IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #73

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m watching the reporter’s and The Gazette’s Twitter accounts to see whether anyone questions the potential leaking of COD/misreporting (whichever) and what the response might be. I’m also watching the article for edits. I should probably check the Gazette’s official FB page.

Quoting myself. That was quick. How do I post his reply and not the other users question? I’m not very Twitter savvy.

http://https://twitter.com/lancebenzel/status/923281709482762242
 
Quoting myself. That was quick.
[video=twitter;923281709482762242]https://twitter.com/lancebenzel/status/923281709482762242[/video]

Interesting, reporter didn't say he was wrong, only that cause of death hasn't been released. MOO but I think he let the cat out of the bag so to speak and is walking it back.. shooting makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Quoting myself. That was quick. How do I post his reply and not the other users question? I’m not very Twitter savvy.

usually if you click on the timestamp in the tweet you want to quote, it will take you to just that quote, where you can copy the link.
 
Interesting, reporter didn't say he was wrong, only that cause of death hasn't been released. MOO but I think he let the cat out of the bag so to speak and is walking it back.. shooting makes a lot of sense to me.

That’s what I thought...he didn’t say the article was factually incorrect, just acknowledged that the COD hadn’t been released and will edit the story.
 
I’m watching the reporter’s and The Gazette’s Twitter accounts to see whether anyone questions the potential leaking of COD/misreporting (whichever) and what the response might be. I’m also watching the article for edits. I should probably check the Gazette’s official FB page.

My phone won’t let me thank you, but thank you! Good work!
 
That’s what I thought...he didn’t say the article was factually incorrect, just acknowledged that the COD hadn’t been released and will edit the story.

Would the group here like me to contact the reporter to ask that they be more specific so this isn't bantered about for 50 threads? I'm happy to do so.

Reporter said it was an error.
 
Or if he forces them at gunpoint down the hill, they make a break across creek and he shoots them from a distance. No assault, no DNA, he covers them with leaves and twigs and departs the scene. The similarity to TW death. MOO.

I have thought this about TW's death (shudder to type it). His obit said his father was an avid outdoorsman and taught TW survival skills which TW used on trips in the high mountains of the west. TW was physically fit as well. Because his shoe was in the road I wonder if that was an initial altercation of some kind. Then maybe he took off on his bike but perhaps was injured somehow and dropped the bike, but (literally running for his life) he kept going further off trail where it was more rugged in order to gain the upper hand. Some speculated his might've been an accidental shooting, maybe target shooters, but later reports say he was shot multiple times, so it was no accident. Like the girls, his body was not found right way, despite drones, search dogs and multiple search and rescue teams. Days later his body was found in an area where terrain and lack of cell and radio reception delayed LE's processing of the scene. There have been times I wonder if Libby and Abby made a run for it across the creek. If these two crimes are connected, it's almost like they were being chased down like prey. (I truly hate to think or type that.)
ETA: in both cases the bodies were located in an area that would be quite difficult for the killer to move them to (by himself anyway). Another reason I felt the victims might have been fleeing.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/gazette/obituary.aspx?pid=186731552

http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Se...in-biker-missing-since-Sept-14-445114943.html
 
Would the group here like me to contact the reporter to ask that they be more specific so this isn't bantered about for 50 threads? I'm happy to do so.

Reporter said it was an error.

He said he posted it in error, not that he was wrong. Honestly you can contact the reporter, but he's not going to say he was wrong about the cause of death, because to do so would be to admit that he knew what the COD was... I think it's possible that the media got hold of what exactly the similarities were between TW and the Delphi girls before IN LE issued the gag on reporting. Media was probably told to squash COD for Abby and Libby but this reporter published it without thinking about what he was doing. I don't happen to think banter about COD is a waste of time, but that's MOO.
 
He said he posted it in error, not that he was wrong. Honestly you can contact the reporter, but he's not going to say he was wrong about the cause of death, because to do so would be to admit that he knew what the COD was... I think it's possible that the media got hold of what exactly the similarities were between TW and the Delphi girls before IN LE issued the gag on reporting. Media was probably told to squash COD for Abby and Libby but this reporter published it without thinking about what he was doing. I don't happen to think banter about COD is a waste of time, but that's MOO.

What the heck?

First my post was tongue in cheek.

Second, the COD has NEVER been revealed and the autopsies have been sealed.

Speculate away my friends.
 
Being shot doesn't necessarily mean that a slug was recovered.

True for a couple different reasons
1-One is the bullet could pass cleanly through a body and end up very far away in the woods somewhere and it is never found. Or lodged inside a tree or in the ground somewhere and is never found or spotted by anyone.

2-a bullet ("slug" or projectile) may get very deformed or even broken into small fragments as it hits bone and richochets around inside a body. Which could make the deformed bullet or small fragments almost impossible to compare to anything.

When we typically think of comparing the bullet projectile part of a cartridge we typically think of LE recovering the suspects gun and then test firing another bullet into a barrel of water to compare to bullets recovered from a body. The bullet from the water barrel will give a nice round in tact bullet with markings from the guns barrel. However a bullet from a body may be in pieces or deformed so badly that it makes comparison almost impossible. We can only hope with some luck that LE gets what they need from crime scenes to solve cases.

In this case if LE can recover two bullets from two different crime scenes they could prove the same gun was used even if no gun was recovered. That is if the bullets are in good enough shape. For example if they find one bullet from the Indiana crime scene and one bullet from the Colorado crime scene they may be able to prove the same gun was used in both crime scenes and not even need the gun to know that.

A lot of us use various terms for the parts of a cartridge and its acceptable slang in most cases since sometimes it doesnt matter. When dealing with forensics though then it becomes important to be sure we use the part of the cartridge that LE is testing. Because they can test many parts of the cartridge.

1-LE can test the shell casing for marks that a gun's ejection system does to the shell casing if the gun is a semi-automatic. The shell casing is a lot of times made of brass. A revolver does not have an ejection system like a semi-automatic and rather has a manual way to pour out the casings or remove the casings from the revolver. Revolvers are not as easy to compare markings on casings to as compared to a semi-automatic which typically leaves scratches or marks on the casing as the gun ejects the casing out. I had one semi-auto that left terrible scratches in the same place on every shell. The naked eye could tell the gun was used to throw the casings out because the marks were always the same on every shell casing.

2-LE can test the bullet (projectile) for marks that a guns barrel does to the bullet as it exits the barrel.

3-LE can test the primer for marks that the gun's hammer does on the primer as the hammer falls on the primer which begins the firing of the shell.

4-There may even be more things they can test so it gets pretty interesting.

To remind us of the four parts and proper terms which most of us are already familiar with here.
A cartidge has four main parts.
1-Case or shell casing = holds the primer, powder, and bullet
2-Primer = usually the small inner round thing that sits on the end of the shell casing that contains a small amount of explosive that explodes to cause an ignition of the main gun powder which is inside the shell casing.
3-gun powder is what fills the shell casing
4-bullet = the projectile that gets fired out the end of a gun. Usually lead or some other type metal or metal alloy.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Parts-of-a-Cartridge-and-Caliber/20105001_700046700/
 
What the heck?

First my post was tongue in cheek.

Second, the COD has NEVER been revealed and the autopsies have been sealed.

Speculate away my friends.

My apologies, it is not always easy to detect what is tongue and cheek and what isn't. MOO but COD hasn't been revealed to the public but I'm sure that both CO LE and IN LE know cause of death in investigating the possible similarities between the cases. If my ( aging) memory serves me correctly CO LE very early after DN's arrest mentioned similarities between the cases, and it was after that statement that IN LE put a gag order on CO discussing COD of Abby and Libby, in MOO it is possible that the media got ahold of what CO LE suspected those similarities to be but were told they couldn't publish it for the obvious reasons. It is entirely possible and likely that the Gazette reporter just said Abby and Libby were shot as a guess, but I can also envision a scenario where there are certain media outlets in CO that actually do know the COD in the Delphi homicides. Also, I thought that KN was fair game in as much as what she has said in main stream media interviews...is that not correct?
 
Yes KN is but the rules on page one say not family. Mods can clarify to anyone who is unsure.

I'd be pretty shocked if this reporter knew the cause of death. That would be one major goof in my book. Then again with the amount of errors we see in reporting, maybe I'm too harsh. But I would hope with a matter as delicate as this that reporters wouldn't be so sloppy.

And...my tongue in cheek remarks get overlooked a lot. I need to use emojis more often :D



My apologies, it is not always easy to detect what is tongue and cheek and what isn't. MOO but COD hasn't been revealed to the public but I'm sure that both CO LE and IN LE know cause of death in investigating the possible similarities between the cases. If my ( aging) memory serves me correctly CO LE very early after DN's arrest mentioned similarities between the cases, and it was after that statement that IN LE put a gag order on CO discussing COD of Abby and Libby, in MOO it is possible that the media got ahold of what CO LE suspected those similarities to be but were told they couldn't publish it for the obvious reasons. It is entirely possible and likely that the Gazette reporter just said Abby and Libby were shot as a guess, but I can also envision a scenario where there are certain media outlets in CO that actually do know the COD in the Delphi homicides. Also, I thought that KN was fair game in as much as what she has said in main stream media interviews...is that not correct?
 
That’s why it’s so hard for me to get she didn’t look back.

Well, she's not always that precise with her words anyway. She could easily mean she didn't look out the back window, not that she didn't look in the back seat.
 
How do you know she wasn't?
Not watching DN does not equal Not watching her kids


JMO...
According to her MSM quote she didn’t turn around at all - not even once.

I’m saying why wouldn’t she have checked on the children? I don’t believe she did not turn around. I think she turned to check the little ones and also to see what was happening to Daniel. I also think she knew he had the hatchet because she either saw it before he exited the vehicle or because she saw him get it out of the trunk. If she’s admits to turning around, she wouldn’t be able to cover for him if he did have the hatchet.

A good prosecutor will call her statement into question to establish her truthfulness. It may sound something like this, “Ma’am, you mean to tell me your children, one aged 4 years and one aged approximately 5 months were in the back seat of the vehicle when your husband had to swerve to avoid an accident and almost went over an embankment and after he stopped the car you NEVER ONCE turned around to check if they were ok or to comfort them if they were frightened?” “Well, yes, I did turn around to see if they were ok.” Bazinga. Now they have verified at least one false statement by her.
 
Updated docket:
attachment.php

attachment.php

https://www.courts.state.co.us/dockets/index.cfm#results
 

Attachments

  • DN Docket 4_A.jpg
    DN Docket 4_A.jpg
    68.7 KB · Views: 377
  • DN Docket 4_B.jpg
    DN Docket 4_B.jpg
    59.1 KB · Views: 376
True for a couple different reasons
1-One is the bullet could pass cleanly through a body and end up very far away in the woods somewhere and it is never found. Or lodged inside a tree or in the ground somewhere and is never found or spotted by anyone.

2-a bullet ("slug" or projectile) may get very deformed or even broken into small fragments as it hits bone and richochets around inside a body. Which could make the deformed bullet or small fragments almost impossible to compare to anything.

When we typically think of comparing the bullet projectile part of a cartridge we typically think of LE recovering the suspects gun and then test firing another bullet into a barrel of water to compare to bullets recovered from a body. The bullet from the water barrel will give a nice round in tact bullet with markings from the guns barrel. However a bullet from a body may be in pieces or deformed so badly that it makes comparison almost impossible. We can only hope with some luck that LE gets what they need from crime scenes to solve cases.

In this case if LE can recover two bullets from two different crime scenes they could prove the same gun was used even if no gun was recovered. That is if the bullets are in good enough shape. For example if they find one bullet from the Indiana crime scene and one bullet from the Colorado crime scene they may be able to prove the same gun was used in both crime scenes and not even need the gun to know that.

A lot of us use various terms for the parts of a cartridge and its acceptable slang in most cases since sometimes it doesnt matter. When dealing with forensics though then it becomes important to be sure we use the part of the cartridge that LE is testing. Because they can test many parts of the cartridge.

1-LE can test the shell casing for marks that a gun's ejection system does to the shell casing if the gun is a semi-automatic. The shell casing is a lot of times made of brass. A revolver does not have an ejection system like a semi-automatic and rather has a manual way to pour out the casings or remove the casings from the revolver. Revolvers are not as easy to compare markings on casings to as compared to a semi-automatic which typically leaves scratches or marks on the casing as the gun ejects the casing out. I had one semi-auto that left terrible scratches in the same place on every shell. The naked eye could tell the gun was used to throw the casings out because the marks were always the same on every shell casing.

2-LE can test the bullet (projectile) for marks that a guns barrel does to the bullet as it exits the barrel.

3-LE can test the primer for marks that the gun's hammer does on the primer as the hammer falls on the primer which begins the firing of the shell.

4-There may even be more things they can test so it gets pretty interesting.

To remind us of the four parts and proper terms which most of us are already familiar with here.
A cartidge has four main parts.
1-Case or shell casing = holds the primer, powder, and bullet
2-Primer = usually the small inner round thing that sits on the end of the shell casing that contains a small amount of explosive that explodes to cause an ignition of the main gun powder which is inside the shell casing.
3-gun powder is what fills the shell casing
4-bullet = the projectile that gets fired out the end of a gun. Usually lead or some other type metal or metal alloy.

https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Parts-of-a-Cartridge-and-Caliber/20105001_700046700/

TY for such a comprehensive ballistics guide. Even though we only knew COD momentarily in error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
2,403
Total visitors
2,591

Forum statistics

Threads
599,716
Messages
18,098,539
Members
230,909
Latest member
Mili
Back
Top