Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #131

[sovoshba]

It is confusing. Is the 2nd sketch also the person in the video? I don’t think they’ve ever said that it is.

If, and that is a big if, the perp parked at the CPS building, wouldn’t that imply knowledge that there were no cameras there? I would think only a local who had been onsite for some reason would be comfortable parking there for a length of time knowing there would be no security patrolling or cameras recording? Or the guy is an incredibly lucky dolt.

Is the perp a child pedophile? I’d say no, because most people would be expected to drive to the trails or be attended by someone old enough to drive. Seems he would be looking for a female hiker, not two young girls. Maybe he took out his frustration on them for ruining his fantasy. Or he’s an incredibly lucky dolt to find what he was looking for that day with 2 young teens.

Is this guy smart, or dumb and lucky? I always come back to dumb and lucky, but I just don’t know. That would go a long way in solving this.

 

[TL4S]

It is confusing. Is the 2nd sketch also the person in the video? I don’t think they’ve ever said that it is.

If, and that is a big if, the perp parked at the CPS building, wouldn’t that imply knowledge that there were no cameras there? I would think only a local who had been onsite for some reason would be comfortable parking there for a length of time knowing there would be no security patrolling or cameras recording? Or the guy is an incredibly lucky dolt.

Is the perp a child pedophile? I’d say no, because most people would be expected to drive to the trails or be attended by someone old enough to drive. Seems he would be looking for a female hiker, not two young girls. Maybe he took out his frustration on them for ruining his fantasy. Or he’s an incredibly lucky dolt to find what he was looking for that day with 2 young teens.

Is this guy smart, or dumb and lucky? I always come back to dumb and lucky, but I just don’t know. That would go a long way in solving this.

It's a good question. I think there was certainly an element of luck for him that day, as there is with any crime of opportunity. And he recognized and acted on that lucky opportunity. JMO

As for whether he's dumb or smart, my inclination is to guess he's "average," in every way: intelligence, looks, dress, manner of speaking, job, etc. That might be part of his problem - average isn't good enough. And it's probably part of LE's problem in identifying him, as well. Again, JMO.

However, I do think it's possible he's smarter than average about the lay of the land. JMO

 

[sovoshba]

As for whether he's dumb or smart, my inclination is to guess he's "average," in every way: intelligence, looks, dress, manner of speaking, job, etc. That might be part of his problem - average isn't good enough. And it's probably part of LE's problem in identifying him, as well. Again, JMO.

Yes, interesting, average isn’t good enough. I now wonder why average isn’t good enough. That gives me a lot to think about. Is it due to parents, or peers, etc? Thank you.

And I agree, he’s likely smarter about the lay of the land. That’s very frustrating as it seems LE would be able to narrow that down. Unless he’s just an incredibly lucky dolt.
imo

 

[Ekliptika]

The person, who saw the deers, then zoomed in using his smart phone and then saw the girls, do we know for a fact if he/she:
- was The same person, who found the shoe?
- was located at the other side of the creek from where the CS was?

I’m struggling with picturing how, if the girls were in some sort of bowl shaped area, someone standing on the opposite side of the creek could see them? From what I Can see from pictures and YT videos of the area, the bank at the creek side where the girls were found was quite high. How would someone standing at the flat bank on the opposite side be able to see the girls up over the steep bank side?

 

[Blanche]

The person, who saw the deers, then zoomed in using his smart phone and then saw the girls, do we know for a fact if he/she:
- was The same person, who found the shoe?
- was located at the other side of the creek from where the CS was?

I’m struggling with picturing how, if the girls were in some sort of bowl shaped area, someone standing on the opposite side of the creek could see them? From what I Can see from pictures and YT videos of the area, the bank at the creek side where the girls were found was quite high. How would someone standing at the flat bank on the opposite side be able to see the girls up over the steep bank side?

have you got a link for his please?

 

[Ekliptika]

In the Down the Hill podcast BP say the following (copied from the media thread, link available in the first post of every thread in here, where someone has written a transcript:
Becky Patty:
A friend of ours was also in a search group that was across the creek, and he saw something. So, he took his phone and zoomed in, and it was a tie-dyed shirt. And he knew what Libby wore. And, uh, his wife she come back and she said they found the girls.

I have heard Kelsie explain how the girls were found with someone seeing deers and then zoom in with their phone and then saw the girls, but I can’t remember which podcast that was, could have been DTH as Well.
I wonder about this quote from BP, where she mentions that what the person saw, was the tie-dyed shirt. In other quote from Kelsie, it is Said that the person saw the girls. I wonder what it actually was the person saw? Was it just the t-shirt? Was the t-shirt on Libby? Or could the t-shirt have been hung up in a branch or tree? Did the killer want someone to see the t-shirt? To lead searchers to the girls? Could the shoe also have been placed at the opposite side of the creek as a clue? And did he place the shoe and t-shirt such that when someone found the shoe and then looked up over on the other side of the creek they would see the t-shirt? Was this one of the signatures? Or odd features of the crime scene?
Or maybe it is just my imagination trying to come up with a scenario, that could match the small bits and pieces of the information we have?
Above pure speculation and just MOO.
I Will try to find a source for the story with the deers...

 

[Yemelyan]

Strangulation is likely because it's so common with serial killers. To do that, he must have incapacited one of the girls or used some kind of restraints on them. He wouldn't have been able to take the time to strangle one girl if the other one was free and able to run away or call for help.

I'd add to this statement that though we don't know if he is a serial killer at this point, we do know that he targeted children and individuals who do this, like serial killers, are also more likely to kill by strangulation or asphyxiation than other methods. In fact, offenders who kill children, even if they only do it once and not in series, are more like serial killers in their metrics (how they commit their crimes, what they do before, during and after the murder) than any other group. MOO

 

[Pyschsandi]

It's a good question. I think there was certainly an element of luck for him that day, as there is with any crime of opportunity. And he recognized and acted on that lucky opportunity. JMO

As for whether he's dumb or smart, my inclination is to guess he's "average," in every way: intelligence, looks, dress, manner of speaking, job, etc. That might be part of his problem - average isn't good enough. And it's probably part of LE's problem in identifying him, as well. Again, JMO.

However, I do think it's possible he's smarter than average about the lay of the land. JMO

I would think that he may be criminally sophisticated and average IQ. This type of criminal doesn’t wake up one day and kill. He most likely has a criminal record of several different crimes. They tend to get better at getting away with their crimes and get bolder as they get away with them. JMO

 

[Pyschsandi]

I'd add to this statement that though we don't know if he is a serial killer at this point, we do know that he targeted children and individuals who do this, like serial killers, are also more likely to kill by strangulation or asphyxiation than other methods. In fact, offenders who kill children, even if they only do it once and not in series, are more like serial killers in their metrics (how they commit their crimes, what they do before, during and after the murder) than any other group. MOO

You are right Yemelyan, we don’t know if this guy is a serial killer. I thought he might be one because of the signatures at the crime scene. When there are signatures, many times there from a serial killer and LE is probably looking at other crime scenes to see if they are similar. Strangulation is a preferred way for a serial killer but many use all types of weapons. A killer that comes to mind isTommy Lynn Sells. He used a knife in his last attack.

 

[MistyWaters]

The person, who saw the deers, then zoomed in using his smart phone and then saw the girls, do we know for a fact if he/she:
- was The same person, who found the shoe?
- was located at the other side of the creek from where the CS was?

I’m struggling with picturing how, if the girls were in some sort of bowl shaped area, someone standing on the opposite side of the creek could see them? From what I Can see from pictures and YT videos of the area, the bank at the creek side where the girls were found was quite high. How would someone standing at the flat bank on the opposite side be able to see the girls up over the steep bank side?

LE have never released photos of the specific site where the bodies were found appx 1/2 mile downstream from the bridge, we also don’t know the searchers route, exactly where the shoe was found nor the location of the deer. Nor can any youtubers nor photographers know because LE has never disclosed that information to the public. As a result it’s literally impossible to draw a conclusion regarding anything being amiss or not IMO.

Somewhat ironic, the reason why searchers failed to find the bodies that same evening has been met with almost as much speculation as how the search party sighted the bodies the following day.

Unfortunately I think sometimes the more information the family offers the general public - the more the details gets questioned (certainly not directing this to you specifically). Perhaps that’s why they appear to have stepped back somewhat and turned their focus to creation of the Legacy Park. It must be frustrating for them because I don’t think their intention was ever to fuel speculation merely by their spoken words. They want somebody who knows the identity of the killer to tip-off LE with that information.

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

You are right Yemelyan, we don’t know if this guy is a serial killer. I thought he might be one because of the signatures at the crime scene. When there are signatures, many times there from a serial killer and LE is probably looking at other crime scenes to see if they are similar. Strangulation is a preferred way for a serial killer but many use all types of weapons. A killer that comes to mind isTommy Lynn Sells. He used a knife in his last attack.

Bolded by me...be careful not to fall into the mindset that because there were signatures, there are definitely other crimes out there to link it to (not saying you specifically, @Pyschsandi, just that this is a common way of thinking for people who follow crimes). People who think like this often get frustrated with LE for not revealing more about the signatures, thinking that LE isn't solving the crime because they aren't making the right connections that tie the case to past events, or that LE fails to harness the knowledge that the public has.

Killers can and do leave signatures, meaning they engage in activities before, during, or after the crime that express their inner fantasy of the act, even in their first murders. It is not the repetition of the specific act through a series of crimes that makes it a signature, it is the outward expression of the offender's inner motivation for the crime that makes it such. In reality, though offenders almost always stay within the same theme for their signature behaviors at scenes, they often tinker with the specifics of the act - they experiment, they evolve, they are sometimes thwarted by time or victim behavior or other random events.

Instead of looking backwards and thinking, "there are signatures, therefore he is definitely a serial killer who has already done this exact thing before," think forwards: "whether or not he has done this before, because he engaged in signature behaviors at the crime scene, his psychology reveals that he is the type of individual who will likely go on to offend in similar patterns if he hasn't already."

All MOO.

 

[MistyWaters]

You are right Yemelyan, we don’t know if this guy is a serial killer. I thought he might be one because of the signatures at the crime scene. When there are signatures, many times there from a serial killer and LE is probably looking at other crime scenes to see if they are similar. Strangulation is a preferred way for a serial killer but many use all types of weapons. A killer that comes to mind isTommy Lynn Sells. He used a knife in his last attack.

When the killer is finally apprehended and convicted, whether or not he was already a serial killer probably depends on his age as well. Far less likelihood if he fell within the younger age range of the Delphi suspect (18 to 40). But in asking for tips, LE seem to firmly believe he’s highly capable of committing future homicides...ie serial killings.

 

[Pyschsandi]

Bolded by me...be careful not to fall into the mindset that because there were signatures, there are definitely other crimes out there to link it to (not saying you specifically, @Pyschsandi, just that this is a common way of thinking for people who follow crimes). People who think like this often get frustrated with LE for not revealing more about the signatures, thinking that LE isn't solving the crime because they aren't making the right connections that tie the case to past events, or that LE fails to harness the knowledge that the public has.

Killers can and do leave signatures, meaning they engage in activities before, during, or after the crime that express their inner fantasy of the act, even in their first murders. It is not the repetition of the specific act through a series of crimes that makes it a signature, it is the outward expression of the offender's inner motivation for the crime that makes it such. In reality, though offenders almost always stay within the same theme for their signature behaviors at scenes, they often tinker with the specifics of the act - they experiment, they evolve, they are sometimes thwarted by time or victim behavior or other random events.

Instead of looking backwards and thinking, "there are signatures, therefore he is definitely a serial killer who has already done this exact thing before," think forwards: "whether or not he has done this before, because he engaged in signature behaviors at the crime scene, his psychology reveals that he is the type of individual who will likely go on to offend in similar patterns if he hasn't already."

All MOO.

Your right that he may not be a serial killer (just one possible theory). The signatures, whatever they may be, were things that he wanted to do. The psychology of any person is, if it feels good, do it again. This could have been his first time, but the sophistication of dealing with 2 teens, makes me think he’s done something like this before. Not necessarily murder, but abduction or at least rape. I don’t think he is from Delphi either. I go to a place that’s not well known to hike and I have never been a part of the community. I used to go there 2 to 3 times a year and I got to know the area after a few years. MOO

 

[Boxer]

Agree.
A visitor to the area.
Basically a remote park.

To me the body language on the bridge is blocking. As in Abby may have been facing north intending to start back and BG did that little blocking move that says you are not getting past me.
MOO I would say a moment later the gun came out, and once he did that, he decided he was committed to a crime.


Staging means something.
MOO It is telling some kind of story to somebody.

 

[TL4S]

Agree.
A visitor to the area.
Basically a remote park.

To me the body language on the bridge is blocking. As in Abby may have been facing north intending to start back and BG did that little blocking move that says you are not getting past me.
MOO I would say a moment later the gun came out, and once he did that, he decided he was committed to a crime.


Staging means something.
MOO It is telling some kind of story to somebody.

I would agree with this about him blocking. His hands were in his pockets, his voice sounded calm, I can imagine he pressed towards them steadily and without hesitation once he made up his mind. It's a pretty scary thought. JMO

 

[Boxer]

I would agree with this about him blocking. His hands were in his pockets, his voice sounded calm, I can imagine he pressed towards them steadily and without hesitation once he made up his mind. It's a pretty scary thought. JMO

True.
He may not have seen Libby until he started his crime toward Abby and when he did see her he decided he was already committed and proceded, using a kid control voice.
My take aways:
A father
Impulsive but effective
Opportunist - cheats
MOO he is in a line of work that is athletic, so being able to cross the bridge does not necessarily mean great familiarity.

MOO Not farmer, truck driver, desk worker or retail.
MOO Likely these professions.
Framing carpenter, new installation plumber, electrician, lineman/cell tower worker, tree cutter, roofer.

 

[TL4S]

True.
He may not have seen Libby until he started his crime toward Abby and when he did see her he decided he was already committed and proceded, using a kid control voice.
My take aways:
A father
Impulsive but effective
Opportunist - cheats
MOO he is in a line of work that is athletic, so being able to cross the bridge does not necessarily mean great familiarity.

MOO Not farmer, truck driver, desk worker or retail.
MOO Likely these professions.
Framing carpenter, new installation plumber, electrician, lineman/cell tower worker, tree cutter, roofer.

I would never wager on any profession based on what little we know, but I have to admit, when I first started following this case, my initial inclination was that he was a junker. It's stupid, I know, and I have no idea why I thought that, other than he might have his own hours, access to unregistered vehicles, various tools, casual dress, and likely be well familiar with the area. It might have even given him reason to be on the roads near the trail that day. JM(stupid)O.

 

[Inthedetails]

I would never wager on any profession based on what little we know, but I have to admit, when I first started following this case, my initial inclination was that he was a junker. It's stupid, I know, and I have no idea why I thought that, other than he might have his own hours, access to unregistered vehicles, various tools, casual dress, and likely be well familiar with the area. It might have even given him reason to be on the roads near the trail that day. JM(stupid)O.

I've definitely thought of what job he could have. I also think he works outdoors at least part of the time - not at a desk 9-5. I think he has a job that it wouldn't be tracking his every move so he could visit the bridge during the day and not have it questioned or even noticed that he wasn't in the office (and I do think he has an office as well as outdoor work, and I think he has a job that requires an education/training). Perhaps the bridge is even within the realm of his job or interests.

He is comfortable walking on that bridge, which is a scary bridge to walk across! He's been on it before and likely a few times, imo. He's not in great shape so I don't think he's an athlete who hikes for fitness, but one who spends time at places like the bridge for work/hobby.

I also think he lured (catfished) one or both girls there, and I think they were excited about his arrival....until they actually saw who was coming. They knew right away when they saw him that he tricked them and was trouble, but they were stuck on the bridge with him. That's why they started snapping photos/recording him - they knew he was there for them. He might have been communicating with one online for awhile, but then on the day of the murder when he realized they had the day off from school, he urged them to go to the bridge. They asked for permission, got a ride, and went.

TOTAL SPECULATION!!


jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

I would never wager on any profession based on what little we know, but I have to admit, when I first started following this case, my initial inclination was that he was a junker. It's stupid, I know, and I have no idea why I thought that, other than he might have his own hours, access to unregistered vehicles, various tools, casual dress, and likely be well familiar with the area. It might have even given him reason to be on the roads near the trail that day. JM(stupid)O.

We focus a lot on the town of Delphi but looking at google maps, the outlying areas are dotted with a lot of farms and acreages reaching out in every direction towards surrounding towns and cities.

So my first thought was somewhat of an unfair stereotype. I imagined a recluse who lives in a ramshackle house in the country near Delphi, ridden with junk, raises chickens and a few head of cattle. Not really a farmer but a jack-of-all-trades who makes do without requiring any additional income. Nobody keeps track of his comings and goings, he’s still living in the same house he was born in, he keeps to himself. The sort of introverted person who almost always walks looking downward. He’s familiar with the bridge, memories too as he spent time there on outings with family or friends as a child. Over time his isolation has grown into private perverted inclinations and alcohol gives him courage. People would describe him as “odd” but nobody really knows much about him anymore other than by sight. All JMO

 

[Boxer]

I've definitely thought of what job he could have. I also think he works outdoors at least part of the time - not at a desk 9-5. I think he has a job that it wouldn't be tracking his every move so he could visit the bridge during the day and not have it questioned or even noticed that he wasn't in the office (and I do think he has an office as well as outdoor work, and I think he has a job that requires an education/training). Perhaps the bridge is even within the realm of his job or interests.

He is comfortable walking on that bridge, which is a scary bridge to walk across! He's been on it before and likely a few times, imo. He's not in great shape so I don't think he's an athlete who hikes for fitness, but one who spends time at places like the bridge for work/hobby.

I also think he lured (catfished) one or both girls there, and I think they were excited about his arrival....until they actually saw who was coming. They knew right away when they saw him that he tricked them and was trouble, but they were stuck on the bridge with him. That's why they started snapping photos/recording him - they knew he was there for them. He might have been communicating with one online for awhile, but then on the day of the murder when he realized they had the day off from school, he urged them to go to the bridge. They asked for permission, got a ride, and went.

TOTAL SPECULATION!!


jmo

IMO this is certainly the simplest explanation.

In the met online scenario BG knowing to ask to meet at bridge means either he already knew of the place or if he did not know of the bridge he was provided directions.

If provided directions and unfamiliar, reasonable to assume he arrived plenty early to check out the area.
Maybe walked the bridge a few times.