IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #70

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder what the child custody hearing was all about. It was pretty damn quick, like 3 days after he was apprehended.
Perhaps the children DID come to some harm in this period they were living rough and I speculate they ( the wife and DN) may have lost custody. There was no mention of the children being with them in the car - so had they left them somewhere? IMO only.
I always feel for the children in these cases [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bbm

Reportedly, the children were in the car at the time of his arrest.

"Nations was arrested while driving a car that matched the description given in several tips of a man menacing people in the Monument/Mount Herman area with a hatchet. It’s the same area where cyclist Tim Watkins was found shot to death just a week earlier.

Arrest papers show the car he was in with his wife and two children, and the car had expired Indiana plates
."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/09/28/colorado-indiana-murder/
 
Holding my breath here like a lot of you. At the same time I'm reminded of at least two prior possibilities that social media ran with, convinced that Libby and Abby's murderer had finally been identified.

While I wait, I have a question about the hatchet: Some of you feel that the hatchet is (possibly) involved in the murders in that DN (if he's the perp) may have used one on them. But if DN did murder Tim Watkins then he used a .22 cal rifle, not a hatchet.

How do y'all reconcile his use of a hatchet to threaten people to his using a rifle to actually kill someone? Again, that is assuming he killed TW. I'm just curious as I have no answers to there being two different weapons.

I've been following this case since the beginning and each time I log on I hope to see "arrest" in the title. It must be so hurtful and frustrating for Libby's and Abby's families to wake up each day not knowing what happened to these precious girls. For their sake I hope the case is about to blow open.
 


Daniel Nations was a passenger in the red car, which was driven by his wife, Katelyn Nations. The couple's two children also were in the car, according to the affidavit.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jconline.com/amp/713951001
The custody hearing was after this, correct? Within days, iirc. That is very quick for a typical custody hearing but not if it was prompted by protective services. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
Agree. But, whose DNA? If none of it is a match to DN, does that rule him out? LE may have DNA they are convinced is from the killer but afaik, that hasn't been released. DNA from the vicinity and at the bridge could be linked to any number of random people and likewise, the killer may not have left any recovered DNA behind. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Just my opinion but I wouldn’t be surprised if they got DNA from under one of the girl’s fingernails I’m sure they fought like hell for their lives.
 
In my state, the sexual predators' faces are photographed at every check in.

Oh this is good to know. Didn't know this. However I saw an RSO check in at the courthouse here in CO with the clerk and he just signed some papers and left...(he said "I'm here to check in" and I remember thinking "ugh I'd hate to have this woman's job"). His demeanor was so normal, like hi I'm here to get my teeth cleaned. Guess it becomes that way...

Eta: If I had her job I'd probably get fired the first day for Turet's, "you sick #$/@!!"
 
Not my post however, what I took from that statement the other day was that it sounds like they have DNA markers yet they cannot tie it to anyone so far???

Sent from my VS501 using Tapatalk

I think I get your meaning. Perhaps LE has an item with DNA, that may, or may not, have been discarded by the killer.

LE could have their suspicions but can't be certain the item really is from the killer.

If they find a connection though with DN's DNA to the item, then that would lend much more support to their case against DN.

That makes sense. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you...

ETA: Thanks to Momma2cam, iscaremyself, gregjrichards, and Falling Down for weighing in on this. Appreciate everyone's input!
 
Just my opinion but I wouldn’t be surprised if they got DNA from under one of the girl’s fingernails I’m sure they fought like hell for their lives.
Agree. I'm hopeful for this as well and understand it would be important to keep this close to the vest. I was just commenting that we do not have confirmation.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
Marking my spot for the night. I pray tomorrow will bring answers for the families of TW and Abby and Libby.
 
A have a few random things---

<modsnip>

Also, I can see where a witness would say "not blue eyes". I would probably say the same---- well, I know he had dark eyes, that felt like a shark string at me. I would say "they were brown, but I guess they could have been green or hazel, in a dark shade. Definitely not blue, though". So, this statement (now seeing his picture) would not surprise me as a description an actual person would give.


As for if I would recognize him as the sketch if I knew him, I am not sure. I think when we compare side by side, I can see the features. Honestly, the actual photos of him compared to the actual photo on the bridge convince me much more! There are a few pics of his head cocked to the side just the same and his face looks just the same. But, as for the sketch, I might not have recognized because the sketch looks considerably older (maybe because of the hat) and also has a..... softer? more intelligent?... look to it. I am horrible at recognizing features, though, and more read personality through features. If that makes sense. (he has kind eyes, she has a resting b face, etc)

OH. And just the WORD hatchet scares the bejeezus out of me!!!! I definitely never want to be around one. Terrifying.
 
Holding my breath here like a lot of you. At the same time I'm reminded of at least two prior possibilities that social media ran with, convinced that Libby and Abby's murderer had finally been identified.

While I wait, I have a question about the hatchet: Some of you feel that the hatchet is (possibly) involved in the murders in that DN (if he's the perp) may have used one on them. But if DN did murder Tim Watkins then he used a .22 cal rifle, not a hatchet.

How do y'all reconcile his use of a hatchet to threaten people to his using a rifle to actually kill someone? Again, that is assuming he killed TW. I'm just curious as I have no answers to there being two different weapons.

I've been following this case since the beginning and each time I log on I hope to see "arrest" in the title. It must be so hurtful and frustrating for Libby's and Abby's families to wake up each day not knowing what happened to these precious girls. For their sake I hope the case is about to blow open.
IMO, he thought the biker was a woman. He used a gun either from fear after realizing it was a man, or rage for the same reason. He is confident that he can control women without shooting them....JMO.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk
 
Thank you for the timeline indycindy; very helpful.
What is jumping out at me is how dang *bold* this miscreant is, and that certainly aligns with the murders of Abby/Libby where they were snatched in broad daylight on a fairly well traveled trail.
But the getting caught in a women's bathroom was extremely telling. Obviously he has an extremely strong compulsion that he acts on frequently, seemingly without concern of being caught...or taking minimal precaution?

I think we have a prolific serial killer on our hands here, and thank god he is detained. Now let's see if LE proves my theory accurate.

All opinion and speculation only.
 
Agree. But, whose DNA? If none of it is a match to DN, does that rule him out? LE may have DNA they are convinced is from the killer but afaik, that hasn't been released. DNA from the vicinity and at the bridge could be linked to any number of random people and likewise, the killer may not have left any recovered DNA behind. Jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I did notice one quote that struck me as odd.. "I know that he is a registered sex offender, so some of that is probably already on file," said Holeman.".. what does he mean "probably"? It hasn't been checked yet? He can't be saying he doesn't know if any is on file can he? that is odd imho
 
Hi everyone! This is my first post here, although I've been a long time follower. I've always been impressed by the insightful dialogue on here, it's really helped me look at this case from angles I would've never considered otherwise.

I have been thinking about BG's motive... a number of people have suggestion that he might've spotted the girls filming him and 'snapped'. However, I remembered this article about some of the additional audio found on Libby's phone: http://www.wthr.com/article/police-...of-man-behind-them-in-audio-played-for-family, in particular, this quote:

//State police say more audio from Libby German's cell phone was played for the victims' families, including a mention of a man they noticed behind them.
Police say the girls mostly talk about "stuff girls talk about" in the recording, but they also mention the man.//

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also feel like in the first presser the LE mentioned that Libby had the wherewithal to hit record on her phone and leave it on in her back pocket (does anyone else remember this?)

If this is the case, I feel like a natural string of events would be that they noticed him, felt a bit strange (but not seriously concerned) and briefly filmed him for a second to get a better look. As a precautionary measure, Libby then may have put her phone in her back pocket and continued walking and talking. It's possible she took her phone out again later to record him and he saw her and snapped, but like a lot of people on here have wondered, why, then, would he not destroy the evidence?

I think if he had exposed himself, the girls wouldn't have been able to continue talking casually. It's possible he still did it after they started recording, but I doubt the camera was out (and was thus his murder catalyst), since it sounded like the girl's recorded casual conversation continued AFTER Libby had put her phone in her pocket (implying that they weren't too alarmed at this point).

In the stills we have of him, he seems like what I imagined they saw him as... something definitively weird and creepy (a man trying very hard to look inconspicuous), but perhaps just a regular person whose been walking behind them a bit too long. He doesn't appear to be aware of them filming him (I also doubt they were being obvious, its very easy to fake taking a selfie and record someone).

If this is the case (and this all clearly speculation and opinion, as there isn't hard evidence to back all of this), I think he had these intentions very early on. If he was staying on RL's property, he may have just been a creep spending time in the woods, and noticed the girls headed to a vulnerable location, and decided to act, not necessarily a hair trigger response.

Does any one else feel like this is a possibility? Am I leaving out important pieces of information?
 
Hi everyone! This is my first post here, although I've been a long time follower. I've always been impressed by the insightful dialogue on here, it's really helped me look at this case from angles I would've never considered otherwise.

I have been thinking about BG's motive... a number of people have suggestion that he might've spotted the girls filming him and 'snapped'. However, I remembered this article about some of the additional audio found on Libby's phone: http://www.wthr.com/article/police-...of-man-behind-them-in-audio-played-for-family, in particular, this quote:

//State police say more audio from Libby German's cell phone was played for the victims' families, including a mention of a man they noticed behind them.
Police say the girls mostly talk about "stuff girls talk about" in the recording, but they also mention the man.//

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also feel like in the first presser the LE mentioned that Libby had the wherewithal to hit record on her phone and leave it on in her back pocket (does anyone else remember this?)

If this is the case, I feel like a natural string of events would be that they noticed him, felt a bit strange (but not seriously concerned) and briefly filmed him for a second to get a better look. As a precautionary measure, Libby then may have put her phone in her back pocket and continued walking and talking. It's possible she took her phone out again later to record him and he saw her and snapped, but like a lot of people on here have wondered, why, then, would he not destroy the evidence?

I think if he had exposed himself, the girls wouldn't have been able to continue talking casually. It's possible he still did it after they started recording, but I doubt the camera was out (and was thus his murder catalyst), since it sounded like the girl's recorded casual conversation continued AFTER Libby had put her phone in her pocket (implying that they weren't too alarmed at this point).

In the stills we have of him, he seems like what I imagined they saw him as... something definitively weird and creepy (a man trying very hard to look inconspicuous), but perhaps just a regular person whose been walking behind them a bit too long. He doesn't appear to be aware of them filming him (I also doubt they were being obvious, its very easy to fake taking a selfie and record someone).

If this is the case (and this all clearly speculation and opinion, as there isn't hard evidence to back all of this), I think he had these intentions very early on. If he was staying on RL's property, he may have just been a creep spending time in the woods, and noticed the girls headed to a vulnerable location, and decided to act, not necessarily a hair trigger response.

Does any one else feel like this is a possibility? Am I leaving out important pieces of information?

Welcome, and great ideas on your part.
 
Hi everyone! This is my first post here, although I've been a long time follower. I've always been impressed by the insightful dialogue on here, it's really helped me look at this case from angles I would've never considered otherwise.

I have been thinking about BG's motive... a number of people have suggestion that he might've spotted the girls filming him and 'snapped'. However, I remembered this article about some of the additional audio found on Libby's phone: http://www.wthr.com/article/police-...of-man-behind-them-in-audio-played-for-family, in particular, this quote:

//State police say more audio from Libby German's cell phone was played for the victims' families, including a mention of a man they noticed behind them.
Police say the girls mostly talk about "stuff girls talk about" in the recording, but they also mention the man.//

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also feel like in the first presser the LE mentioned that Libby had the wherewithal to hit record on her phone and leave it on in her back pocket (does anyone else remember this?)

If this is the case, I feel like a natural string of events would be that they noticed him, felt a bit strange (but not seriously concerned) and briefly filmed him for a second to get a better look. As a precautionary measure, Libby then may have put her phone in her back pocket and continued walking and talking. It's possible she took her phone out again later to record him and he saw her and snapped, but like a lot of people on here have wondered, why, then, would he not destroy the evidence?

I think if he had exposed himself, the girls wouldn't have been able to continue talking casually. It's possible he still did it after they started recording, but I doubt the camera was out (and was thus his murder catalyst), since it sounded like the girl's recorded casual conversation continued AFTER Libby had put her phone in her pocket (implying that they weren't too alarmed at this point).

In the stills we have of him, he seems like what I imagined they saw him as... something definitively weird and creepy (a man trying very hard to look inconspicuous), but perhaps just a regular person whose been walking behind them a bit too long. He doesn't appear to be aware of them filming him (I also doubt they were being obvious, its very easy to fake taking a selfie and record someone).

If this is the case (and this all clearly speculation and opinion, as there isn't hard evidence to back all of this), I think he had these intentions very early on. If he was staying on RL's property, he may have just been a creep spending time in the woods, and noticed the girls headed to a vulnerable location, and decided to act, not necessarily a hair trigger response.

Does any one else feel like this is a possibility? Am I leaving out important pieces of information?

Welcome to Websleuths SansSerif. Thank you for joining us. Great first post!
 
Hi everyone! This is my first post here, although I've been a long time follower. I've always been impressed by the insightful dialogue on here, it's really helped me look at this case from angles I would've never considered otherwise.

I have been thinking about BG's motive... a number of people have suggestion that he might've spotted the girls filming him and 'snapped'. However, I remembered this article about some of the additional audio found on Libby's phone: http://www.wthr.com/article/police-...of-man-behind-them-in-audio-played-for-family, in particular, this quote:

//State police say more audio from Libby German's cell phone was played for the victims' families, including a mention of a man they noticed behind them.
Police say the girls mostly talk about "stuff girls talk about" in the recording, but they also mention the man.//

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also feel like in the first presser the LE mentioned that Libby had the wherewithal to hit record on her phone and leave it on in her back pocket (does anyone else remember this?)

If this is the case, I feel like a natural string of events would be that they noticed him, felt a bit strange (but not seriously concerned) and briefly filmed him for a second to get a better look. As a precautionary measure, Libby then may have put her phone in her back pocket and continued walking and talking. It's possible she took her phone out again later to record him and he saw her and snapped, but like a lot of people on here have wondered, why, then, would he not destroy the evidence?

I think if he had exposed himself, the girls wouldn't have been able to continue talking casually. It's possible he still did it after they started recording, but I doubt the camera was out (and was thus his murder catalyst), since it sounded like the girl's recorded casual conversation continued AFTER Libby had put her phone in her pocket (implying that they weren't too alarmed at this point).

In the stills we have of him, he seems like what I imagined they saw him as... something definitively weird and creepy (a man trying very hard to look inconspicuous), but perhaps just a regular person whose been walking behind them a bit too long. He doesn't appear to be aware of them filming him (I also doubt they were being obvious, its very easy to fake taking a selfie and record someone).

If this is the case (and this all clearly speculation and opinion, as there isn't hard evidence to back all of this), I think he had these intentions very early on. If he was staying on RL's property, he may have just been a creep spending time in the woods, and noticed the girls headed to a vulnerable location, and decided to act, not necessarily a hair trigger response.

Does any one else feel like this is a possibility? Am I leaving out important pieces of information?

Welcome!

I think he might not have known his pic was taken and definitely didn't know the audio was on. He MAY have been smart enough to know, though, that if he took the phone(s), his movements could be tracked.
 
I did notice one quote that struck me as odd.. "I know that he is a registered sex offender, so some of that is probably already on file," said Holeman.".. what does he mean "probably"? It hasn't been checked yet? He can't be saying he doesn't know if any is on file can he? that is odd imho

Good point. I noticed that as well. The article was published several days ago, when this information about DN was relatively new. Perhaps they had not yet had time to check on whether DN's DNA was on file?

I don't know. Still seems odd though, I agree...
 
~~~
Just wanted to post a quickie on questions about DN's addresses on public record, over-lapping dates, etc...

I recently discovered that a search on my ExH shows my last address, listed as one of his.
He had never set foot in the place, no less lived there.
And we were divorced decades ago.
(It had nothing to do with anything ExH claimed, it was simply compiled by a data source computer program.)

So, while some of DN's addresses overlap, some may not be even be actual addresses at any time.

maybe. :dunno:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
1,700
Total visitors
1,774

Forum statistics

Threads
605,709
Messages
18,191,052
Members
233,504
Latest member
reneej08
Back
Top