IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #83

[sleuther0192837465]

Not trying to say there is a SM connection, however, is it possible that BG knew of the girls beforehand through a mutual friend? And this mutual friend is linked to Libby/Abby through SM, not just through real life? I ask this because Libby’s Instagram (one example) was open to the public. It was/is possible to see her posts without requesting to follow her. Could BG have seen her public post that day & know where the girls were headed? Which also begs the question, can visitors to her public postings be tracked? To be clear, I’m not saying BG had ever met Libby or Abby. Just saying it’s possible he knew OF them. MOO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shiressleuth]

Hence, in my opinion, why there was no picture of the sketch, no tip line, etc...at the press conference. They know who BG is and need his false alibi to tell the truth. Meaning they cannot prove within a reasonable doubt to a jury that BG's alibi is false.

In the case of Holly Grim, LE knew all along that her coworker was late to work the day she disappeared and made up some reasonable alibi. They even had his DNA at the abduction scene that he explained away. They were in talks with him from the beginning. The public knew nothing of this. Fast forward 3 years, LE swarms his house and find her body on his property. He is arrested. His wife did noticed his muddy boots the day of the abduction. We dont know what she actually knew at this point. We the public do not know what happened the day he was arrested that LE was finally was able to make the arrest. What changed? What happened after 3 long years of knowing who did it all along? What was that "one missing tip" or piece of info they needed? We are awaiting the trail to hopefully hear more. But my point is LE knew all along and I am hoping that is the case with dear Abby and Libby.

This is how I think it will play out but I hope it won't take another couple of years to come to an arrest.

 

[ocgrad]

What was odd about that particular part of the interview with Holman was that even right up to the moment of her beginning to speak about the walk LE, nor the media, made no mention whatsoever about anything related to crime flow. She asks no set up questions to build a foundation for the alleged flow but rather just prattles it off as if it were a well known fact and then Holman dances a bit of a jig. Even so, that particular revelation, if it were true, should have sparked at least some other media interest and questions from other journalists about the crime flow and there is zero. The first and only mention by LE or the media of crossing the creek comes from this reporter.

As for LE saying they didn't have evidence that BG left the area in a vehicle I will also offer an observation that aren't saying BG didn't leave the area in a vehicle just that they don't have evidence of that.

I agree. She threw out the scenario of crossing the creek and he just ran downhill with it like it was the easiest way to respond. He never confirmed they did and if he had been asked point blank I believe he would have given some standard LE answer "to protect the integrity of the investigation."
I wish we had some locals who would go out on the bridge while another pair goes down in the woods and to the creek, not even wearing a tie-die t-shirt, but so we can understand how visible they would be from the bridge and how well they would be heard.
I also agree about the vehicle that his answer that they do not have evidence is not saying he didn't leave in a vehicle.

 

[BIC]

I just listened to the interview again and agree with you. Sgt. Holeman is the one who mentions crossing the creek and clearly indicates that is the way he believes the girls and BG went. At about the 10 minute mark of the interview if anyone wants to listen.

http://fox59.com/2017/08/14/lead-de...ave-more-audio-from-teens-phone-dna-evidence/

moo

ETA: The reporter didn't ask if they crossed the creek. He volunteered that info.

Thank you so much for this link, I was getting into search mode.

There’s no doubt in my mind, he clearly says they crossed the creek. He even mentions how even though it was a warm day for February, the water was colder than the air temperature, and that it isn’t a normal walk. IMO

 

[Jethro4WS]

That’s your opinion. To me it was clearly stated in the interview. He said something like, To go through that brush, and then to cross the creek. Trying to read too much into it just confuses things even more. IMO

It is not my opinion that LE has never once said the girls crossed the creek. They have not said it. Holman didn't say those words - "to go through the brush and then to cross the creek" the reporter interviewing him said those words.

 

[mtnlites]

Thank you so much for this link, I was getting into search mode.

There’s no doubt in my mind, he clearly says they crossed the creek. He even mentions how even though it was a warm day for February, the water was colder than the air temperature, and that it isn’t a normal walk. IMO

See, I get this from it as well but there are still many who remain unconvinced that they crossed the creek. I feel this is an issue that divides us. It's a big issue because, without them crossing the creek, it almost certainly means that a vehicle was involved.

 

[K.jill]

Hence, in my opinion, why there was no picture of the sketch, no tip line, etc...at the press conference. They know who BG is and need his false alibi to tell the truth. Meaning they cannot prove within a reasonable doubt to a jury that BG's alibi is false.

In the case of Holly Grim, LE knew all along that her coworker was late to work the day she disappeared and made up some reasonable alibi. They even had his DNA at the abduction scene that he explained away. They were in talks with him from the beginning. The public knew nothing of this. Fast forward 3 years, LE swarms his house and find her body on his property. He is arrested. His wife did noticed his muddy boots the day of the abduction. We dont know what she actually knew at this point. We the public do not know what happened the day he was arrested that LE was finally was able to make the arrest. What changed? What happened after 3 long years of knowing who did it all along? What was that "one missing tip" or piece of info they needed? We are awaiting the trail to hopefully hear more. But my point is LE knew all along and I am hoping that is the case with dear Abby and Libby.

Maybe dna found at the scene or on the girl’s clothing is a match to someone who has a plausable reason that their dna would be there (someone the girls wiuld have contact with in school, or someone who hiked in the area regularly) and a good alibi.
Therefore they need someone to break the alibi.
Maybe?

 

[Jax49]

Bringing over TeaTime's post from August when the interview was released. I agree with TT's take aways.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-65&p=13565103#post13565103

We have additional facts now:

- the girls crossed the creek,

- more than one person saw BG,

- Libby's phone was found.

Three issues we can lay to rest.

 

[Jethro4WS]

It is not my opinion that LE has never once said the girls crossed the creek. They have not said it. Holman didn't say those words - "to go through the brush and then to cross the creek" the reporter interviewing him said those words.

Quoting myself to point out - I have that backwards. I stand corrected.

 

[BIC]

It is not my opinion that LE has never once said the girls crossed the creek. They have not said it. Holman didn't say those words - "to go through the brush and then to cross the creek" the reporter interviewing him said those words.

Maybe you should watch the video, Holeman is the one who said those words.

 

[Jax49]

It is not my opinion that LE has never once said the girls crossed the creek. They have not said it. Holman didn't say those words - "to go through the brush and then to cross the creek" the reporter interviewing him said those words.

Actually Holman does say that, not the reporter. Listen at about the 11 minute mark.

http://fox59.com/2017/08/14/lead-de...ave-more-audio-from-teens-phone-dna-evidence/

 

[BIC]

See, I get this from it as well but there are still many who remain unconvinced that they crossed the creek. I feel this is an issue that divides us. It's a big issue because, without them crossing the creek, it almost certainly means that a vehicle was involved.

If not a vehicle, they would’ve had to go back across the bridge.

 

[mollynjack]

I agree. I believe their suspect has an alibi at this point and that his dna can be explained away somehow. Their pleadings are to that person or persons who can disprove the alibi.

 

[Shiressleuth]

See, I get this from it as well but there are still many who remain unconvinced that they crossed the creek. I feel this is an issue that divides us. It's a big issue because, without them crossing the creek, it almost certainly means that a vehicle was involved.

It was pretty much well discussed at the time of the interview (thread 65) and taken to mean the girls crossed the creek, or that was my recollection anyway. The searchers crossing the creek with linked arms is also an additional pointer to me that the girls went across it too. Plus the fact that is where they were found.

 

[Try2solve]

Actually Holman does say that, not the reporter. Listen at about the 11 minute mark.

http://fox59.com/2017/08/14/lead-de...ave-more-audio-from-teens-phone-dna-evidence/

JMO, but Holeman looks very uncomfortable when speaking about the creek. I don't believe they crossed the creek at all.

 

[gregjrichards]

I agree. I believe their suspect has an alibi at this point and that his dna can be explained away somehow. Their pleadings are to that person or persons who can disprove the alibi.

It depends where the dna is from though. If for example one of the girls had severe bruising under her fingernails (as may be the case) because she fought like hell for her life. What excuse could the male in question come up with to explain how his dna got under them?

 

[Jax49]

JMO, but Holeman looks very uncomfortable when speaking about the creek. I don't believe they crossed the creek at all.

Not seeing that. I see no reason to think he is lying. moo

 

[BIC]

JMO, but Holeman looks very uncomfortable when speaking about the creek. I don't believe they crossed the creek at all.

To me he looks genuinely upset throughout most of the interview. IMO

 

[ocgrad]

Quite literally, LE has NEVER said that the creek was crossed. Not once. Not prior to the interview (hence, where did her version of the flow come from?) and not after the interview either. Because it never was mentioned, nor reported about, if it were true then it would be NEWS. It would be a NEW revelation. I have not yet found any other media source, except that interview, that mentions any of the crime flow. It is something rather peculiar about this case.

The media has been extremely compliant, has not done any investigation on their own, reported information from anonymous LE sources, etc. It is rather strange that would be the case considering the amount of press coverage the case received.

Do you think after a year any investigative reporters have been filing for SW and Subpoenas to be released? Maybe that is one of the purposes of the 2/13 presser, to confirm this is not a cold case and they want to maintain their sealed documents. But if there is that pressure to release information we aren't seeing any sign of it in the reporters.

 

[Try2solve]

Not seeing that. I see no reason to think he is lying. moo

IMO, if during an investigation, the public was wrong regarding a certain important fact and that helped LE to keep secret another detail only they knew,
LE would be more than happy to perpetuate the wrong story. LE doesn't call it "lying". They call it "protecting the integrity of the investigation".