IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #71

[katydid23]

You are right. He is not supposed to have any weapons in his possession. He was a passenger in the car when they pulled him over and (I think) the car belongs to his wife who also claims to have bought it. I would argue that he was not in possession of that weapon. Your tactic may differ.

The hatchet. If witnesses can ID him and the hatchet and give sworn testimony that he threatened them with the hatchet, then he goes to jail for having the weapon in his possession - at the very least.

I agree, he makes poor decisions.

How does that change the fact no one here knows of any evidence that connects this man to the murder of these girls?

A felon cannot ride in a car with his wife's gun. Nor can a felon live in a home where his wife has a gun, legally owned for her or not.

 

[Shiressleuth]

We in the USA punish people for breaking the law, which in turn, if caught soon enough, will save lives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is exactly the point I am making about DN not being in jail for any of his offences.

 

[r2so3cxz]

RBBM
While I agree with you that journalists often take liberties with headlines, I also tend to find more support for a thing when multiple news sources ask questions and report the same answers. And having DNA "evidence" is reported in the articles I posted--(posted not simply for the headlines). At least one of these is dated August 2017, well after the Feb (early) dates of the first articles you mentioned. The August 16, 2017 (953.mnc.com) article expressly states in two different paragraphs that LE has found "DNA evidence that they believe belongs to the killer." I got the impression that LE were more tight-lipped in the initial days and weeks concerning what evidence they had. Which also makes sense, as they were still in the process of determining what evidence (including DNA) they had.

The MNC article is summarizing an IndyStar article, which is summarizing a Fox 59 article based on its original interview with Sgt. Holeman where he only said "at every crime scene, you are going to have DNA." So there is no LE statement that they have killer's DNA, just MNC losing a game of telephone tag. There are also not multiple people asking the same questions (at least in this example), just repeating and spinning the original ones. What the actual LE statements mean is open to interpretation. I just wanted to caution people about articles that may be interpreting LE rather freely.

It seems evident (to me, at least) that they do have adequate DNA evidence of the killer if they are swabbing and ruling out multiple POIs over a period of 7 months via those DNA comparisons. So the fact that it's taking longer than some would like or hope can only mean one of two things IMO: the testing is simply taking the time it needs to *OR* DN is not the killer (which wouldn't necessarily surprise me, as I haven't seen the Delphi link, yet). But that's just my take on things; I'm sure some opinions will vary.

Quite right, and maybe they actually do have DNA. It's quite a contrast in those two sets of statements.

 

[RIP Meagan + Johnny]

How does one verify living under a bridge anyway? "Yeah that's my cardboard box second from the left with my hatchet hanging up there"
:cow:

:silly:

Thanks, Shire!

 

[BIC]

JMO...

Respectfully bouncing off off your post re RL and taking into account other things posted about him today...

I don't recall it was ever revealed he was drinking the day he drove to the recycling center and Lafayette. He could have been stone cold sober. We don't know.

I also don't recall it was ever revealed he drove himself home the night he had beer at the pizza place, which, IIRC, was after the girls were found on his property. He may have been driven there and back home by a friend. We don't know.

We also don't know if he spent his probation intoxicated on his property and driving drunk with license suspended or if he sobered up, drove (without being under the influence) when he needed to get somewhere and didn't have a ride and just happened to need a drink with a buddy after this all hit MSM.

If any any of the above was in MSM and I missed it I won't be offended if someone corrects me.

I honestly never ever understood raking this man over the coals for the girls' murders. Yes, he had/has a drinking problem, and I sincerely hope he's getting treatment/counseling for it while he's serving his sentence, which he deserves for violating his probation. But he looks nothing like the photos of BG and even less like the sketch.

Not to mention he's been officially cleared.

DN, on the other hand, resembles the sketch with eyes, nose, mouth, facial hair. He has a history of SO. He has a history of flying into a rage. He has a history of violence against women. He likes being in the woods/nature. It's possible, living in western Indiana, that he heard or knew about the Monon trails in Delphi and thought it would be a good place to clear his head. He was in close enough proximity to Delphi to have been there on the 13th and report for his check in on the 14th. We don't know if he had access to a vehicle. All we have is his word he was living under a bridge. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't know how good his word is or isn't. I'm still not sure he's BG (I'm down to about 65% he is), but he hits much closer to the mark than RL ever will.

Maybe today day will be the day...

JMO.

He wasn’t supposed to be driving, period. I’m done with comparing these two individuals, because there’s no sense in it. It does nothing to help this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ImnoSherlock]

A felon is not allowed to be in a car or a house that has a firearm inside.

A wife cannot have a firearm if she is living with a felon.

Then she broke the law yet again.

 

[Shiressleuth]

A felon cannot ride in a car with his wife's gun. Nor can a felon live in a home where his wife has a gun, legally owned for her or not.

I think he was driving at the time of the stop and he was certainly photographed driving by the friend of TW. The boot was not locked but tied up with rope so the gun was easily accessible too.

 

[BIC]

A felon cannot ride in a car with his wife's gun. Nor can a felon live in a home where his wife has a gun, legally owned for her or not.

False. A felons spouse can own a gun, but must keep it in a place where the felon can’t access it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[katydid23]

False. A felons spouse can own a gun, but must keep it in a place where the felon can’t access it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you worded it better. Thank you.

What I meant was that his wife couldn't have it in the trunk of the car and say 'it was hers' and expect it wouldn't be accessible to her felon husband.

 

[Shiressleuth]

IMO if they had a dna match, he would have been charged already. There’s no way his dna would be on those girls unless he committed the murders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't seem to be in any rush to charge him. RL's DNA was likely at or near the CS too as it was his land but that is/was not enough to charge him with the murders either.

I am glad they are taking their time to be certain.

 

[JazzTune]

What stand out to me about this quote is the "we only get one chance" part.

They only get one chance to convict whomever they arrest, but in theory they could have many chances to arrest someone for the crime.

Maybe it means nothing, but maybe it means DN *is* their man but they have to get everything straight before they charge him.

Thanks, I understand the distinction you're pointing out. I agree that the 'one chance' is referring to the conviction aspect. However, I believe they are intricately entwined.

A premature arrest could start a cascade of unwanted repercussions.

The legal clock starts ticking immediately with an arrest because the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The prosecutor must file charges within 72 hours, ( 48 hours in some states. )

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/chronology-the-arrest-process.html

LE would then be handicapping their own case, robbing themselves of the time necessary to analyze their own data. This could easily jeopardize their entire case, imo.

A premature arrest would unleash a media circus as well. LE resources could be diverted and strained at a time when they are most needing to concentrate their focus on the case.

We don't know if DN is BG. Therein lies the most important reason. A premature arrest could result in an innocent person being deprived of his/her constitutional right to freedom.

In short, this is way too important to risk any wrong steps from the beginning!

Abby, Libby, and their families deserve no less...

JMO

 

[RIP Meagan + Johnny]

What if a potential BG POI or suspect is a chimera or a mosaic? It could account for there not being a match depending on where the POI or suspect's DNA sample was taken.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask23

 

[margarita25]

Re DNA - I think they may have a match so are proceeding with additional evidence gathering for the case. DNA may not be enough evidence on it's own ( so he's not been ruled out by the DNA.) JMO

IMO if they had a dna match, he would have been charged already. There’s no way his dna would be on those girls unless he committed the murders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He could be BG, his DNA just not found at the scene, which is what I'm worried about, as far as the discussion here of DNA. Moo.

And if there is DNA and it's a ruleout...

The answer we are looking for (obviously):
A definitive positive ruling.

 

[margarita25]

Is today the day? Will today actually be the day?

 

[margarita25]

What if a potential BG POI or suspect is a chimera or a mosaic? It could account for there not being a match depending on where the POI or suspect's DNA sample was taken.

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask23

(Man, I remember seeing that on Forensic Files or whatever it was years and years ago...that blew my mind!)

(O/T, jumping off your post I wonder how much DNA technology as related to that has advanced since then.)

 

[BIC]

That is exactly the point I am making about DN not being in jail for any of his offences.

Oh he was never in jail? I didn’t know that. I thought he was convicted of at least one crime and did time for it, and is now an RSO. I’m confused.

 

[arrowhead2]

Thoughts?
http://wishtv.com/2017/10/05/facebook-post-raises-new-questions-in-delphi-double-murders/

 

[margarita25]

Thanks Margarita. I haven't been around for a bit. Glad it was discussed though and when these topics come up it's always helpful for someone to bump a previous post.

Discussion starts here, several posts, listing some of the discussion:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-69&p=13656652#post13656652

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-69&p=13656663#post13656663

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-69&p=13656668#post13656668

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-69&p=13656704#post13656704

 

[Shiressleuth]

BG is not DN - no DNA match
BG is DN - no DNA match
BG is DN - DNA match

The bottom two scenarios are possible and still both rule the POI in.
Only the first scenario would definitely rule out the POI.
AJMO.

 

[BIC]

They don't seem to be in any rush to charge him. RL's DNA was likely at or near the CS too as it was his land but that is/was not enough to charge him with the murders either.

I am glad they are taking their time to be certain.

Actually RL’s dna was most likely NOT at or near the crime scene, if it was he’d be in a bit more trouble than he is.