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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boxer said:
Altogther its looks like about 1300 RSOs in Indiana total - some are incarcerated, some reporting, but there are about 300 non-compliant RSOs, of which some have warrants out on them and some don't.
The RSO Richard Seeger whose house in Lafayette, was recently raided by the FBI (100% contents tagged and bagged,) is in the registry and is compliant.



http://www.icrimewatch.net/indiana.php
Click to expand...
I believe there are more.For whatever reason,a number of sex offenders are not on the registry when they should be.I've sleuthed 2 that are currently not on the registry when they should be.I contacted a sheriff's dept. to get the lowdown on that and apparently Indiana has a loophole.Also I would add that one I sleuthed is in prison right now for the offense and the other is not in jail at all.Both should register lifetime.I won't say the names but I believe one of them was intentionally omitted from the registry due to his last name.All sleuthable and can be found if looking around Logansport,In. Just gotta dig a little deeper.Indiana should get this mess cleaned up.
 
@kizzycat, TY for the info about the old hotel. I will take a look at the maps.
 
Sadly, useful DNA and forensic evidence is rarely found at crime scenes, such a dang long shot. The circumstantial evidence is what cinches most cases, as I'm sure everyone here knows. The fact that DN was sleeping under bridges, the sketch, the sexual offenses, the temper, the audio clip, the picture, the sex offender status...these are more pieces of evidence than you get in many cases. It's still not necessarily enough for a conviction, but it is enough for an arrest. Mark my words, without exculpatory evidence, DN will be arrested eventually for Delphi, at least if he should ever be released from jail in Colorado. If I were LE, I would keep looking into DN almost to the exclusion of all other leads and tips. Somewhere out there, there is evidence...
 
missdarcy said:
If I were LE, I would keep looking into DN almost to the exclusion of all other leads and tips. Somewhere out there, there is evidence...
Click to expand...

I think tunnel vision is a seriously dangerous thing for LE to have. Many people were convicted and imprisoned, and later exonerated or released upon appeal, because LE refused to follow other leads and later evidence proved they were wrong.
 
minazoe said:
uh woah.
Click to expand...
Woah is right! imo,
From margarita's link
http://fox59.com/2016/08/31/fbi-off...veland-abduction-case-girl-held-for-17-hours/
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • picture1-copy.jpg
    picture1-copy.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 476
katydid23 said:
Yes, I don't want to be too graphic, but the only DNA that would automatically be from the killer would be bodily fluids from a SA.

But if there was touch DNA on a piece of clothing or a cig butt nearby, we can't know if it was actually the killer or not. Although putting someone there or in contact with the girls is a big first step.
Click to expand...

Not even then would it be automatically the killer's DNA. Though young, either, or both, of the girls could have been sexually active.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Good Sluthing here folks! I pray tomorrow's the day!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J320AZ using Tapatalk
 
newredtabby said:
Not even then would it be automatically the killer's DNA. Though young, either, or both, of the girls could have been sexually active.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


What about DNA under the girls finger nails ? I've known quite a few cases where the perps DNA was recovered from the victim/s fighting back.
 
This thread moves too quickly for me to keep up with fully, so I might be off track with this. It is reported that DN was living under a bridge at the time the crime happened and I have seen posts here of people wondering how this can be determined. The following thoughts are based on my knowledge of working in child protection in the UK. I would imagine the same / similar would apply in the US?

Given his convictions and background (sex offences, violence, domestic violence), DN would be considered a risk to children. People who are a risk to children should not be living with children. Child protection services would be alerted by the police / prisons / probation if an offender was known to have contact with children. The other parent would likely be given the ultimatum of if you continue living with this offender then your children will be removed from your care. So, when he went to register as per his SO order, if DN gave his address as living with KN, they would be obliged to inform children’s services, which could lead to them removing the children. DN could perhaps have said he was homeless to prevent this from happening.

I have know idea where KN was living at this time, and have no idea if this would be anywhere near Delphi. I know we can’t comment on that here anyway, but just throwing this thought in here!
 
Thisisusername said:
What about DNA under the girls finger nails ? I've known quite a few cases where the perps DNA was recovered from the victim/s fighting back.
Click to expand...


That's what I want to know too. It seems obvious to me that if you have a murder victim with evidence under their fingernails that they had scratched someone, wouldn't the most logical owner of that DNA be the perpetrator of the crime?
 
mtnlites said:
I think tunnel vision is a seriously dangerous thing for LE to have. Many people were convicted and imprisoned, and later exonerated or released upon appeal, because LE refused to follow other leads and later evidence proved they were wrong.
Click to expand...

Law needs to keep looking at all leads even while focusing on one POI.
There are a awful lot of white males that fit the BG face and body description.

DN has a lot of red flags and he is the best lead so far, but deciding its him without positive evidence lets the killer free, and cheats Abby an Libby of their justice.
 
Boxer said:
Altogther its looks like about 1300 RSOs in Indiana total - some are incarcerated, some reporting, but there are about 300 non-compliant RSOs, of which some have warrants out on them and some don't.
The RSO Richard Seeger whose house in Lafayette, was recently raided by the FBI (100% contents tagged and bagged,) is in the registry and is compliant.



http://www.icrimewatch.net/indiana.php
Click to expand...
That's an incredibly high percentage if you ask me. 23% non compliant.
 
Bsx said:
This thread moves too quickly for me to keep up with fully, so I might be off track with this. It is reported that DN was living under a bridge at the time the crime happened and I have seen posts here of people wondering how this can be determined. The following thoughts are based on my knowledge of working in child protection in the UK. I would imagine the same / similar would apply in the US?

Given his convictions and background (sex offences, violence, domestic violence), DN would be considered a risk to children. People who are a risk to children should not be living with children. Child protection services would be alerted by the police / prisons / probation if an offender was known to have contact with children. The other parent would likely be given the ultimatum of if you continue living with this offender then your children will be removed from your care. So, when he went to register as per his SO order, if DN gave his address as living with KN, they would be obliged to inform children’s services, which could lead to them removing the children. DN could perhaps have said he was homeless to prevent this from happening.

I have know idea where KN was living at this time, and have no idea if this would be anywhere near Delphi. I know we can’t comment on that here anyway, but just throwing this thought in here!
Click to expand...
But surely an RSO is allowed to reside with his own wife and children isn't he? Or perhaps not - please advise?
 
Boxer said:
Law needs to keep looking at all leads even while focusing on one POI.
There are a awful lot of white males that fit the BG face and body description.

DN has a lot of red flags and he is the best lead so far, but deciding its him without positive evidence lets the killer free, and cheats Abby an Libby of their justice.
Click to expand...

I agree, Boxer. You can give your attention to one POI without causing detriment to the investigation by completely ignoring other leads. So far, for me, the evidence to charge DN just isn't there. I am happy to have LE continue to investigate him, but I also hope that they continue giving attention to other leads and tips that might take them away from him as well.
 
Shiressleuth said:
But surely an RSO is allowed to reside with his own wife and children isn't he? Or perhaps not - please advise?
Click to expand...

Each case is dealt with individually so there’s no ‘one size fits all’. The aim is to keep children with their families wherever possible and interventions will take place to promote the safety of children living with their parents, but if a child is deemed to be at risk of harm they will be removed from the parents care. Depending on the offences taken place, not all RSOs may be deemed as a risk to children, but if the offences have involved children then it is probable they will be deemed as a risk to children. If someone is a risk to children, they shouldn’t be living with them. The partner will have to make the choice of continuing with the relationship and risk losing their children, or to leave the relationship and continue parenting their children. So even if they are his own children, if he is a risk to children, he isn’t allowed to reside with them.

Even taking the RSO status out of the equation, there is heaps of research on the impact of DV on children. As well as having a significant impact on their emotional wellbeing, there is the risk of a child being physically hurt if they try to intervene or get caught in the crossfire. If DV is raised as an issue, there’s support available to both the perpetrator and victim to try and overcome this, so does not necessarily mean a child would be removed straight away. But if it is longstanding then that could be an outcome. I think I’ve read that KN had a restraining order at some point, which to me would suggest the DV was significant and ongoing. It would suggest that she and therefore her children were at risk of harm from DN, so again he shouldn’t be living with them. It could be that since the restraining order was put in place, DN demonstrated he had made such changes that he was no longer a risk of perpetrating DV, so they could return to living as a family - who knows!

DV = domestic violence
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 279 (members: 85, guests: 194)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
194
Total visitors
279
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,709
Messages
18,244,409
Members
234,434
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top