Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #113

[Deleted member 102539]

He could turn out to be a troubled young man being protected after the fact by his parents or grandparents. If BG is a loner type who rarely leaves the home, he could not be on any medication at all. I just keep going back to that feeling I have when viewing the BG video. He's either got headphones in listening and singing along or he's talking to himself, maybe talking himself into his near future actions. I tend to think it's the later by watching his face up close.

Maybe, he has a tic (moving head unintentionally), witch goes with spitting a dirty word (episodic TS, perhaps)?

 

[tresir2012]

maybe its an inside pocket where he would reach for it with his left hand?

That's what I was thinking.

MOO I think he just put the gun into his jacket pocket heavy end 1st.
He would draw it out exactly the same way he put it in, by the barrel.
Pulling put would just be the reverse; pulling it out by barrel, grabbing it momentarily with both hands and settling the gun into whatever hand he shoots with.

Yep, that would work too. I guess it depends where the pocket opening actually is.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

I know this is nothing new. But im going on a camping trip with some friends this weekend. I came up a day early to have a campout and hike by myself.

Anyways, im out hiking at a state park ive been to a hundred times. And as Im out alone hiking, I keep getting this odd feeling at how badly things could go if I walked up on something I shouldn't have seen.

I cant help but to think this is a strong possibility on what happened on Feb 13 2017.

 

[Indy Anna]

I know this is nothing new. But im going on a camping trip with some friends this weekend. I came up a day early to have a campout and hike by myself.

Anyways, im out hiking at a state park ive been to a hundred times. And as Im out alone hiking, I keep getting this odd feeling at how badly things could go if I walked up on something I shouldn't have seen.

I cant help but to think this is a strong possibility on what happened on Feb 13 2017.

Or, not to scare you, but you could come across some maniac hunting for prey. I think that's what happened with Libby and Abby.

Please stay safe! And, next time, don't go alone.

 

[ScumbagTrav]

Or, not to scare you, but you could come across some maniac hunting for prey. I think that's what happened with Libby and Abby.

Please stay safe! And, next time, don't go alone.

Thanks!

Yea i kinda wanted to go on one alone. I wanted to go at my own pace...take as many photos as i wanted....im reallu loving the soI told myself i wouldnt do any strenuous hiking since I was alone but ended up doing one i probably shouldnt have.

Not gonna lie...ended up psyching myself up a bit lol. I watch too many horror movies.

But ur right...stumbling into a maniac killer is just as likely and just as frightening.

Back safe to the campgrounds now tho.

 

[rypj84]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

 

[155etta]

Just a thought....the killer intends to target one of the girls. He finds out they are headed to the trails and thinks this is my opportunity and heads there himself.
Even then there is no way he could know where on the trails he would find the girls, or what they would be doing, or who they might have seen there and decided to hang out with, etc. In order for his targeting to be successful he has to find the girls alone and isolated, with no one reasonably close or in eyesight. And he lucks out and that happens.
It’s just as possible he heads to the trails and none of it lines up and he leaves with the girls unharmed. Then the thought is, how many times does this happen, at the trails or other places, with him trying to target the girls before it works? My point is, I guess, that the chances of a killer that is targeting one of them to be successful on that day, is very small I think. It is possible though. Maybe he just got lucky.
For the above reasons I don’t think the girls were targeted in the sense that someone planned all this beforehand, catfishing them, tracking on their phone etc. I do think it’s possible somebody felt they had a grudge or score to settle and thought hurting the girls would satisfy that, and a random opportunity presented itself and they took advantage of it.
Just my opinion. Don’t hate me.

Just a thought....the killer intends to target one of the girls. He finds out they are headed to the trails and thinks this is my opportunity and heads there himself.
Even then there is no way he could know where on the trails he would find the girls, or what they would be doing, or who they might have seen there and decided to hang out with, etc. In order for his targeting to be successful he has to find the girls alone and isolated, with no one reasonably close or in eyesight. And he lucks out and that happens.
It’s just as possible he heads to the trails and none of it lines up and he leaves with the girls unharmed. Then the thought is, how many times does this happen, at the trails or other places, with him trying to target the girls before it works? My point is, I guess, that the chances of a killer that is targeting one of them to be successful on that day, is very small I think. It is possible though. Maybe he just got lucky.
For the above reasons I don’t think the girls were targeted in the sense that someone planned all this beforehand, catfishing them, tracking on their phone etc. I do think it’s possible somebody felt they had a grudge or score to settle and thought hurting the girls would satisfy that, and a random opportunity presented itself and they took advantage of it.
Just my opinion. Don’t hate me.

He really did luck out. The more I think about it, the more it seems like there had to be some planning, or he had some help (a lookout, at least). It's just too neat. Encounters them at just the right place, corrals them down the hill and out of sight with no trouble, kills them and leaves them in a spot where they are not found til almost noon the next day? In a super short amount of time. No, not random.

 

[mainemom376]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

This has bothered me all along. What if he is deceased? Is that something LE would be looking at?

 

[Cutiekitty]

Oh, got it. Well, from my personal experience (from having kids who use it), I don’t think kids that age would generally use Snapchat to communicate with adults- particularly to confront. I also think they’d use something more anonymous. I see Snapchat as just a quick way to communicate and make plans, etc. Not really a “serious thoughts” communications medium. If that makes sense.

However, I suppose it could depend on HOW familiar the kid(s) were with the adult. If they were friendly, or related to the adult, then perhaps they’d say something confrontational- just because it would be part of a broader casual relationship they would have over Snapchat. But I’d think the adult would have to have a particularly “buddy” type relationship with the kid(s).

I think I’m probably not expressing my thoughts clearly and may have confused you now

MOO

(eta clarity. hopefully.)

Perfectly clear to me! I totally get what you are saying.

 

[Tippy Lynn]

Most people use their dominant hand to shoot so if it is a gun on his right side, which I don’t think it is, he would be right handed. I’m right handed and my gun is always on my right side.

My son (10) is a lefty, but he's right eye dominant when shooting. He shoots right handed and uses a patch for his left eye.

 

[Spartygirl]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

I have looked into a few. I need to get my notes back out and start digging on that again.

 

[gregjrichards]

This has bothered me all along. What if he is deceased? Is that something LE would be looking at?

I am sure they are looking at this too all avenues will be covered. The only problem I can see is if he does not live in Indiana. However I don’t believe he is dead and certainly not by suicide he too much of a narcissist to do that in my opinion. (Please know I’m not making any negative comment about people who are suicidal here it is just my gut feeling about the monster in this particular case).

 

[JnRyan]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

There's something I had not thought of....

 

[TTF14]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

I don't know how much it's been discussed on Websleuths since we can't name folks not already named as suspects in MSM, but I have definitely seen it discussed at length elsewhere. It is certainly not an aspect that has been ignored by any means.

 

[Charlot123]

Has anyone looked into suicides since 2017? And would that make things more or less difficult in obtaining a DNA match?

not really as potentially, there still could be some family matches in Gedmatch. People can die. When they die, they can not be prosecuted, so legally, they are not criminals. But if they left their DNA at the crime scene, they can be found.


52-year-old Seattle murder case is the oldest ever to be solved using genealogy – The Seattle Times

However, interesting thing...

“Moore said when she ran the suspect’s DNA, she came up with two distant cousins — people who shared less than about 2% of the killer’s DNA — and a handful of people who were even more scarcely related. She saw surname patterns suggesting Polish ancestry, and the suspect’s DNA profile was predicted to be about 16% Native American.

She worked her way backward using those clues, and eventually found a couple — a man born in 1828 in Kentucky and a woman born Missouri in 1837 — from whom both of the distant cousins were descended. She then followed the generations forward from that ancestral couple, and found Frank Wypych, who was born in Seattle and would have been 26 at the time of the killing.“

These distant cousins shared about 2% of DNA with the guy. With the exception of my own family, people whom I know, no one in Gedmatch shares as much as 2% with me. So if they were trying to find a common ancestor, say, with me, they would have to go way higher that 1800 es.

Just as an example why a match can not always work.

Either the BG has very distant relatives in Gedmatch. Or, they had closer ones, but persuaded them to pull out their DNAs out of Gedmatch. (Which would be suspicious).

Another version - the LE were “sitting” on this DNA, waiting, and started working with genetic genealogists by the time when Gedmatch requested additional step - opting in to permit owner’s DNA to be viewed by the police. And now... there might be a match to BG’s DNA, but the match has not made his DNA open for criminal work (sometimes people lose interest in genealogy, and stop checking Gedmatch at all).

If this is the case, then it is a big mistake.

Let us imagine the situation. LE, after 2 years, decided to work with the Parabon. It probably takes the Parabon some time to put the DNA into the right format. Supposedly, they had the time to do it. Even ran the test and found a match.

They may already have a tree. They might very well guess who the perp is. But they can not use this information in court, because while they were building the tree, Gedmatch changed the rules re opt-ins, that matching relative chose not to opt in, and became invisible. Nothing can be used in court now.

 

[Charlot123]

This has bothered me all along. What if he is deceased? Is that something LE would be looking at?

He may be deceased. If they have his DNA, they should still be able to find his name. I am afraid that “critical” relative in Gedmatch might be deceased, and died before Gedmatch changed its rules. So his DNA is not viewable.

 

[Charlot123]

My son (10) is a lefty, but he's right eye dominant when shooting. He shoots right handed and uses a patch for his left eye.

Eye dominance is not an easy thing, as eye innervation is complex, and vision acuity might be different between the eyes. Too many factors.

However, ear dominance matches hand dominance, and the centers for speech and speech processing are located in the dominant hemisphere. So, say, you have only one earbud. If you are a Rightie, you’d probably use your right ear for it, while a Leftie would favor the left one.

 

[zoricaj1]

Woman's body found in northwest side retention pond

Hmmm


Idk if I feel bad for saying this but I just want something ANYTHING else to connect to this case so it can be solved...


If that made sense...i need to go to bed ..ZZZzzzzZ

 

[tresir2012]

This has bothered me all along. What if he is deceased? Is that something LE would be looking at?

They are looking at the Etter case apparently. Don't know but it is a good point.

 

[tresir2012]

not really as potentially, there still could be some family matches in Gedmatch. People can die. When they die, they can not be prosecuted, so legally, they are not criminals. But if they left their DNA at the crime scene, they can be found.


52-year-old Seattle murder case is the oldest ever to be solved using genealogy – The Seattle Times

However, interesting thing...

“Moore said when she ran the suspect’s DNA, she came up with two distant cousins — people who shared less than about 2% of the killer’s DNA — and a handful of people who were even more scarcely related. She saw surname patterns suggesting Polish ancestry, and the suspect’s DNA profile was predicted to be about 16% Native American.

She worked her way backward using those clues, and eventually found a couple — a man born in 1828 in Kentucky and a woman born Missouri in 1837 — from whom both of the distant cousins were descended. She then followed the generations forward from that ancestral couple, and found Frank Wypych, who was born in Seattle and would have been 26 at the time of the killing.“

These distant cousins shared about 2% of DNA with the guy. With the exception of my own family, people whom I know, no one in Gedmatch shares as much as 2% with me. So if they were trying to find a common ancestor, say, with me, they would have to go way higher that 1800 es.

Just as an example why a match can not always work.

Either the BG has very distant relatives in Gedmatch. Or, they had closer ones, but persuaded them to pull out their DNAs out of Gedmatch. (Which would be suspicious).

Another version - the LE were “sitting” on this DNA, waiting, and started working with genetic genealogists by the time when Gedmatch requested additional step - opting in to permit owner’s DNA to be viewed by the police. And now... there might be a match to BG’s DNA, but the match has not made his DNA open for criminal work (sometimes people lose interest in genealogy, and stop checking Gedmatch at all).

If this is the case, then it is a big mistake.

Let us imagine the situation. LE, after 2 years, decided to work with the Parabon. It probably takes the Parabon some time to put the DNA into the right format. Supposedly, they had the time to do it. Even ran the test and found a match.

They may already have a tree. They might very well guess who the perp is. But they can not use this information in court, because while they were building the tree, Gedmatch changed the rules re opt-ins, that matching relative chose not to opt in, and became invisible. Nothing can be used in court now.

Excellent thoughts. Very interesting and explains the opt in recommended by Kelsie.