IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 # 80

[Shiressleuth]

I do have a question, it was my understanding that there was DNA evidence left at scene, is there any word on if they have checked it aginst any suspects?

The other question I have is has there been any thought to possibly 2 killers rather than one. While they where young girls that may have been controlled by fear, it could present problems. Hunters that hunt with pack mentality are more likely to take on 2 victims at once.

Welcome Vabulous.
It has not definitively been stated by LE whether they have the perps DNA.
Re possibility of 2 perps, it has been discussed but with the dearth of witnesses and the video/audio evidence plus LE statements it appears only one perp is being pursued by LE. I don't think an acvomplice can be ruled out howrver (e.g. Someone who has helped BG in some way with lifts, shelter etc hence the Dr Phil appeal to a wife/brother etc ). MOO

 

[Sleuthin' n TX]

I believe many homeless people are attracted to parks and trails. Every area has homeless people and I think there is a real possibility that someone homeless would have been out that day panhandling for money or cigarettes because lots of people were out on the trail.

Panhandling requires interface with people...so IMO, although we don't know the actual number of witnesses, more people would have come forward to ID a panhandler in that area

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I find this interesting. Didn’t LE take boots from IP? I’m not saying LE took boots owned by anyone in particular, but maybe standard issue, to compare to the shoe prints they found at the CS?
https://www.theindychannel.com/news...-bodies-found-as-missing-carroll-county-teens
MOO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/alexismcadamstv/status/834521628419710989
EVIDENCE: Police still sweeping #Delphi for evidence in murders. Police brought these boots in to analyze-NOT key evidence at this point

plus photos of the boots

 

[Shiressleuth]

Panhandling requires interface with people...so IMO, although we don't know the actual number of witnesses, more people would have come forward to ID a panhandler in that area

Maybe they have come forward - we wouldn't know if reports of such had happened that day or previously. I do remember unconfirmed reports (no allowed links ) so it could be possible. JMO.

 

[Shiressleuth]

All he had to do, and which he obviously did do, was observe that no one else chose the trail to the bridge before or after A&L, and that no one was on that trail behind him. A simple observation and he easily assessed that there was no risk of being seen.

There were no witnesses to the crime. There were people who stated that they saw an unidentified man who was present in the vicinity and who fit the suspect's description.

By stating there were no witnesses, LE is stating there weren't witnesses to the crime.

Don't make more of it than is necessary.

Do you have links for these statements? TIA.

 

[Sleuthin' n TX]

Maybe they have come forward - we wouldn't know if reports of such had happened that day or previously. I do remember unconfirmed reports (no allowed links ) so it could be possible. JMO.

It is possible, agreed. However, a person who is trying to fly under the radar of other people - in order not to be noticed - would not be panhandling, IMO

 

[Shiressleuth]

Maybe, the previous victims are the Iowa cousins Lyric and Elizabeth and LE is already knowing of matching DNA of at least one perp?

OT but presumably they found no DNA on the bodies but I wonder if they found any on the bikes and purse?
Hey I just thought - bikes, Tim Watkins?

 

[Shiressleuth]

It is possible, agreed. However, a person who is trying to fly under the radar of other people - in order not to be noticed - would not be panhandling, IMO

Yes but an angry pan handler who flys off the handle after rejections from people who he thinks could give him something. :cow:

 

[Shiressleuth]

I agree, Cpr Carter referring to the crime, nobody witnessed it.

If the suspect is caught and the case goes to trial, there will certainly be people called to testify including those who assisted with the composite sketch, the family, searchers and so on. They will all be called to the witness stand to testify. But they are not "witnesses" to the definition of the word.

1.
a person who sees an event, typically a crime or accident, take place.
"police are appealing for witnesses to the accident"
synonyms: observer, onlooker, eyewitness, spectator, viewer, watcher; More
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/witness

The perp himself is an eyewitness to the crime and Libby's video/audio also is her legacy of the event too so the "no there weren't any" response needs more explanation by LE IMO as there now is doubt there were any witnesses.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

OT but presumably they found no DNA on the bodies but I wonder if they found any on the bikes and purse?
Hey I just thought - bikes, Tim Watkins?

Bikes - TW and the Iowa girls as well, I think.

 

[MistyWaters]

The perp himself is an eyewitness to the crime and Libby's video/audio also is her legacy of the event too so the "no there weren't any" response needs more explanation by LE IMO as there now is doubt there were any witnesses.

Typically in a trial an eyewitness who observes a crime that takes place is able to describe the sequence of events and LE provides additional evidence to prove the accused committed the crime.

A witness who observed the accused in the area where a crime was committed cannot testify they observed the crime occurring. At best they may be able to identify the person they saw in a lineup. Problem is a year or more later that becomes very difficult. Could you pass by a stranger and a year later positively identify that person? I know I sure couldn't. Even a few days later, unless their was something very distinguishable I couldn't be certain. I think everyone knows that memories are not always perfect?

It's possible one or more persons who saw the suspect are personally having doubts as well. LE is just not going to give us updates and I'm sure that anyone who knows an adult white male with dark hair who they are suspicious of will have tipped LE even if he's not an exact match to the sketch, given the reward is $240k.

If anything, I think LE might've been too overly optmistic the sketch would result in an arrest. But because it didn't, they're not to blame. If they choose to gradually remove focus away from it now just proves the fact that ongoing investigations are fluid.

I posted this a couple of weeks ago but maybe you didn't read it. The experiment at the end of the article is also interesting.
"Investigators combined three sketches into a composite (right) that was circulated widely in an effort to identify Jacob Wetterling's abductor."
Not photographs: The misunderstood police composite sketch
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/20/police-composite-sketch

 

[Maplesyrup]

I haven't posted in a while but have been reading. You have me thinking...I agree. WHERE is BG in the photos. Two thoughts...maybe he was in the photos but was ominously close to Abby and therefore LE didn't want to release a disturbing photo of him lurking so close to the girls...or...maybe the girls had noticed him earlier in their hike somewhere else along the trail [or maybe not]...and he actually surprised them by popping up onto the bridge from the SE end, walked past them and maybe even said "hi" to them or just looked at them. Wanting to take one last good look for witnesses he may have walked out toward the middle, stopped, looked both ways, listened for voices and was sure no one else was in the vicinity. He then spun around and quickly approached the girls at the SE end which caught Libby's attention and she turned the camera on...fearful of his determined fast-pace walk back in their direction. He would have already known the SE end was clear and there were no people. This never occurred to me before...but this may have been the final sequence of moves prior to him striking. Just IMO.

How on earth would he do that. FGS he was nowhere to be seen in Libby's photo of Abby. He didn't just appear from nowhere and that is what actually bothers me about the sequence of photos and video still. Where was BG in the photo?

KR
Reacher

 

[Sleuthin' n TX]

Yes but an angry pan handler who flys off the handle after rejections from people who he thinks could give him something. :cow:

This dude has much larger issues than being an angry panhandler, IMO.

 

[MistyWaters]

I haven't posted in a while but have been reading. You have me thinking...I agree. WHERE is BG in the photos. Two thoughts...maybe he was in the photos but was ominously close to Abby and therefore LE didn't want to release a disturbing photo of him lurking so close to the girls...or...maybe the girls had noticed him earlier in their hike somewhere else along the trail [or maybe not]...and he actually surprised them by popping up onto the bridge from the SE end, walked past them and maybe even said "hi" to them or just looked at them. Wanting to take one last good look for witnesses he may have walked out toward the middle, stopped, looked both ways, listened for voices and was sure no one else was in the vicinity. He then spun around and quickly approached the girls at the SE end which caught Libby's attention and she turned the camera on...fearful of his determined fast-pace walk back in their direction. He would have already known the SE end was clear and there were no people. This never occurred to me before...but this may have been the final sequence of moves prior to him striking. Just IMO.

Anyone feel free to correct me but this is my understanding of the sequence of time, going my memory.

The Snapchat photo of Abby was taken at 2:07pm
The video and the voice recorded by Libby was taken at appx 2:30pm.
According to GHs videos, the span of the bridge can be walked in about 5 minutes.
Shortly after 3pm, Libby did not answer her phone when her dad called, just before he arrived to pick them up.

So only my speculation, after the 2:07 photo the girls didn't immediately proceed onward to the SE end of the bridge. Maybe they'd never intended to walk the full length of it. The time sequence would suggest they were on the bridge for quite a few minutes, maybe just standing or sitting, enjoying the sun and the view, talking, or whatever girls do, after the Abby photo, and the suspect appeared later.

 

[passepartout]

https://www.traillink.com/trail-maps/delphi-historic-trails/

Walking from town is not implausible

It's not far - a mile or so - and not a difficult walk.

However, the trail from City Park passes right next to the road (a busy-ish road, IIRC Main St.) for part of the distance. Anyone walking there is very visible to all passing traffic.

 

[Area52]

The perp himself is an eyewitness to the crime and Libby's video/audio also is her legacy of the event too so the "no there weren't any" response needs more explanation by LE IMO as there now is doubt there were any witnesses.

I, for one, have never ever heard of a perp referred to as a witness. Anyone else?

 

[Shiressleuth]

Typically in a trial an eyewitness who observes a crime that takes place is able to describe the sequence of events and LE provides additional evidence to prove the accused committed the crime.

A witness who observed the accused in the area where a crime was committed cannot testify they observed the crime occurring. At best they may be able to identify the person they saw in a lineup. Problem is a year or more later that becomes very difficult. Could you pass by a stranger and a year later positively identify that person? I know I sure couldn't. Even a few days later, unless their was something very distinguishable I couldn't be certain. I think everyone knows that memories are not always perfect?

It's possible one or more persons who saw the suspect are personally having doubts as well. LE is just not going to give us updates and I'm sure that anyone who knows an adult white male with dark hair who they are suspicious of will have tipped LE even if he's not an exact match to the sketch, given the reward is $240k.

If anything, I think LE might've been too overly optmistic the sketch would result in an arrest. But because it didn't, they're not to blame. If they choose to gradually remove focus away from it now just proves the fact that ongoing investigations are fluid.

I posted this a couple of weeks ago but maybe you didn't read it. The experiment at the end of the article is also interesting.
"Investigators combined three sketches into a composite (right) that was circulated widely in an effort to identify Jacob Wetterling's abductor."
Not photographs: The misunderstood police composite sketch
https://www.apmreports.org/story/2016/09/20/police-composite-sketch

Agreed - memory of any witnesses can be faulty. I was talking about the memory of the perp ( if he confesses) and the physical evidence of the phone - the phone effectively being the digital " witness " experienced by the girls.
Also, if there were two perps or a perp and an accomplice, their witnessed versions and memory would also come into play.

 

[passepartout]

There's also the rather provocative notion that Parabon or similar technology could be used to develop a sketch of DNA that was found at a scene or on a body but is present for innocuous reasons. In other words, the Parabon image would be of the wrong person. At what point would you discover this and how would you know?

 

[Shiressleuth]

Anyone feel free to correct me but this is my understanding of the sequence of time, going my memory.

The Snapchat photo of Abby was taken at 2:07pm
The video and the voice recorded by Libby was taken at appx 2:30pm.
According to GHs videos, the span of the bridge can be walked in about 5 minutes.
Shortly after 3pm, Libby did not answer her phone when her dad called, just before he arrived to pick them up.

So only my speculation, after the 2:07 photo the girls didn't immediately proceed onward to the SE end of the bridge. Maybe they'd never intended to walk the full length of it. The time sequence would suggest they were on the bridge for quite a few minutes, maybe just standing or sitting, enjoying the sun and the view, talking, or whatever girls do, after the Abby photo, and the suspect appeared later.

I think they went off the bridge and down under or around that end of the bridge then went back up after 20 minutes or so to the end to return north and that is when they saw him approaching and caught him on camera either accidentally or deliberately and he then accosted them and directed them down the hill. :cow:

 

[Shiressleuth]

A perp or even two may not be truthful because of a poor memory, that's a new one on me.

I don't think I said that. However Kevin Sweat's version of why he shot two young girls was that he saw two monsters.