possibly saw a man and two girls nowhere near where he describes. They may dismiss what they saw because he says they went down the hill and across the creek, not around or in a car.

His choice of words are not of consequence. He may be trying to spare the family some agony by not dramatizing the journey. "They had to painstakingly walk through brush and they had to endure the cold of the creek." is a bit sensational. He also may be trying to keep his own emotions in check.

If you think he is lying to the interviewer, then if we follow your previous logic, since LE is lying about that then they could be lying about everything, including the sketch, so we have absolutely no facts whatsoever. You don't know what they are lying about and what they are not lying about, so...

 

[DarkSkink]

Ok found your posts mentioning 6 inches deep and where you mention "mic dropping". Also quoted Jethro post. So just asking about a link to show searchers in ankle deep (6 inches as you state) water, if you have one .

Please quote the post.

When I mentioned the 6 inches of water, it was in response to why they would walk along the creek edge to a particular spot rather than crossing immediately 90 degrees off the path. Never did I say they crossed in 6 inches of water. Typically along most creek edges, there is a point of about 6 inches of depth. Silly to have to point that out, I know, but this is what is has come to. Forgive me for assuming that posts can be read thoroughly, and understood in the context of the entire conversation. Typically, I post the quote I'm replying to so it can be easily referenced and understood.

I also referenced old TV Westerns and books (i.e. Louis L'Amour books), to describe walking in creeks and rivers so as not to leave footprints or a readable trail. Since this perp doesn't appear to be that young, and seemed to be ignorant of the fact he was recorded or could possibly be recorded, perhaps he could be rather old school in other ways as well.

 

[kizzykat]

[video=youtube;HvhKS1eRIMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvhKS1eRIMM[/video]
RTV6 Helicopter video.
Searchers shown in water at the following minute marks:
06:13
12:25
18:55
20:27 (side note this is when the searcher closest to the camera reaches down, I've always wondered if he saw & was picking up the phone. Rear view of reaching into water at 21:45)
26:53
30:34

Note the depth of water varies from ankle to waist deep depending on shoals and holes. Variations in depth with searchers in close proximity to each other is illustrated at the 06:48 mark.
For those who haven't seen this entire video, it's well worth watching.

 

[terpstra1]

G'morning, could some one kindly direct me to the transcripts from 2/14. TIA

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[DarkSkink]

[video=youtube;HvhKS1eRIMM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvhKS1eRIMM[/video]
RTV6 Helicopter video.
Searchers shown in water at the following minute marks:
06:13
12:25
18:55
20:27 (side note this is when the searcher closest to the camera reaches down, I've always wondered if he saw & was picking up the phone. Rear view of reaching into water at 21:45)
26:53
30:34

Note the depth of water varies from ankle to waist deep depending on shoals and holes. Variations in depth with searchers in close proximity to each other is illustrated at the 06:48 mark.
For those who haven't seen this entire video, it's well worth watching.

Thanks for the references!

The video also shoes the police roadblocks into the area, thus reducing the need for caution tape all over inside the perimeter they set up.

 

[Confusion]

I've written up what I can think of right now. What have I missed?

Known facts

The girls were on the bridge
BG was on the bridge
The girls were dropped off on the north side of the creek/trail
The bodies were found on the north side of the creek
They were found about 50' from the creek south of the cemetery
The girls were dropped off by LG's sister by 1:45 (I'm not sure if the 1:45 time has been confirmed)
DG tried to reach them around 3:00 without any luck
Other people were on the trail and bridge close to that time period
There is a video (and we have stills from it) of the "main" suspect
There is a recording of the suspect's voice
There is a sketch of the suspect which is a composite of information from witnesses
The bodies were found on RL's property
RL is not a suspect
Libby was taking pictures
There was no school that day
The weather that day was seasonally mild
Within walking distance of the crime scene, there is a meat packing plant, a quarry, a recycling station, several homes (some empty, some not), a few roads (from gravel to highways)
Both girls died
The photos and video stills show they were on the south end of the bridge at one point
They crossed the creek twice one way or another
There were some footprints that led to the bodies.
Libby's phone was recovered
The crime scene was taped off
Nothing other than the entrance to the bridge was taped off on the south side of the creek (possibly a small area surrounding the entrance to the bridge)

 

[ImnoSherlock]

There have been screenshots posted here of times in the video.The link here will show a searcher standing on the sandbar and appears to be ankle deep.The rest are linked in arms and unless they stand in line according to height,you can see how it begins to get deeper away from the sandbar.The last couple of searchers on our left you can see it's actually to their waist.I can only imagine it is like that on both sides of the sandbar.Let's not forget that the perp has been described as 5'6"-5'10" or 5'6"-5"8".If the water is going to be waist deep or deeper on the girls,it would most likely be the same on the murderer.I find it questionable that he would be able to cross the creek while at the same time trying to keep hold of the girls unless he found an ankle deep part that went all the way across.I say this because anyone that has been in waist deep water in a pool knows that you have to push yourself to go.Now imagine that with a current pushing against half of your body.<modsnip> So they walked 1/2-3/4 mile from the bridge,through terrain such as the detective spoke,waded across a flowing creek,took the time to disrobe the girls(per info found here at WS),did whatever he did to them and then ultimately killed them, all within a span of 30-40 min. I dunno man,sounds sketchy to me. Found Deceased - IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #19 scroll down thru the posts to see the screenshot.

 

[Confusion]

There was no strawman. The fact no one was washed away was pointed out in response to the "Raging River" theory. Someone pointed out where it was more shallow in the creek, and was blasted about how raging the water was. It is the logical response to the theory.

I simply pointed out no one was washed away, during the search or the crime. If you find logic silly, then I can't help that.
<SNIP>

Just to clarify. Nowhere did I say anything about a "Raging River", nor did I state any theory about it. I was simply stating the fact that when water goes through a bottleneck, it doesn't get deeper in that area, it moves faster. I'd also like to know how that is "blasting" anyone. MOO - as always, smiling from the wrist down!

 

[efhds]

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?

( from oxforddictionaries.com )

used to emphasize that a discussion is at an end after a definitive or particularly impressive point has been made

an instance of deliberately dropping or tossing aside one's microphone at the end of a performance or speech one considers to have been particularly impressive.

 

[DeDee]

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.

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?"

[travel]
This shows the power of one word. It is magnificent that you caught the omitted word, travel.

Your thoughtful analysis of Sgt Holeman's interview is appreciated.

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.

Sgt Holeman slights FB and social media for spreading rumors or untruths. He 'dances a jig' around the Flow of the Crime. There is a popular crime flow video that some view as complete gospel end to end. It has created, in many minds, the precise tracings of BG and the two girls. May it be repeated that video expresses an opinion and not one verified officially by LE.

 

[DarkSkink]

I did quote the posts as you asked. Never mind, you obviously don't have a link to someone in the searcher video in six inches of water, which is as I remembered. As you said, maybe aliens or, as he was old school perhaps on a horse like in those old westerns?

Someone else posted the link. There are the searchers in ankle deep water. Are you done with this now?

Nowhere in anything you quoted do I say they walked ACROSS the creek in 6 inches of water. You posted exactly what I have been forced to repeat again and again... a simple speculation that they could have walked in the water along the edge of the creek. Typically, along creek edges, they aren't cliffs. Typically along creek edges, about one foot in it's about 6 inches deep.

If you go back and read thoroughly, it was part of a discussion about why they walked the distance they did. Maybe it was to find a shallow spot to cross. Maybe it was to walk in the creek to not leave tracks or hopefully make it hard for searchers. Maybe he knee the area, maybe he didn't.

It's a discussion about what the facts of the case mean, and what the facts could be. Speculation.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Excellent post Confusion on the facts. Maybe add creek flow was 70% above normal IIRC from Jethro's post?

 

[No it's not]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...melines-NO-DISCUSSION&p=13163455#post13163455
(Abby/Libby pics)



Thanks for the image of Libby. As I suddenly thought yesterday: Libby's eyes, eyebrows, NOSE (nasal bridge) look similar to the suspect's sketch (if you change the colour of the eyebrows), IMO. I couldn't find a pic with Libby and her nice lips closed. So I don't know if her lips also would match (rather think NOT). Now I am :thinking: about this cognition ....

..Not!

-Nin