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

[Charlot123]

And I wonder, have a kind of hunch, if one of the girl's were recognized by walking on that first part of the bridge right above and very close to an area where people hung out.

I never realized just how close and what an organized area it was to the bridge until that recent HLN show and the bird's eye view of the bridge area done with a camera drone.

If that spot had a lot of people there (Anna Williams said she was told 50+ people in the trails areas that day) it would be easy to see the girls and then leave the gang out and reach the start of the bridge quickly.

Add-on for context...
so I think he, the killer, may have convinced himself to act after seeing someone he recognized and for personal reasons. Like he "hired" himself as an assassin in an instant and with possible more reason that just opportunity showing itself. Just some thoughts, just theorizing.

I understand what you mean. We both see the same thing, motivation. Our brains interpret it differently. You, that someone known to one of the girls personally, thinks, “now or never”. Me, that someone for whom such escapades are a profession, thinks, “good place, and good time”. But we feel the same: “goal-driven”, in his posture and gait.

 

[Inthedetails]

Keep in mind his intense look of determination is likely because he's walking on a bridge with slats that are rather far apart. It's not a solid piece of walkway, but one with wide, open spaces between each step, far above the ground.

That is one big reason I think this was an arranged meeting. He knew the girls couldn't run away from him up there. Maybe he even told them to post on snap-chat when they were on the bridge and that's when he knew to start approaching.

jmo

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Keep in mind his intense look of determination is likely because he's walking on a bridge with slats that are rather far apart. It's not a solid piece of walkway, but one with wide, open spaces between each step, far above the ground.

That is one big reason I think this was an arranged meeting. He knew the girls couldn't run away from him up there. Maybe he even told them to post on snap-chat when they were on the bridge and that's when he knew to start approaching.

jmo

I don’t see an “intense look of determination” on BG in the video. I see blurred pixelation and an unresolved image, which is a big reason nobody has been able to identify this guy for four years.

 

[Inthedetails]

I don’t see an “intense look of determination” on BG in the video. I see blurred pixelation and an unresolved image, which is a big reason nobody has been able to identify this guy for four years.

I see a man watching his footing, which is what I think others are interpreting as "intense look."

In the end, we're all just trying.

jmo

 

[EndlessEnigma]

If BG is a psychosexual killer I don’t think he has told anyone what he has done. These types of killers lead double lives and fool even those they live with for years. If anyone is going to call him out it would be for his behavior around that time and since then. I think he lives in a fantasy world he doesn’t share with others because he knows his behavior and thoughts are wrong and society would look at him as a monster. JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

If BG is a psychosexual killer I don’t think he has told anyone what he has done. These types of killers lead double lives and fool even those they live with for years. If anyone is going to call him out it would be for his behavior around that time and since then. I think he lives in a fantasy world he doesn’t share with others because he knows his behavior and thoughts are wrong and society would look at him as a monster. JMO

I agree.

 

[Skibunny]

Keep in mind his intense look of determination is likely because he's walking on a bridge with slats that are rather far apart. It's not a solid piece of walkway, but one with wide, open spaces between each step, far above the ground.

That is one big reason I think this was an arranged meeting. He knew the girls couldn't run away from him up there. Maybe he even told them to post on snap-chat when they were on the bridge and that's when he knew to start approaching.

jmo

The one thing that sticks in my mind is that the girls had a sleepover at Libby's house the night before. With teenage girls there is very little actual sleeping at a sleepover, even less sleeping when there is no school or sports the next day. My daughter and her friends would be on their phones texting and social media literally all night, sometimes until 7am. I think the perp got some kind of indication the girls were going to go to the bridge from the night before. I know the families have said the decision to go was spontaneous, but teenagers in general, will frame things in a way that is advantageous to them.

 

[MistyWaters]

The one thing that sticks in my mind is that the girls had a sleepover at Libby's house the night before. With teenage girls there is very little actual sleeping at a sleepover, even less sleeping when there is no school or sports the next day. My daughter and her friends would be on their phones texting and social media literally all night, sometimes until 7am. I think the perp got some kind of indication the girls were going to go to the bridge from the night before. I know the families have said the decision to go was spontaneous, but teenagers in general, will frame things in a way that is advantageous to them.

What you write sure reminds me of the behaviours of teen girls as well, for whatever reason they have a high need to talk about what everybody is doing or planning 24/7. I’m not insisting the killer was aware of their plans in advance and took the opportunity to stalk them but I do have a hard time believing the girls didn’t communicate their intentions with anybody during that night of the sleepover.

One reason.... initially BP said the girls weren’t allowed to go unless they were successful in arranging a ride back and forth in advance. But later she retracted that, instead the pickup by DG was arranged at the same time as KG dropped off the girls. BP went on to say Libby knew her father would never say “no” or something like that, so arranging the ride back home wouldn’t have been a problem. This was from a podcast and I’m sorry, I don’t recall which one. But for me it illustrated getting a ride wasn’t the obstacle as it might’ve initially appeared.

So I don’t quite understand why BP continually insists the girls’ plan to go to the trail was made suddenly, that no one else knew. How can she know for sure? If other teens did in fact know, would they feel free to say so, would they be believed?

JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The one thing that sticks in my mind is that the girls had a sleepover at Libby's house the night before. With teenage girls there is very little actual sleeping at a sleepover, even less sleeping when there is no school or sports the next day. My daughter and her friends would be on their phones texting and social media literally all night, sometimes until 7am. I think the perp got some kind of indication the girls were going to go to the bridge from the night before. I know the families have said the decision to go was spontaneous, but teenagers in general, will frame things in a way that is advantageous to them.

As young teens with no drivers licenses they weren’t going anywhere without somebody driving them there. That is one of the big road blocks I have for this being some planned meetup. They could talk and plan and dream all they want, but they weren’t going anywhere without help.
There is nothing in the description of that day that makes me think it was anything other than a spur of the moment thing. The girls, according to BP initially wanted to go shopping. According to LE and the families there is no indication in the girls’ conversation on the bridge that indicates they were expecting anyone or that they recognized the person approaching them on the bridge. Just girl talk they say. Sometimes thing are as they appear.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Charlot123]

What you write sure reminds me of the behaviours of teen girls as well, for whatever reason they have a high need to talk about what everybody is doing or planning 24/7. I’m not insisting the killer was aware of their plans in advance and took the opportunity to stalk them but I do have a hard time believing the girls didn’t communicate their intentions with anybody during that night of the sleepover.

One reason.... initially BP said the girls weren’t allowed to go unless they were successful in arranging a ride back and forth in advance. But later she retracted that, instead the pickup by DG was arranged at the same time as KG dropped off the girls. BP went on to say Libby knew her father would never say “no” or something like that, so arranging the ride back home wouldn’t have been a problem. This was from a podcast and I’m sorry, I don’t recall which one. But for me it illustrated getting a ride wasn’t the obstacle as it might’ve initially appeared.

So I don’t quite understand why BP continually insists the plan to go to the trail was made suddenly, that no one else knew. How can she know for sure? If other teens did know, would they feel free to say so to LE?

JMO

you know, today everyone is supportive of the girls’ families, but I remember that at the beginning, someone, TL or DC, said “always know what your children are doing”. I wonder if after that, it was hard for the parents to say, they didn’t know if the girls had reached someone on their SM, to arrange the walk?

Parents are always scrutinized and blamed, for everything. To me, lack of full control of kids’ SM sounds pretty normal, inevitable, even. We all know that our kids will find a way to communicate without us knowing, if they want to, and that they can have many secrets, of which we are totally unaware, and it is a normal phase of their growing.

 

[Yemelyan]

you know, today everyone is supportive of the girls’ families, but I remember that at the beginning, someone, TL or DC, said “always know what your children are doing”. I wonder if after that, it was hard for BP to say, they didn’t know whom the girls had reached on their SM?

Which to me, btw, sounds pretty normal. We all know that there is only a certain limit to which we can control our kids, that they will find a way to communicate without us knowing, if they want to, that parental wish to control was the reason kids left FB and deviated to Snapchat, etc.

It was actually ISP press officer Sgt. Riley who said this:

Riley also gave advice for people who are concerned about the crime.

"Be cautious and be careful and be parents," he said. "Just make sure they know where their children are at, what their children are doing and -- if nothing else -- know what's going on in their lives."

https://www.wrtv.com/news/crime/del...iley-amber-alert-would-not-have-done-any-good

 

[Inthedetails]

The one thing that sticks in my mind is that the girls had a sleepover at Libby's house the night before. With teenage girls there is very little actual sleeping at a sleepover, even less sleeping when there is no school or sports the next day. My daughter and her friends would be on their phones texting and social media literally all night, sometimes until 7am. I think the perp got some kind of indication the girls were going to go to the bridge from the night before. I know the families have said the decision to go was spontaneous, but teenagers in general, will frame things in a way that is advantageous to them.

I agree. I think BG was either lurking somewhere online reading what they posted or was actually in communication. (Yes, I know people don't believe their was prior contact online. Lurking might have been enough.)

These were good girls, but also having fun taking small risks, unknown to their families. One didn't have a cellphone, but they used one together. They were not supposed to go on the bridge, but they did. It's not a huge leap for me to think they thought they were safe with online postings but in fact BG was either lurking or luring them.

I think BG was local enough that he could also spontaneously be at the bridge with little advance notice.

Speculation, of course.

jmo

 

[Peppery]

Re: other people knowing the girls would be at the trail

<modsnip: No MSM to support> we don't know who may have heard or been aware that there was a plan by a group of teen girls to go to the trail. We don't know if other girls were involved in a discussion about trying to go to the trails the next day. I tend to think there was a conversation at school within the previous few days suggesting an afternoon out there at some point. All innocently of course.

I personally think it was a crime of opportunity and he was just waiting for a victim(s) who struck his fancy, whatever that might have been. I do not think he knew either girl or their families and didn't decide to attack them until he initially saw them. I think he spent many days waiting for what he felt was the right opportunity and victim and something about this time and these girls made him act.

 

[MistyWaters]

Just another thing, I’ve always been curious how many friends were linked to Libby’s SC. Because to me it would seem a logical sequence of events, if the girls had already shared their intentions to go the bridge with teen friends, then to send the SC photos as a follow through of those plans. Rather than totally out of the blue.

IMO the SC’ing of photos illustrating their activity of the moment and talking about plans in advance would seem to go hand in hand.

 

[Charlot123]

I agree. I think BG was either lurking somewhere online reading what they posted or was actually in communication. (Yes, I know people don't believe their was prior contact online. Lurking might have been enough.)

These were good girls, but also having fun taking small risks, unknown to their families. One didn't have a cellphone, but they used one together. They were not supposed to go on the bridge, but they did. It's not a huge leap for me to think they thought they were safe with online postings but in fact BG was either lurking or luring them.

I think BG was local enough that he could also spontaneously be at the bridge with little advance notice.

Speculation, of course.

jmo

Agree. Also, they went to the bridge in broad daylight, and it was a popular place for the locals.

 

[JnRyan]

One of the items in the description - age 18-40 years old - gives me pause. I wonder if that is not based on an up close, detailed look that ANY witness had. But rather than some logic LE arrived at based on the nature of the crime. IOW, 18 years old - or 16 at the time of the murder - was old enough to intimidate 2 13-14 yo girls and 40 years old was still young enough to be able chase 2 girls should they try to run from him. It's likely that no one really paid much attention to this guy because he was of average height, weight and dressed average - i.e., nothing about this guy caused anyone to give him a second glance. Or they saw a guy 50-150 yards away wearing a blue jacket. If anyone did actually see the killer.

 

[MistyWaters]

Agree. Also, they went to the bridge in broad daylight, and it was a popular place for the locals.

Yes and perhaps just learning somehow that teen girls, maybe two, maybe more, might be planning to hang out at the bridge that February afternoon may’ve been the inspiration for the killer to go there as well. When an opportunity arose, he took it. JMO

 

[Inthedetails]

Just another thing, I’ve always been curious how many friends were linked to Libby’s SC. Because to me it would seem a logical sequence of events, if the girls had already shared their intentions to go the bridge with teen friends, then to send the SC photos as a follow through of those plans. Rather than totally out of the blue.

IMO the SC’ing of photos illustrating their activity of the moment and talking about plans in advance would seem to go hand in hand.

Right, and snap-chatting from a place they were not supposed to be is another example of risk-taking. They knew their families were unlikely to see the photos, yet they took a risk to post a cool photo from a location they were told not to go.

I don't blame the girls at all for their little risks - they remind me of my friends and myself at that age so much! They were having fun, that's all. And someone was watching, imo, or even actively engaging with them. The girls might have been taking a small risk in meeting that someone that day, feeling safe because they only had a short time to be on the trail before their ride came to get them.

opinion

 

[Yemelyan]

Right, and snap-chatting from a place they were not supposed to be is another example of risk-taking. They knew their families were unlikely to see the photos, yet they took a risk to post a cool photo from a location they were told not to go.

I don't blame the girls at all for their little risks - they remind me of my friends and myself at that age so much! They were having fun, that's all. And someone was watching, imo, or even actively engaging with them. The girls might have been taking a small risk in meeting that someone that day, feeling safe because they only had a short time to be on the trail before their ride came to get them.

opinion

Bolded by me....

IMO I don't think we can assume this. We know for sure that Libby's mom regularly communicated with her through SnapChat, so we can assume she would see photos posted to Libby's story:

The morning of February 13, 2017 started just the way most mornings did for Carrie – with a message from her daughter.

“I sent her a ‘Good Morning beautiful have a good day’ Snapchat on my way to work and I got one back and she's lying in bed,” said Carrie. “I asked, what are you doing in bed? (Libby replied) 'I don't have school today.'

"You know, that was our last conversation."

It’s a message she wishes she had kept.


https://www.wrtv.com/longform/libby-german-the-world-got-short-changed


The only parental figure that I recall saying a bridge crossing would not have been allowed (if asked - which she wasn't) was AW. I don't think it's accurate that Libby's family allowed the trails but forbade the bridge.

I would not have wanted my teenage children on that bridge but it seems that different families had different levels of permissiveness on this point.

 

[MistyWaters]

Right, and snap-chatting from a place they were not supposed to be is another example of risk-taking. They knew their families were unlikely to see the photos, yet they took a risk to post a cool photo from a location they were told not to go.

I don't blame the girls at all for their little risks - they remind me of my friends and myself at that age so much! They were having fun, that's all. And someone was watching, imo, or even actively engaging with them. The girls might have been taking a small risk in meeting that someone that day, feeling safe because they only had a short time to be on the trail before their ride came to get them.

opinion

I recall a very common ploy that I’m certain is still in practise today. Girls A & B want to go somewhere, not sure if their parents will let them. So A tells her parent that B’s parents agreed even though they hadn’t quite yet. B also tells her parent that A’s parents agreed even though they hadn’t quite yet. But because each of the parents believe the other okayed it, the girls are soon on their way.

I sure wouldn’t blame the girls either, nothing planned by them could’ve intentionally put their safety at risk. Hiking a public walking trail on a Monday afternoon is not known to be a high risk activity. JMO