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

[stattlich1]

I agree. Walking the trail back to his car was a superior choice than walking along County Road 300.

Are you stating as fact that it was BG's car in that vacant lot?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I always thought that they took BG’s pic bc they were scared of him and didn’t recognize him but when I showed this case to my sister and said “they must not have known the guy” her reaction shocked me. She said, “That’s not true. If I was hiking and saw someone I knew like a teacher or a friend’s father or something I’d definitely take his picture and send it to my friends like ‘look who I see on my hike.’” Interesting take.

bbm
Maybe, the girls would have added: "He thinks, we didn't recognize him because of his strange disguise, but we did!! Imagine, it was indeed ..... (insert a name)! Look at him, how he is representing himself, when out in the woods, haha!" ---MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Not the exact quote I remember seeing, but it basically says the same thing. The fire was set intentionally, but without intention to kill the girls. At least in these stated opinions.

Justice for the Girls: 3 years later, no arrests after Flora girls die in fire - WISH-TV | Indianapolis News | Indiana Weather | Indiana Traffic

Vergon told I-Team 8 he believes the fire was an arson but that the goal was not to kill the children.

"Without intention to kill the girls" I wonder how that can possibly be? What would be the motive: Did LE think it was someone who knew the family and thought they would be gone?

 

[Yemelyan]

Wait ... what? Whoa. I wonder how many others have misunderstood this like I did. I did watch the HLN special, and even then I didn't pick up on the fact that this is supposed to be two separate people. I mean obviously most of us thought they looked nothing alike, but even in the special a relative was describing how she was able to reconcile the two as having the same features just described by different people.

The wording in these bullet points makes it sound like Sketch #1 was someone else entirely, perhaps a specific person someone had seen at the park and that maybe they even know who he is and have now ruled him out. And Sketch #2 is supposed to represent BG. Which is super odd, because it looks nothing like what we can see of the video, and the age range for the voice wouldn't match up, yet Sketch #1 does seem to represent BG. What on earth?

I have no idea why LE in this case chose to use the terminology "they are two different people." It would have been much less confusing to say, the sketches are two totally different recollections of an event (the event being, seeing someone who in retrospect was suspicious). Once you stop thinking of each sketch as a verified "person," and more "someone's memory of a fleeting moment in time," it becomes easier to understand.

Think about how composite sketches are created. We know the "young" sketch was created from the memory of a woman who "saw something she felt needed to be reported" and it was drawn just a couple of days after the murders. The trooper who drew this sketch told us his process. He sits down with a witness and asks them to look at a bunch of different chins. Then the witness selects the one that supposedly best matches the memory of what they saw. Then the witness looks at different sets of lips and chooses. Then noses. And so on. This is how a composite - a matching together of different parts - is created.

Recent research has shown that we should perhaps question if this piecemeal approach is really the way that the human brain sees and remembers faces. Human memory, especially under stress or if you didn't realize a moment was significant, can be faulty too. But no matter - a composite is only as accurate as a witness's memory of a face.

Compare that to a surveillance photograph of a POI in a hypothetical crime. Let's say, one taken from a camera at an ATM. It's not a memory. It's a physical recording of a real person's face at one moment in time, exactly the way it really looks. Would you not say that, all things being equal (face covering the same, etc) that the photograph is more accurate than any composite sketch of the same POI? Ask yourself why it's more accurate. Because nothing about a photograph is made up based on imperfect recall.

This is why Carter has said that a sketch is not a photograph. It's not a real, verified person who exists, like the surveillance image is. It's just a collection of facial features recalled by a witness, perhaps not that accurately. Carter knows that the person, when found, is unlikely to resemble either sketch to a great extent. That's why he said that the killer may look like a combination of the two sketches.

Even if the two sets of witnesses (a single woman for the young sketch, two or more witnesses for the old sketch) were describing their memories of the same person, they are remembering different aspects just based on what they noticed at the time or could recall later. This is what BP was getting at in the HLN show - witness 1 may have remembered a young person compared to her own experience/viewpoint and the group of witnesses that contributed to sketch 2 described a different memory based on their viewpoint/experience.

Clearly LE have decided based on evidence that one memory is more accurate than the other. Because the memories of two sets of witnesses created two very different looking recollections, one became secondary. Because the sketches aren't real people, this doesn't mean anyone was cleared.

So what is the point of a composite sketch if it's not a "real" person? The hope is that there may be one or two recalled features that are accurate enough where they would stand out to someone who actually knows the person well and can identify them - not just based on resemblance to the sketch though, but by the totality of their behavior. This potential witness may see the sketch and think, it doesn't look exactly like Bob, but the nose does look like his, and he was off work that day, and shaved his beard and hair the next time we saw him, and he knows those trails, and so on.

This is why LE in this case keep asking people not to do side by side comparisons. They know this person is not going to be found by strangers going through old Delphi yearbooks. Sketches work when someone who really knows the subject can put together the resemblance plus behavior.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation but I hope it helps someone understand who gets this far.

 

[TL4S]

"Without intention to kill the girls" I wonder how that can possibly be? What would be the motive: Did LE think it was someone who knew the family and thought they would be gone?

I've got a couple of theories about that fire, which cannot be discussed here, but LE must feel the fire was set for purposes other than or without knowledge of people inside.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I always thought that they took BG’s pic bc they were scared of him and didn’t recognize him but when I showed this case to my sister and said “they must not have known the guy” her reaction shocked me. She said, “That’s not true. If I was hiking and saw someone I knew like a teacher or a friend’s father or something I’d definitely take his picture and send it to my friends like ‘look who I see on my hike.’” Interesting take.

LE has seen the entire video and listened to the entire audio. If the girls had recognized this guy they would know it. LE said the girls were engaged in “girl talk” mostly.
The families have seen more video and heard more audio than the public. They stated the families did not recognize the BG. They also stated it was mostly girl talk but said the girls did mention the guy on the bridge but did not recognize him. Becky Patty referred to the guy as creepy but we don’t know if the girls called him that.
As to why Libby filmed him, I think initially he showed up in her view finder in the background while she was filming Abby. I think he probably made them a little uneasy and it’s possible Libby kept filming him for that reason. I also think there is not as much film of BG as we all think there is. We tend to think she filmed him coming all the way across the bridge but it might only be a few seconds.
Just my thoughts.

 

[MistyWaters]

I would never agree with what he said. About the premise being that crime runs in families.

(BTW, who is Harmon?)

The premise is that relatives share pieces of DNA, so you can find someone’s relative by DNA in open source databases. The criminal database is simply used because it is what it is - a large database. Of course it is limited.

(Not that crime runs in families. ...this is not how genetic criminology works.)

Interesting, statistically there may be a greater chance for familial DNA identification through CODIS than through private genealogy sites. But regardless in this case didn’t LE recently state they don’t have conclusive DNA associated to the murderer? I though I read that here, a comment made during the recent DTH.

When Crime Is a Family Affair
Kids have a habit of imitating their parents’ criminal behavior. It’s no wonder, then, that by one measure, 10 percent of families account for two-thirds of criminals.

 

[Ekliptika]

I have no idea why LE in this case chose to use the terminology "they are two different people." It would have been much less confusing to say, the sketches are two totally different recollections of an event (the event being, seeing someone who in retrospect was suspicious). Once you stop thinking of each sketch as a verified "person," and more "someone's memory of a fleeting moment in time," it becomes easier to understand.

Think about how composite sketches are created. We know the "young" sketch was created from the memory of a woman who "saw something she felt needed to be reported" and it was drawn just a couple of days after the murders. The trooper who drew this sketch told us his process. He sits down with a witness and asks them to look at a bunch of different chins. Then the witness selects the one that supposedly best matches the memory of what they saw. Then the witness looks at different sets of lips and chooses. Then noses. And so on. This is how a composite - a matching together of different parts - is created.

Recent research has shown that we should perhaps question if this piecemeal approach is really the way that the human brain sees and remembers faces. Human memory, especially under stress or if you didn't realize a moment was significant, can be faulty too. But no matter - a composite is only as accurate as a witness's memory of a face.

Compare that to a surveillance photograph of a POI in a hypothetical crime. Let's say, one taken from a camera at an ATM. It's not a memory. It's a physical recording of a real person's face at one moment in time, exactly the way it really looks. Would you not say that, all things being equal (face covering the same, etc) that the photograph is more accurate than any composite sketch of the same POI? Ask yourself why it's more accurate. Because nothing about a photograph is made up based on imperfect recall.

This is why Carter has said that a sketch is not a photograph. It's not a real, verified person who exists, like the surveillance image is. It's just a collection of facial features recalled by a witness, perhaps not that accurately. Carter knows that the person, when found, is unlikely to resemble either sketch to a great extent. That's why he said that the killer may look like a combination of the two sketches.

Even if the two sets of witnesses (a single woman for the young sketch, two or more witnesses for the old sketch) were describing their memories of the same person, they are remembering different aspects just based on what they noticed at the time or could recall later. This is what BP was getting at in the HLN show - witness 1 may have remembered a young person compared to her own experience/viewpoint and the group of witnesses that contributed to sketch 2 described a different memory based on their viewpoint/experience.

Clearly LE have decided based on evidence that one memory is more accurate than the other. Because the memories of two sets of witnesses created two very different looking recollections, one became secondary. Because the sketches aren't real people, this doesn't mean anyone was cleared.

So what is the point of a composite sketch if it's not a "real" person? The hope is that there may be one or two recalled features that are accurate enough where they would stand out to someone who actually knows the person well and can identify them - not just based on resemblance to the sketch though, but by the totality of their behavior. This potential witness may see the sketch and think, it doesn't look exactly like Bob, but the nose does look like his, and he was off work that day, and shaved his beard and hair the next time we saw him, and he knows those trails, and so on.

This is why LE in this case keep asking people not to do side by side comparisons. They know this person is not going to be found by strangers going through old Delphi yearbooks. Sketches work when someone who really knows the subject can put together the resemblance plus behavior.

Sorry for the lengthy explanation but I hope it helps someone understand who gets this far.

Thank you for taking the time to write this thorough and comprehensive post putting some of the pieces of what has been said together. This was very helpful for me to understand something that I have been wondering about.
I am still very curious to know the circumstances that made LE switch their focus from the Old sketch to the new. What made them decide that they think the new sketch more accurately reflects the face of the guy on the bridge? They must hopefully have something more than just the investigation being stuck, as some people tend to think was the reason behind the new direction.
I keep getting back to that thought of LE was deliberately led in the wrong direction and whether that is what caused Carter’s distress and anger at the 2019 PC, but if so what was it that led them in the wrong direction? Something found at the crime scene? Was he disguised?
I also wonder about that witness, LE was referring to. I guess when they say they have a witness, they are referring to the witness that saw the younger looking person, maybe this witness saw him before he put his disguise on? Have description of clothing been mentioned in relations to the younger looking sketch?

 

[Charlot123]

bbm
Maybe, the girls would have added: "He thinks, we didn't recognize him because of his strange disguise, but we did!! Imagine, it was indeed ..... (insert a name)! Look at him, how he is representing himself, when out in the woods, haha!" ---MOO

Maybe when the say “victims of circumstances and opportunity”, they mean, the girls were killed for taking this photo or video? The perpetrator must have been totally deranged then. What condition would make a person kill two girls in one moment, and hide in plain sight - in the other?

(And even if he thought they were ridiculing him - kids do this! They are kids! What adult would kill a kid for dissing him? A kid!!!)

 

[Charlot123]

Interesting, statistically there may be a greater chance for familial DNA identification through CODIS than through private genealogy sites. But regardless in this case didn’t LE recently state they don’t have conclusive DNA associated to the murderer? I though I read that here, a comment made during the recent DTH.

When Crime Is a Family Affair
Kids have a habit of imitating their parents’ criminal behavior. It’s no wonder, then, that by one measure, 10 percent of families account for two-thirds of criminals.

I like “the Atlantic”, but disagree with the article. Lots of things, including financial, might contribute into doctors’ children becoming doctors, but mostly, kids tend to imitate their peer groups, not the parents, so it is the function of good or bad schools. Kids have the habit of imitating their peers behavior.

 

[MistyWaters]

Maybe when the say “victims of circumstances and opportunity”, they mean, the girls were killed for taking this photo or video? The perpetrator must have been totally deranged then. What condition would make a person kill two girls in one moment, and hide in plain sight - in the other?

(And even if he thought they were ridiculing him - kids do this! They are kids! What adult would kill a kid for dissing him? A kid!!!)

“Victims of circumstances and opportunity” says to me LE is finally clarifying NO deliberate actions or behaviour on the part of the girls was involved in the killer’s motivation. That would include no meet-up was arranged nor did they do anything to antagonize or anger him. JMO

 

[Charlot123]

“Victims of circumstances and opportunity” says to me LE is finally clarifying NO deliberate actions or behaviour on the part of the girls was involved in the killer’s motivation. That would include no meet-up was arranged nor did they do anything to antagonize or anger him. JMO

But my head is spinning. With what they have already said...

Can anyone, please, make Ives explain things to the media? Because I lost DC in 2019 after that PC, and I am losing Leazenby with his own inconsistencies.

 

[MistyWaters]

I like “the Atlantic”, but disagree with the article. Lots of things, including financial, might contribute into doctors’ children becoming doctors, but mostly, kids tend to imitate their peer groups, not the parents, so it is the function of good or bad schools. Kids have the habit of imitating their peers behavior.

Right, the statistics are there but if you read the article, it mentions other issues to which you’d probably agree.

 

[MistyWaters]

But my head is spinning. With what they have already said...

Can anyone, please, make Ives explain things to the media? Because I lost DC in 2019 after that PC, and I am losing Leazenby with his own inconsistencies.

Well I’d only say LE has never invited us to engage in a guessing game - investigators only ask for help in identifying the killer, and after that events preceding the murders will be heard in the courtroom. If they really wanted to tell us everything they know, they’d do so and there’d be no need to guess.

But for example the comment regarding “victims of circumstances and opportunity” it appears to me the intention is to quell speculation about the girls doing something that directly resulted in their deaths. I’m sure those sorts of rumours must be very hurtful to the families.

 

[sunshineray]

When you say they didn't run because they didn't think they were in danger, what is your theory on why Libby filmed him, then?

I've pondered this quite a bit, because I also don't know that a feeling of danger was necessarily the reason she filmed. Maybe just in case? Maybe just to tell others they saw someone creepy? Was it someone they knew? Did they think something was humorous? Just trying to think at that age why I might have turned on my camera.

I've always thought to show her Dad and/or her Grandpa the guy that made them uncomfortable. I think BG was acting what sone would think was oddly, talking or singing to himself. I'd probably talk to myself going over that bridge, possibly even question my intelligence outloud or sing to relieve anxiety. We know from AW account of listening to some of Libby's audio that her Abby voiced being uncomfortable with BG's approach.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Things we can all count on in this case:
1) Whenever LE says anything at all, the public will dissect it down to the punctuation.
2) The original statement by LE will have many mistakes and LE will mis-state many of the important things they had hoped to convey.
3) Approx 30% of the public will only hear this first statement and argue vigorously the incorrect information presented for the next 15 years.
4) LE will issue a new statement to correct the mistakes of the first but will somehow muddle things, causing both statements to not quite be right.
5) Approx 75% of the public will scratch their heads and consult popular children’s books and used 8 track tapes to try and make sense of the new statement.
6) In an interview, LE will say the exact opposite of what was said in the first statement.
7)Approx 57% of the public will pull 23% of their hair out.
8)LE will act like all is well.
9)Approx 100% of the public will shrug and say “whatever”.

I have certainly played all these parts.

 

[Yemelyan]

The states seem to need a better reason than LE looking to capture a killer or an abuser, which is highly questionable to some in itself. Shouldn't killers/abusers know that states will in actuality employ the old adage that you can run but they can't hide? Isn't that part of keeping law and order and serving and protecting the public? I know some people freak out when LE uses DNA genetic technology within Private Genealogy Banks, I'm not one of them. Monsters need to be apprehended. AJMO

I hear you...I don't make a judgement on whether states are right or wrong to not allow it. Just stating what the legal challenges are and why they may not.

I think everyone agrees that in a perfect world you'd want to be able not just to find these monsters but put them away.

 

[ShamelessObserver]

A panel discusses who killed the girls

 

[ShamelessObserver]

Anyone know how I can watch the HLN documentary on this? I’m in U.K. and can not find it anywhere. I don’t get why they’ve not uploaded it to YT

 

[JnRyan]

Is this area a hunting area and if so why do they let people hike thru it? Wouldn’t that be extremely dangerous? I thought I heard Libby’s grandfather say he hunted there. And if he hunts there, others must as well right. Definitely can’t overlook any guy who’s ever hunted there. Hunters have no problem killing. Sick but true. And they would definitely feel at home there and know the terrain. Is it possible there are wildlife cameras set up in the woods there? Maybe to make sure these murderers aren’t killing doe or fawn or other innocent creatures they shouldn’t be. They should check out every registered hunter in that state.

While I tend to believe a hunter possesses the skill set to be comfortable in that environment, hunters aren't necessarily folks who have no problem killing when it comes to other people. In fact, as a hunter myself I tend to believe such a person would not likely be a hunter as hunters see what their weapons can do. I tend to believe this is more likely a 'wannabe' hunter or military person - someone who fancies himself as such but has little or no experience actually doing it. I remember a statement once from a former hunter who became a military sniper and saw what a head shot did to his target. He said he would never be able to hunt again because it would conjure up that image again in his mind.