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

[ally021]

I have seen a few people mention Snapchats 'Snap-Map' feature as a way BG could have tracked down Abby and Libby. This feature was released June 21st 2017 [0] making it after they went missing (February 14th 2017). So they wouldn't be able to use this.

Regarding GH - I believe he said that reporters doing the latest HLN documentary parked there with permission from RL? I am at work (which blocks youtube) so can't double check.

[0] https://synecticsmedia.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-snapchats-new-snap-map

 

[Inthedetails]

Yes, something like that is possible.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

I remember reading that and thinking but they did know where their children were and what they were doing, according to BP, MP and KG.

To me that only left the "what's going on in their lives" which led me to consider the girls may have been catfished.

I think they were catfished too, even though I know many disagree. It's a scenario which seems to fit best, imo.

If not catfished outright, then at least watched online by a nasty lurker.

I think BG knew where to find them and when.

jmo

 

[Yemelyan]

I remember reading that and thinking but they did know where their children were and what they were doing, according to BP, MP and KG.

To me that only left the "what's going on in their lives" which led me to consider the girls may have been catfished.

The quote was from February 15, 2017 - just two days after the murders - so to be honest, LE may not have known the total circumstances yet and catfishing or luring may have been a theory they hadn't ruled out. Four years later, we are hearing them say "victims of opportunity" so perhaps when they had time to do a forensic analysis and victimology, they can confidently go with another theory. JMO

I remember hearing this at the time and thinking, is he actually blaming the parents? That seems so insensitive given what happened! But you have to think of the context. Reporters were asking him why an Amber Alert had not been issued and he was answering that, in this particular case, it didn't meet the criteria, nor would it have ultimately helped generate leads or prevented what happened. The only thing that any parents can do, in his opinion, is "know what your kids are doing." IMO he was speaking about abductions in general, not the failings of the parents in this particular case. It's actually very similar to advice given by the Polly Klaas Foundation, which cited studies of child abduction/murder by strangers and showed that the typical abducted child is a female, around 11 years old, from a normal, non dysfunctional family who was unattended within 1/4 mile of her home. And the only thing that really would have prevented the abduction is the presence of an adult.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

No males were “ordered” to submit dna in Truro. It was voluntary.

Even a voluntary sweep could help them narrow the suspect list down. Sometimes it’s the people who don’t volunteer that draw suspicion.

 

[Yemelyan]

Even a voluntary sweep could help them narrow the suspect list down. Sometimes it’s the people who don’t volunteer that draw suspicion.

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

 

[TL4S]

The quote was from February 15, 2017 - just two days after the murders - so to be honest, LE may not have known the total circumstances yet and catfishing or luring may have been a theory they hadn't ruled out. Four years later, we are hearing them say "victims of opportunity" so perhaps when they had time to do a forensic analysis and victimology, they can confidently go with another theory. JMO

I remember hearing this at the time and thinking, is he actually blaming the parents? That seems so insensitive given what happened! But you have to think of the context. Reporters were asking him why an Amber Alert had not been issued and he was answering that, in this particular case, it didn't meet the criteria, nor would it have ultimately helped generate leads or prevented what happened. The only thing that any parents can do, in his opinion, is "know what your kids are doing." IMO he was speaking about abductions in general, not the failings of the parents in this particular case. It's actually very similar to advice given by the Polly Klaas Foundation, which cited studies of child abduction/murder by strangers and showed that the typical abducted child is a female, around 11 years old, from a normal, non dysfunctional family who was unattended within 1/4 mile of her home. And the only thing that really would have prevented the abduction is the presence of an adult.

Everyone focuses on the "no threat to the community" statement, but I always thought the "know what your kids are doing" was maybe a reminder that the killer is unknown and possibly still in the area, so keep tabs on your kids. JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

Everyone focuses on the "no threat to the community" statement, but I always thought the "know what your kids are doing" was maybe a reminder that the killer is unknown and possibly still in the area, so keep tabs on your kids. JMO

I agree. Riley is not based in Delphi, and he has been the most outspoken of the LE members about the fact that people need to be cautious because of the horrendous nature of the crime and that the person responsible has not been caught yet.

 

[Shamrock1]

They did a DNA sweep for a case in Truro, MA. Every male was ordered to take a test. The same thing happened in a case near Springfield, MA. Both times the perp was caught, prosecuted, and given life in prison.

That’s not correct: giving a sample was voluntary. Requesting mass samples can be a tactic not necessarily to test it all, but to focus investigation on who didn’t give a sample.

 

[Shamrock1]

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

Great post! I’m 10yrs out from looking at search & seizure law, so really appreciate this.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

The Agawam case was solved more recently than twenty years ago and that’s how they got their killer. He even confessed. So it can be a useful strategy. Each state has its own laws about DNA. Unfortunately Indiana is different than Mass. I am not familiar with many cases where a conviction was thrown out just because someone decided not to volunteer their DNA. Maybe you could point me to one. The serial killer in California was caught when they obtained DNA from his garbage that matched the killer’s. Many cases are solved this way.

 

[ally021]

Here is my suspicions: LE do not actually have DNA from the killer. While it may be true they 'found DNA' at the scene, it could have been ruled out as being from people in the search party.

If you notice when LE get asked about the DNA it is a carefully crafted answer they give that doesn't lead to either way. They are doing this on purpose to make the actual killer be worried.

Again if they did have the DNA, I am 100% sure they would ask every male in Delphi to volunteer and give them DNA where they could get a direct/indirect match.

 

[TL4S]

Here is my suspicions: LE do not actually have DNA from the killer. While it may be true they 'found DNA' at the scene, it could have been ruled out as being from people in the search party.

If you notice when LE get asked about the DNA it is a carefully crafted answer they give that doesn't lead to either way. They are doing this on purpose to make the actual killer be worried.

Again if they did have the DNA, I am 100% sure they would ask ever male in Delphi to volunteer and give them DNA where they could get a direct/indirect match.

But how will they know whether it's the killer's DNA until they identify him?

Even if they did a sweep, where would the outer limits of that sweep go? Delphi proper? All the rural homes within 10 miles? Flora, Camden, Lafayette, Indianapolis? If he travels through, or moved at some point, how do they even know where to begin? JMO

 

[EndlessEnigma]

That’s not correct: giving a sample was voluntary. Requesting mass samples can be a tactic not necessarily to test it all, but to focus investigation on who didn’t give a sample.

I don’t call this voluntary:
“A small seaside town about an hour north of Barnstable began another unsparing manhunt this month in hopes of solving a three-year-old murder. Police in Truro, Mass., intend to collect the DNA of every one of the town's 790 males. After that, the cops may cast a wider net, reaching neighboring towns. They started by approaching men at Truro's few outposts--the post office, the pizza place, the grocery store--and politely asking each if they could swipe a lollipop-size swab inside his cheek. It's strictly voluntary, and the Truro men can say no. Then again, the police are taking the license-plate numbers of all the men they approach, and will be noting those who refuse the test.”

 

[ally021]

But how will they know whether it's the killer's DNA until they identify him?

Even if they did a sweep, where would the outer limits of that sweep go? Delphi proper? All the rural homes within 10 miles? Flora, Camden, Lafayette, Indianapolis? If he travels through, or moved at some point, how do they even know where to begin? JMO

Actually I am going to prove myself wrong here. Listen to LE talk here:

"You have DNA?"
"Yes"
"Do you have his DNA?"
"Again - we don't know"

 

[EndlessEnigma]

Actually I am going to prove myself wrong here. Listen to LE talk here:

"You have DNA?"
"Yes"
"Do you have his DNA?"
"Again - we don't know"

I wonder if they have DNA from the cigarette butt they found. And cataloged.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

It has been challenged but the Supreme Court usually weighs individual rights against solving a major crime. And solving a major crime usually takes precedence depending on the circumstances, and usually because there is other evidence that supports conviction.

 

[Yemelyan]

The Agawam case was solved more recently than twenty years ago and that’s how they got their killer. He even confessed. So it can be a useful strategy. Each state has its own laws about DNA. Unfortunately Indiana is different than Mass. I am not familiar with many cases where a conviction was thrown out just because someone decided not to volunteer their DNA. Maybe you could point me to one. The serial killer in California was caught when they obtained DNA from his garbage that matched the killer’s. Many cases are solved this way.

If you are talking about the murderer Gary Schara (Agawam), he was a suspect right after the murder occurred and was caught through advances in DNA technology, including the use of Parabon snapshot. LE had a court ordered warrant for the collection of his specific DNA, it was not a voluntary sweep. (source: Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder)

Also I want to point out that though a DNA sweep was done in Truro, it did not solve that murder either. The suspect, the man eventually convicted of the crime, had already submitted a DNA sample when questioned by police prior to the sweep. Due to crime lab backlogs, they just hadn't matched his sample to the one at the crime scene yet.

Here is data on how well DNA dragnet work solving cases:

And contrary to the claims of law enforcement, DNA dragnets do not have an impressive success rate in catching criminals. The Baltimore Sun recently reported on a study by researchers at the University of Nebraska that focused on eighteen DNA dragnet cases. “Only one — which focused on just 25 nursing home employees — successfully identified the suspect,” the paper reported. A recent ACLU report, according to USA Today, found similarly low levels of success. “More than 7,000 people have been tested in DNA dragnets nationwide since 1995,” the paper noted, but “only one has identified a suspect.”

Source: DNA Dragnets

Finally, a major reason LE should be reluctant to use "voluntary" sweeps is because what they do with the DNA samples from non-suspects is a serious legal question. Some LE departments were promising to destroy DNA samples from non-suspects but were instead entering them into databases for comparisons to other unsolved crimes.

Plenty of investigative and legal strategies that were once considered okay are now restricted in use to last resort situations because of their tenuous constitutional status. In my opinion, if you read the comments of both LE and prosecution in the Delphi case, they don't believe they are in that last resort area at this time. For the evolving legal status of dragnets, read more here:

DNA Dragnet

 

[EndlessEnigma]

Great post! I’m 10yrs out from looking at search & seizure law, so really appreciate this.

It has been challenged but the Supreme Court usually weighs individual rights against solving a major crime. And solving a major crime usually takes precedence depending on the circumstances, and usually because there is other evidence that supports conviction.

The Agawam case was solved more recently than twenty years ago and that’s how they got their killer. He even confessed. So it can be a useful strategy. Each state has its own laws about DNA. Unfortunately Indiana is different than Mass. I am not familiar with many cases where a conviction was thrown out just because someone decided not to volunteer their DNA. Maybe you could point me to one. The serial killer in California was caught when they obtained DNA from his garbage that matched the killer’s. Many cases are solved this way.

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

This is the exact reason it has been challenged as an unreasonable search and seizure/self-incrimination!!! If you don't "voluntarily" participate, that is used as probable cause to further investigate you. In reality, it is your constitutional right to say no.

So doing a sweep in the Delphi case and then further concentrating on the people who refused is the exact tactic that has, in the last twenty years, gotten numerous pieces of evidence ruled inadmissible. That's why investigators in this case haven't done it yet. It's a risk to future prosecution.

Just because an investigative tactic ever worked in the past, does not mean it remains legally viable now. Look at the cell phone/geofence data that worked so well solving crimes until the Carpenter ruling in 2018.

However, the Court's ruling was very narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine related to other business records that might incidentally reveal location information, nor overrule prior decisions concerning conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time CSLI or tower dumps (a download of information about all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval).

 

[Yemelyan]

I don’t call this voluntary:
“A small seaside town about an hour north of Barnstable began another unsparing manhunt this month in hopes of solving a three-year-old murder. Police in Truro, Mass., intend to collect the DNA of every one of the town's 790 males. After that, the cops may cast a wider net, reaching neighboring towns. They started by approaching men at Truro's few outposts--the post office, the pizza place, the grocery store--and politely asking each if they could swipe a lollipop-size swab inside his cheek. It's strictly voluntary, and the Truro men can say no. Then again, the police are taking the license-plate numbers of all the men they approach, and will be noting those who refuse the test.”

Exactly. It was called voluntary, but in fact was a coercive pressure tactic, similar to how lie detector tests are used. This is why it has been challenged as unconstitutional.