Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #129

[Yemelyan]

This is close to an evidentiary information question and I prefer not to respond.

what was the point of this again
I have never ever heard that an fbi profile is considered evidence !
it has never solved a case anyway

A profile, as an investigative tool, is developed directly from crime scene evidence so clearly the official Delphi profile contains references to certain things about the crime scene they don't want known. If more years go by or a crime that they feel is linked is committed maybe they will release a redacted version. This article (about a different crime) makes the assertion that it's not typical for the FBI to release any portion of an investigative profile. Serial Killer: Revised FBI Profile

 

[Seattle1]

This is interesting. It could explain WHY it was that even though LE had onsite witness descriptions resulting in early sketches that appear to be of two different people who for some reason raised suspicions of witnesses, LE released only one of the sketches in 2017.

If the witnesses describing the man portrayed in the sketch released in 2017 had also described some characteristics that were suggested on Libby's video AND apparent on that other footage (say, the man's gait or a limp or oddity about the way he moved one leg or foot or the way he carries his body - upright or slumping), and if the other footage reveals indicators he is otherwise behaving suspiciously (i.e. gathering things from his car and stuffing them into his jacket, parking at some distance away from anyone else at the park that day, looking furtively around before heading toward the park), LE may have concluded based on that the guy portrayed in the sketch released in 2017 was definitely their guy and the guy portrayed in the sketch released in 2019 was more likely just someone who happened to be in the vicinity.

I always thought the [LE] artist's description of the witness for the sketch later released a bit cryptic:

In vague terms, Bryant told the Star the image was based on the description of a man by a witness who reported seeing something they felt needed to be reported. The sketch is a "ballpark estimation of what the person looks like."

sbm

 

[Diddian]

I always thought the [LE] artist's description of the witness for the sketch later released a bit cryptic:

sbm

You're right. That is a bit cryptic and seems in line with DC's description of a sketch as not like a photograph, but rather a representation (he may have used other words).

I think I vaguely remember that LE has said where that witness spotted the person portrayed in the sketch, and that it was in the area of the rural properties south of High Bridge, correct? So, if someone else saw a person in that area they could reinforce the description (or not)? Unfortunately, with everyone focused on the sketch that WAS released, that would require going back in memory two years, which seems unlikely.

 

[ShamelessObserver]

Has anyone thought of trying to track down the witnesses who gave their descriptions of the POI to police?

 

[Seattle1]

You're right. That is a bit cryptic and seems in line with DC's description of a sketch as not like a photograph, but rather a representation (he may have used other words).

I think I vaguely remember that LE has said where that witness spotted the person portrayed in the sketch, and that it was in the area of the rural properties south of High Bridge, correct? So, if someone else saw a person in that area they could reinforce the description (or not)? Unfortunately, with everyone focused on the sketch that WAS released, that would require going back in memory two years, which seems unlikely.

I don't recall that LE ever disclosed how the witness came about the suspect or their seeing something they thought needed to be reported.

I've long suspected the suspect in the drawing may have been known to the
witness and may or may not have been seen near the trail and/or bridge by the witness.

We know that this sketch was first drawn only days after the 2017 murders but why the second sketch was promoted over this drawing may never be known by the public.

MOO

ETA: Sketch dated 2/17/2017

 

[Peppery]

I think it is way more likely that the DNA they have is some innocent person who happened to brush up against them at the grocery store two days before than the killer’s.
It’s only use will be after an arrest to try and match it with the person in custody as a way to try to put them at the scene of the crime. The defense will then say it came from an innocent encounter at the grocery store.

Plus wasn’t one of the girls sweatshirts actually Kelsi’s that she made them take when she dropped them off? That widens the potential circle of touch DNA exponentially.

 

[TTF14]

No questions really addressed that. But there will be more questions posted next week according to the article.

This strategy is very calculated......wonder why.....


I'm wondering what was meant by the searchers didn't immediately know what they had come upon......

 

[Seattle1]

Has anyone thought of trying to track down the witnesses who gave their descriptions of the POI to police?

Whether or not MSM has tried, I'm glad they've not been successful (or that we know of)!

These individuals will likely be called as witnesses during a trial.

IMO, potential witnesses should remain private and/or protected from being harassed for info by inquiring minds.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

Has anyone thought of trying to track down the witnesses who gave their descriptions of the POI to police?

Yikes, definitely no. How would this person know the difference between a snoopy stranger attempting to determine their identity to make contact or if it was the unknown murderer seeking to silence them?

 

[sunshineray]

There it is thanks! Very odd that same day the meat packing plant gets a bomb threat called into Lafayette police IIRC... just saying, coincidental things turn out not to be so coincidental a lot of times.

 

[MistyWaters]

Plus wasn’t one of the girls sweatshirts actually Kelsi’s that she made them take when she dropped them off? That widens the potential circle of touch DNA exponentially.

Yes and those jackets came from the trunk of her car which she probably didn’t regularly sanitize. During one of the interviews iirc Anna also said her daughter was wearing her shirt. Shed hair and skin cells are everywhere. In the JBR case one of the theories about DNA on the underwear is it might’ve originated from the Asian manufacturing plant.

 

[K9Enzo]

This strategy is very calculated......wonder why.....


I'm wondering what was meant by the searchers didn't immediately know what they had come upon......

The bolded. IMO, when people come upon remains or even recently deceased bodies, they often don't know what they are looking at initially. I have heard deer, or a mannequin, as an example.

It's possible that's what was meant. The searcher(s) knew something was out of place, but it did not connect immediately they were looking at actual bodies. IMO

 

[sunshineray]

I'm in UK and can't find anywhere at all. So disappointing because the families would want it online and available to the whole world, so the world knows their story.

Is it going to be on YT at some point??

I found this preview type thing that aired the day of the show. It's about 20 mins long. I can't find the actual 2 part show on YouTube yet.

 

[goldiegirl]

Thanks for finding that, I think we all agree no meetup was planned, not that LE know of anyway.

But were the murders entirely random or did the killer somehow learn the two were at the bridge that afternoon through SM, either directly or indirectly? That’s wide open because until such time as a suspect is arrested and tried, the looming question is how did it happen he was at that lonely, rotting bridge on a February day with killing people on his mind, the exact same time as the girls during their short afternoon outing?

It’s been mentioned here before - Christine Jessop - a very cold case of the murder of a young girl from the 80s recently solved in Canada through DNA genealogy. The perp is dead, never a suspect, however it’s now believed the perp learned the child was going to be home alone through overhearing a phone conversation between his wife and the child’s mother. That’s an example of how a predator can seek out an opportunity to make a deliberate attack appear random.

ETA - I continue to believe IF indeed the killer is from the local Delphi area and IF indeed he’s on the younger end of the age spectrum, the odds increase for there to have been some type of connection, even if it wasn’t a personal one.

I was a person here recently bringing up a possible meetup, because I wasn't as educated about this case as I am about others. This all helps. And this isn't likely given how short the timeframe probably was, but we do know the girls posted a photo from the bridge to Snapchat in real time. Maybe someone saw that and thought he'd take his chances that they were still there?

I still can't get over the arrested pedophile who liked to hang out in the woods and his similarity to the first sketch.

 

[Yemelyan]

I still can't get over the arrested pedophile who liked to hang out in the woods and his similarity to the first sketch.

There are registered pedophiles who lived much closer to Delphi than CE who looked even more like the first sketch IMO. At least one of them had a previous crime with a lot of similarity to what happened in Delphi. CE's a creep but a dead end IMO.

 

[Seattle1]

I was a person here recently bringing up a possible meetup, because I wasn't as educated about this case as I am about others. This all helps. And this isn't likely given how short the timeframe probably was, but we do know the girls posted a photo from the bridge to Snapchat in real time. Maybe someone saw that and thought he'd take his chances that they were still there?

I still can't get over the arrested pedophile who liked to hang out in the woods and his similarity to the first sketch.

Given that the first BG sketch closely resembles now-convicted sex offender Eldrige (Randolph County, IN), very curious about the witness for the first sketch recollection.

Was Eldrige known to the witness or did the witness see this person (resembling Eldrige) on the bridge trail?

Indiana man who looks like Delphi suspect is 'weird' and 'violent' | Daily Mail Online

ETA: More Q & A on the sketches

Found Deceased - IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #111

I wondered if CE's DNA (at arrest) finally eliminated him as a suspect here...

 

[Yemelyan]

I wondered if CE's DNA (at arrest) finally eliminated him as a suspect here...

Could be. He lived quite far from Delphi (about 2.5 hours away) and so if LE needed to, I'm sure they had multiple ways to determine if he even had the means to get there on the day in question.

 

[Charlot123]

The bolded. IMO, when people come upon remains or even recently deceased bodies, they often don't know what they are looking at initially. I have heard deer, or a mannequin, as an example.

It's possible that's what was meant. The searcher(s) knew something was out of place, but it did not connect immediately they were looking at actual bodies. IMO

This is the first time I heard of such a version.

How common is the field of taxidermy?

 

[Ekliptika]

The Carroll County Comet has published part one of its Q&A with Leazenby.County Sheriff answers double homicide questions from readers | Carroll County Comet

The article is behind a paywall. However, I was able to read it. The vast majority of questions were things he either couldn't comment on (what kind of DNA do you have? etc) or are already common knowledge to followers of the case.

In the public domain there have been descriptions of the crime scene, descriptions of items found, and the positioning of the bodies. Do you feel there was an excessive number of persons present once it was determined to be a crime scene? Once secured by law enforcement, no. I would surmise that the searchers did not immediately know what they had come upon
"

snipped by me.
I find the above interesting. Not sure but expect that by searchers he means the civilians and not LE.
I have been wondering about the talks about contaminated crime scene, also if some of the searchers touched the girls (transfer DNA), maybe to check if they were alive. This makes me wonder if it was not immediately obvious that the girls were murdered, maybe they were posed as if they were sleeping and that could be one of the signatures?

I'm not sure because in other interviews we've heard that LE immediately knew by looking at the scene that foul play was involved - also I believe the fire chief in "Scene of the Crime" described it as immediately knowing "it was not to a good end." To me, you could either interpret that two different ways. Either "not a good end" means that the outcome of looking for the girls was not good (as they had perished) or their death itself was "not a good end" to differentiate a peaceful death from a brutal one. Good questions.

Scene of the Crime also states that searchers went out in teams that had at least one trained member of LE or emergency rescue with each group. So that makes me think there would be a check on how many people touched the bodies or even got that close.

Exactly. The references you are stating here is the reason why I am puzzled by the comment that the searchers did not immediately know what they have come upon.

reading it again, I am wondering if it does not refer to finding the girls, but the crime scene as a whole (from bridge, dth and place they were found) and the fact that no one thought they were looking for dead girls, but rather lost or hurt girls. Maybe I am Reading too much into it, when I believe LE is referring to the people, who found the girls. Also wondering how many people that was/went to the place the girls where found who were not LE before the site was sealed off and/or if someone covered the bodies with their clothes with the best intention. So many things could have happened early on that could cause contamination.

 

[Yemelyan]

snipped by me.
I find the above interesting. Not sure but expect that by searchers he means the civilians and not LE.
I have been wondering about the talks about contaminated crime scene, also if some of the searchers touched the girls (transfer DNA), maybe to check if they were alive. This makes me wonder if it was not immediately obvious that the girls were murdered, maybe they were posed as if they were sleeping and that could be one of the signatures?


Exactly. The references you are stating here is the reason why I am puzzled by the comment that the searchers did not immediately know what they have come upon.

reading it again, I am wondering if it does not refer to finding the girls, but the crime scene as a whole (from bridge, dth and place they were found) and the fact that no one thought they were looking for dead girls, but rather lost or hurt girls. Maybe I am Reading too much into it, when I believe LE is referring to the people, who found the girls. Also wondering how many people that was/went to the place the girls where found who were not LE before the site was sealed off and/or if someone covered the bodies with their clothes with the best intention. So many things could have happened early on that could cause contamination.

So if you look at one of the questions I quoted from the article in my original post, someone asked TL "how soon were YOU there?" Answer: within the hour. "How soon were LE on the scene?" Answer: almost immediately. "What agencies were on the scene?" Answer: I'd have to look at reports to confirm but for sure sheriff's office, ISP, and FBI.

Having a group of bumbling but good intentioned civilian searchers contaminate the crime scene or hapless and unskilled Delphi PD messing up evidence collection makes a great story that we can get mad about but it's unlikely to be what happened IMO.

I think there was LE within the search group that found them or in a group so close by that the scene was secured very quickly. But, it's just my opinion.