IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #76

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
What was the whole context of identifiers? Could you quote? Or paraphrase please?

I haven't found the video but 2Hope4 did a great job updating us as the show was aired. He/she posted this:

"Police believe sketch is a face to face encounter with a person from Delphi. Thinks others saw him. Police thinks people know who he is. Untucked shirt, gait, hands in pocket."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-76&p=13812501#post13812501

If anyone finds video with the comment, I'd like to hear it again. TIA
 
This topic has come up on other threads and we have never been able to come up with a case where this was actually done. I believe the consensus was LE would not use lying to the public as a tactic because of the issues of distrust it would cause. I believe one of our verified lawyers, Gitana, wrote about this issue and what she said made a lot of sense. I will see if I can find it.

Contact your local Sheriff Detective or City Police Detective. Even a large media outlet and ask if there has ever been a case where LE, FBI ect has ever given false or altred information to the public to flush out or plain piss of an UNSUB/Suspect. If your attorney says otherwise they are grossly misinformed.
 
Per Dr. Phil interview:
1:30 drop-off
2:07 pictures posted
3:11 DG called Libby
3:14 DG started walking the trails
3:30 DG could not find, other family called
4:00 MP was called
5:15 Police were called by MP
6:00 Search was on

MP says witness saw suspect "leaving area around that time of day".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, my point is, he had to have been seen before 3:14. Also, there have been at least 5 people identified as being in the area of the bridge who were questioned.


Perhaps the drawing is not from a witness at all.

Maybe. And maybe he joined the search. Or maybe he left via cemetery and was seen getting back on the trail from that side of the bridge .
 
The searchers yelled up the hill what were the girls wearing, didn't ask her what color were the shoes. What in the heck makes people think they found the shoes first? The searchers didn't ask what color were the shoes.

Kelsi recalled the searchers yelled up the hill to her from the murder scene, asking if she knew what the girls were wearing. Kelsi yelled back the color of Libby's shoes.

"We found them," Kelsi recalled them yelling to her.
http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...-tips-catch-libby-and-abbys-killer/949182001/

I've been misled, via flow of the crime on MHB videos, into believing the girls arrived at 1:45pm and not at 1:30pm, as we learned they did on Dr. Phil's show. I know who to attribute false and misleading information to, now. How annoying.

I wept uncontrollably when listening to MP. His words held every ounce of pain possible in them.

Anna stated that the shirt her daughter was wearing on MHB was her old shirt so Abby had to pack it when leaving her own home to go stay at the Patty's home the day before. Abby was also wearing Liberty's sweatshirt jacket while on MHB.
 
Something certainly is fishy! It was the statement of MP "leaving the area around that time of day." Why would BG be that stupid? Wet? Bloody? Everyone was calling for the girls.
 
Per Dr. Phil interview:
1:30 drop-off
2:07 pictures posted
3:11 DG called Libby
3:14 DG started walking the trails
3:30 DG could not find, other family called
4:00 MP was called
5:15 Police were called by MP
6:00 Search was on

MP says witness saw suspect "leaving area around that time of day".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, my point is, he had to have been seen before 3:14. Also, there have been at least 5 people identified as being in the area of the bridge who were questioned.


Perhaps the drawing is not from a witness at all.
The suspect was leaving the area after they started searching? Or he means around that time, meaning the time he lost contact with the girls?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
As far as internet sleuthing in order to solve this case, imo it's no better than a guessing game because we don't have a lot of facts to go by. Saying that however, the wide range of speculation that has overtaken this case is rather fascinating. If nothing else, the family deserves for Libby and Abby not be forgotten so that justice will eventually be served.

You are totally right. We simply do not have enough information to do much more beyond speculation.

- We don't know if BG has a limp
- We don't know that the girls were taken away and then brought back
- We don't know how they died
- We don't know what was used to get them "down the hill"
- We don't know if their shoes were on or not
- We don't know what, if any, weapons were used on them (weapons as opposed to hands)
- We don't know if there were more than one perp
- We don't know the names of the other POIs (although we know there ARE more)
- We don't know what else was on that videotape, if anything
- We don't know what was in BG's pocket (if there was anything at all)
- We don't know what that white thing is around his neck
- Who discovered their bodies
- We don't know the girls' times of deaths (days but not time)
- We don't know what witness/es provided the info for the sketch
- And, of course, the phone issue is a big debate

These are all things that people have speculated on, and deduced theories based on additional information that's slowly been released, but none of us absolutely know the answers to any of them. However, over the course of almost a year, the theories to some of these have been tossed around so much that they're starting to come across as "facts."

When you think about what we actually KNOW about their murders, it's strikingly little information. This isn't a crime that, I feel, will be solved by strangers like us (many who live hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away) but I agree that it IS important to keep talking about it because that keeps the case alive and fresh. That's the important thing right now.
 
Since LE has not released much at all about this case, except for some grainy photos, an artist's rendition of an eye witness's memory and about 2 seconds of audio, I am having a hard time understanding where the 'bluff trap' would be.

Maybe just having the case air on national tv in afternoon prime time and they are watching someone squirm?

Nothing new to anyone following this case was stated during the show, so maybe Don can further explain the bluff trap? Unless of course, bluff trap was being discussed in general terms and not as part of this case.

Is it correct that the ISP officer stated that BG has a wife or a brother that knows what happened? Did he limit it to wife and brother? Just wondering because BG likely also has a mom, dad, neighbor, friend, cousin, etc. Are we looking for someone who lives with mom and brother?

Iirc ISP officer said wife or brother. It struck me.
 
Per Dr. Phil interview:
1:30 drop-off
2:07 pictures posted
3:11 DG called Libby
3:14 DG started walking the trails
3:30 DG could not find, other family called
4:00 MP was called
5:15 Police were called by MP
6:00 Search was on

MP says witness saw suspect "leaving area around that time of day".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, my point is, he had to have been seen before 3:14. Also, there have been at least 5 people identified as being in the area of the bridge who were questioned.


Perhaps the drawing is not from a witness at all.
Also why would MP have knowledge of what the witness saw, and we get nothing from LE about what the witness saw and at what time, why is this coming from a family member?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
these shows are planned and scheduled months in advance. I truly believe thy will continue to act like there is no undo focus on DN until they are ready to charge him with something. This show was scheduled and was taped. No undue focus on any one POI.

it's important later.

MOO

This particular show was not scheduled and taped months ago. It was filmed since DN was arrested. The Pattys have been thanking people on SM for making it happen.
 
also why would mp have knowledge of what the witness saw, and we get nothing from le about what the witness saw and at what time, why is this coming from a family member?

Sent from my samsung-sm-g920a using tapatalk

exactly
 
So, saying that they got the artist rendering from an eye witness, when they did not, would make the perp nervous? Surely, BG would know if he had a face-to-face encounter with someone other than the girls on that trail.

Not getting the bluff trap thing - yet.

I am not getting it either.

We can second guess LE's motives and the things they say but I, for one, am going to believe that a witness actually provided the information for the sketch. We are not allowed to mention things said on SM but, if we were, it would back up the claims that witnesses saw BG that day. I, personally, have no reason to doubt LE on the witness-provided sketch and I also prefer to believe it's true just because it would help in the overall solvability of the case.
 
Why, on a sunny day in February, A+L had to be transported to this place (not so far away) in a hurry so-to-say, searching for someone who would them pick up a rather short time later (DG) before they got permission to go (by Becky)? Why had this excursion been so urgent and important? Certainly it wasn't important enough only to have a nice pic of the bridge which was known to them (A/L) for some time already and nothing irretrievable. If the girls didn't know BG, whom did they know who was also involved?
It was a rare sunny day in February where here in Indiana the normal is nothing but grey skies all month long.

Quite probable that they wanted to go take pictures to post on social media on such a nice day.
 
Sleuthers, I am so behind on this case. I started following it in the first few days after the girls went missing and lost it around the time the bodies were found. I'd like to be a fresh pair of eyes, can anyone give me a summary of where we are?

Or realistically is that way past easy and I need to do a mass amount of research?

:thinking:
 
I am not getting it either.

We can second guess LE's motives and the things they say but I, for one, am going to believe that a witness actually provided the information for the sketch. We are not allowed to mention things said on SM but, if we were, it would back up the claims that witnesses saw BG that day. I, personally, have no reason to doubt LE on the witness-provided sketch and I also prefer to believe it's true just because it would help in the overall solvability of the case.

Nothing we have been discussing is from SM. It is from the Dr. Phil interview.
 
**My thoughts, not in the program. Why ask what shoes they were wearing if they had one clothes? Makes me believe they were not clothed when found. But bizarre question IMO considering you're looking for two girls, you find two bodies... Iwould think that's all a person would need to know. **

Many of us speculated that the girls were partially hidden. Maybe they only had the shoes as identifiers at the moment of discovery?

Remember that reporter who claimed he saw the searchers find clothing in the creek and said he knew they had found the girls (paraphrasing)?
 
Also why would MP have knowledge of what the witness saw, and we get nothing from LE about what the witness saw and at what time, why is this coming from a family member?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Hi, therion,

I thought the “witness saw him leaving” idea came out at the time of the sketch release. About the same time the LEO referred to the witness as “she” and corrected himself to “they” several times in the same interview.
JMO.
 
Nothing we have been discussing is from SM. It is from the Dr. Phil interview.

Yes, I realize that. I didn't say it was. I am not sure how that got twisted. I am referring to the idea that LE is lying about the witnesses who provided the sketch. Someone said that LE might be lying about the witnesses, that there weren't any. What I said was that I believe that there were and that LE is telling the truth. (And that idea is backed up by some of the witnesses themselves, which can't be discussed on here.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
219
Guests online
607
Total visitors
826

Forum statistics

Threads
608,088
Messages
18,234,408
Members
234,288
Latest member
Skoobx
Back
Top