IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #82

[M. Kay]

I actually agree with you. However, I agree with other posters as well. Gray is no more of an expert than Greeno and Stroup. I’m not taking up for those guys, but Hughes is not any type of verified expert...I am not sure why his word or his theories should be taken at face value any more than the other amateurs.

Not arguing here---feel compelled to mention that the world of difference between the presentations of GH and AG. Hughes'
videos are never finger pointing suspects. He scrupulously shows what's seen as fact---what is there. He aligns with timeline of other fact; checking with family members of the victims. This all speaks well of his intentions, can we agree on that?
On the other hand G & S are biased; and not in contact with victims family. G & S do not accurately speak or listen. I've attempted to give fair consideration, yet see their sloppy method as useless, except perhaps for LE to get someone on the record. I've been surprised that G& S were allowed on this forum for these and other unstated reasons. I was sympathetic at first, feeling one was unjustly suspected.
It may help the conversation if someone here provides an example from G & S that sheds any light on inquiring. I could have missed it!

 

[Daey34]

I totally agree with you that G&S do not present facts and aim for suspects, which GH does not do. However, who is to say that GH puts out facts? I’ve wathched several of his videos and just cannot accept them as fact.

I almost feel like he is taken too seriously MOO

Not arguing here---feel compelled to mention that the world of difference between the presentations of GH and AG. Hughes'
videos are never finger pointing suspects. He scrupulously shows what's seen as fact---what is there. He aligns with timeline of other fact; checking with family members of the victims. This all speaks well of his intentions, can we agree on that?
On the other hand G & S are biased; and not in contact with victims family. G & S do not accurately speak or listen. I've attempted to give fair consideration, yet see their sloppy method as useless, except perhaps for LE to get someone on the record. I've been surprised that G& S were allowed on this forum for these and other unstated reasons. I was sympathetic at first, feeling one was unjustly suspected.
It may help the conversation if someone here provides an example from G & S that sheds any light on inquiring. I could have missed it!

 

[Shiressleuth]

Not arguing here---feel compelled to mention that the world of difference between the presentations of GH and AG. Hughes'
videos are never finger pointing suspects. He scrupulously shows what's seen as fact---what is there. He aligns with timeline of other fact; checking with family members of the victims. This all speaks well of his intentions, can we agree on that?
On the other hand G & S are biased; and not in contact with victims family. G & S do not accurately speak or listen. I've attempted to give fair consideration, yet see their sloppy method as useless, except perhaps for LE to get someone on the record. I've been surprised that G& S were allowed on this forum for these and other unstated reasons. I was sympathetic at first, feeling one was unjustly suspected.
It may help the conversation if someone here provides an example from G & S that sheds any light on inquiring. I could have missed it!

Nobody else got an interview or a letter or predicted extradition. They are unorthodox but seem to get the scoop. Ears to the ground I suppose. If I want to know something and other media are quiet I check them.
GH is different - he analyses the past events - he doesnt predict or speculate AFAIK. They aren't comparable IMO. Each to his own.

 

[Try2solve]

This has probably been posted, but look at this quote from Feb 2017:


"Chief Steve Mullins: "I think people in the community are smart enough to draw their own conclusions about what they should feel and shouldn't feel. Our people are very smart. We have a very good community and they are very strong. And they are able to draw their own conclusions about this whole situation very successfully.”

What does that mean? IMO it sounds to me like he knew and felt like it was common knowledge what could have happened and why?

https://www.theindychannel.com/long...he-murders-of-liberty-german-abigail-williams

This article is HUGE, going to spend some time reviewing it and see if anything else jumps out but that immediately grabbed my attention.

ETA: Link is a long list of quotes

Thanks! So many good quotes, especially now that some time has passed.
Especially:
Robert Ives: “This is a case, there’s lots of evidence out there but it needs to be matched up with a person, and that hasn’t been done yet.”
And:Pat McAfee: "Although you don't want to entice people with money to do the right thing, we assumed with the quality of the photo and the sound of the clip, the only people who are going to know who this is is somebody who's had a long relationship with this person. Whether it's family, or friends, or something like that. They're probably struggling with loyalty, but this is a horrible person. We thought $200,000 is a life-changing amount of money… It's such a small town. There is a lot of division that is publicly stated and talked about on the news. I think America as a whole is like a community. If you're from a small town, we got your back."
Now please allow me to speculate: Ives means more than 1 suspect DNA.
McAfee: A lot of money for someone in Delphi to start anew. JMO

 

[M. Kay]

Nobody else got an interview or a letter or predicted extradition. They are unorthodox but seem to get the scoop. Ears to the ground I suppose. If I want to know something and other media are quiet I check them.
GH is different - he analyses the past events - he doesnt predict or speculate AFAIK. They aren't comparable IMO. Each to his own.

Thanks for replies to my comparisons, for I see that they aren't really comparable. Each to his own is a good way to say it. I sometimes have struggled with what can be allowed on here, so might have seen one as more deserving to qualify than another.
Really good to be able to ask and receive answers. 'AFAIK' is also good to remember...

 

[Try2solve]

Could Delphi police be making felony arrests because of the new Indiana law allowing police to take DNA simply for felony arrest?

 

[carbuff]

Could Delphi police be making felony arrests because of the new Indiana law allowing police to take DNA simply for felony arrest?

There have been similar arrest clusters around here as well. I think the FBI and other agencies have been working together to get evidence for an entire chain of sale and delivery of various drugs across several states.

 

[kc1023]

Thanks! So many good quotes, especially now that some time has passed.
Especially:
Robert Ives: “This is a case, there’s lots of evidence out there but it needs to be matched up with a person, and that hasn’t been done yet.”
And:Pat McAfee: "Although you don't want to entice people with money to do the right thing, we assumed with the quality of the photo and the sound of the clip, the only people who are going to know who this is is somebody who's had a long relationship with this person. Whether it's family, or friends, or something like that. They're probably struggling with loyalty, but this is a horrible person. We thought $200,000 is a life-changing amount of money… It's such a small town. There is a lot of division that is publicly stated and talked about on the news. I think America as a whole is like a community. If you're from a small town, we got your back."
Now please allow me to speculate: Ives means more than 1 suspect DNA.
McAfee: A lot of money for someone in Delphi to start anew. JMO

The Pat McAfee quote stuck out to me as well. It really seems now IMO like they just think a very few people know this guy ... it didn't seem that way to me early on especially with billboards, etc., but looking back there do seem to be clues from the beginning about someone local being able to identify BG. Hmm.

 

[Try2solve]

The Pat McAfee quote stuck out to me as well. It really seems now IMO like they just think a very few people know this guy ... it didn't seem that way to me early on especially with billboards, etc., but looking back there do seem to be clues from the beginning about someone local being able to identify BG. Hmm.

Agreee. Especially this sentence by McAfee :
We thought $200,000 is a life-changing amount of money… It's such a small town.

 

[BIC]

Thanks! So many good quotes, especially now that some time has passed.
Especially:
Robert Ives: “This is a case, there’s lots of evidence out there but it needs to be matched up with a person, and that hasn’t been done yet.”
And:Pat McAfee: "Although you don't want to entice people with money to do the right thing, we assumed with the quality of the photo and the sound of the clip, the only people who are going to know who this is is somebody who's had a long relationship with this person. Whether it's family, or friends, or something like that. They're probably struggling with loyalty, but this is a horrible person. We thought $200,000 is a life-changing amount of money… It's such a small town. There is a lot of division that is publicly stated and talked about on the news. I think America as a whole is like a community. If you're from a small town, we got your back."
Now please allow me to speculate: Ives means more than 1 suspect DNA.
McAfee: A lot of money for someone in Delphi to start anew. JMO

Ives says : “This is a case, there’s lots of evidence out there but it needs to be matched up with a person, and that hasn’t been done yet.” Why do you speculate he means more than one suspect?

 

[Try2solve]

Ives says : “This is a case, there’s lots of evidence out there but it needs to be matched up with a person, and that hasn’t been done yet.” Why do you speculate he means more than one suspect?

My speculation is based on more than 1 suspect.
lots of evidence sounds like multiple DNA
with A person: more than one, he didn't say THE person. JMO

 

[BIC]

My speculation is based on more than 1 suspect.
lots of evidence sounds like multiple DNA
with A person: more than one, he didn't say THE person. JMO

Sounds to me like there’s a lot of evidence, that could include dna, finger prints, dropped items, weapon type wounds, ballistics, etc. etc. that needs to be matched to a person. That’s just MOO

 

[Try2solve]

Sounds to me like there’s a lot of evidence, that could include dna, finger prints, dropped items, weapon type wounds, ballistics, etc. etc. that needs to be matched to a person. That’s just MOO

I totally see that. Sometimes when I have theories I read other things into it. Sometimes I'm right sometimes I'm wrong.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Sounds to me like there’s a lot of evidence, that could include dna, finger prints, dropped items, weapon type wounds, ballistics, etc. etc. that needs to be matched to a person. That’s just MOO

He would then have said "....that needs to be matched to one person" if he had meant that surely. We have also heard there will be a lot of touch DNA so definitely there will be more than one persons DNA at the scene. There's two victims and at least one perp so that is three persons DNA right there, never mind relatives.

:cow:

 

[Justice101]

Here is my (admittedly pessimistic) opinion.

They have trace DNA evidence of the perpetrator(s). (Skin cells, etc.)
They have ruled out several people who do not match the DNA...even relatives.
They did a genealogical ancestry profile and know his basic ethnicity and eye color, etc.
They have found no matches in any DNA database and have only done a few internally involving suspects... everyone has voluntarily complied with the DNA samples.
We have an individual (BG) who went to high school there back in the 90s. This person moved away but has come back now and then to see relatives.... who, after the crime, went out of the area back to his home and has laid low.
There car or license plate did not show up in any of the few DVR recordings at gas stations, banks, etc. Not enough to see who he is or even distinguish anyone from anyone else.
He has NOT been identified by anyone to Delphi police to mark as a suspect because they blend right in and the image taken is blurry.

It is going to take this person being arrested for something else for a DNA match, or a return to the crime scene (not likely) for them to get identified.

It might take 5 years for the killer to be identified.

 

[Justice101]

What do you think the chances are that the murderer of these girls is the same one who killed the other two in Iowa was it?

 

[cluciano63]

I doubt there was more than one involved. There may well be other DNA in the area from people in the area at other times. But no signs pointing to multiple suspects.
Jmo

 

[BIC]

He would then have said "....that needs to be matched to one person" if he had meant that surely. We have also heard there will be a lot of touch DNA so definitely there will be more than one persons DNA at the scene. There's two victims and at least one perp so that is three persons DNA right there, never mind relatives.

:cow:

Yeah, I try not to read too much into it. He said a person, that sounds singular to me. The way one person phrases something is not always how another person would phrase it. IMO

 

[Falling Down]

Which makes me wonder if BG is a SK and LE didn't tell us, how many other SK cases are they keeping secret? Too much to think about.

I'm working on a side project of archiving unsolved murders in this region of the country, there are a staggering number in Illinois which have similar characteristics to each ofher. Some of the characteristics resemble the Delphi case. Some cases in Indiana and Kentucky are strange and have similar charactersitics to the Delphi case, going back to at least 1992 and possibly further back.

My hunch is LE were shocked at the tight timeframe, and relatively tight (within a secluded area) spot the murders happened a year ago. I also think a "signature" was involved.

They have huge resources and abilities compared with us amateurs, however they might be at a point similar where some of us are: Linking the Delphi case to others, as there appears to be no suspect or suspects. They won't come out and say SK, these cases in rural areas seem to rarely get that kind of statement from LE, as the related cases could be many miles away or across state lines, if that makes any sense. Other considerations are media sensationalism, politics, etc.

I just wish LE would come right out and say that people in certain places should be vigilant. I think reports of suspicious activity/persons may bring in the right tips, but in the back of my mind BG may strike again, anyway.I just think that the circumstances in the Delphi case are so out of the ordinary, that it might be difficult to link it to other past cases, unless they try to do it by COD and MOD.

MOO

 

[AlixVR]

After following Shire's link to the Carroll County Comet, I just casually scrolled through some of their old articles. Maybe this one has already been posted, but it caught my eye. I know the headline is about the Flora police, but it sounds as if the officer is speaking in reference to the Delphi case. Am I reading that correctly? If so, that obviously lends a little more credence to the possibility that there was a social media angle, and that the girls were known to BG and had (probably unknowingly) had some form of contact with him. But then why haven't they been able to figure out who this guy is? Any thoughts?:

[FONT=&amp]Council president Josh Ayres asked if there are any safety concerns for Flora. Redmon replied, “Parents need to know where their kids are and what they are doing.” Redmon went on to explain, “if there is anything good that has come out of this, it is that kids on social media are being looked into. With social media, anyone can talk to anyone else all over the world.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“Kids are talking to people they don’t know and some (of these people) have been sexual predators,” he said.

http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/n...ce_discuss_dangers_connected_to_social_m.html

ETA: Article dated March 8, 2017[/FONT]