That murder seems to have been a calculated hit job. They need to figure out why that would be. I think the Delphi murders may have been unplanned, a crime of opportunity.
Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #135
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2019
- Messages
- 1,145
- Reaction score
- 13,488
Agree with you on both
Ozoner
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,636
- Reaction score
- 19,305
That isn't true about Ridgeway. He was one of the first suspects identified because he was the last person seen with one of the first victims. He was a smooth talker and convinced LE that he wasn't involved. He wasn't caught because of committed a new crime and made a mistake; he was caught because DNA technology caught up with him.
Oh, ok, I see.
I totally think it is him...
Law enforcement isn't going to tell the family anything until they have a case ready because they have to protect the investigation which in the long run should be in the families best interests
Awsi Dooger
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2017
- Messages
- 417
- Reaction score
- 4,088
Usually they simply don’t know who the killer is, and then he gets caught in the act, they find evidence at his residence and in his car, and now they also know his name (Ted Bundy, Night Stalker, Son of Sam). To say you have everything but the name is baffling.
It's usually the case and it is the overwhelming likelihood here. Delphi and other small Indiana towns don't have cases like this. That lends to their frustration and the statements that have been inflated by followers of this case. Sure they know a great deal. They know plenty of details we could not contemplate. They feel good about all the time invested and some good ideas along the way. They'd love to give examples. But just because they've done tons of work doesn't mean there is any validity to comments like, "I know that voice" or, "the community will be shocked," etc.
Notice that type of comment is coming from the small town sheriff, not the FBI guys. If this case had happened near a major urban center the guys working the case would have considerably different perspective. They would have experienced numerous stranger cases in which nothing connects no matter how hard you try, or how many promising leads you have.
Keep in mind that when law enforcement tells Kelsi they are making progress, that hardly means it was actual progress. They could be investigating a local creep. Then it turns out he was a local creep. Just like the prior guy they investigated 6 months earlier. But every step of the way they have to rationalize to themselves that this time it's different and they are indeed making progress.
Absolutely. And of course they would never want to say to Kelsi, “Actually no, there’s been no progress.” But as you note, even in big urban areas there are cases where they simply can’t find the perpetrator no matter what they do. Frustrating, but not really their fault. I wish there would be one of those “lucky breaks” which solve the case fully.
How does it work with DNA as evidence in the US?
Can this stand alone or would you also need evidence that the person was actually at the crime scene at the time of the crime?
Where I live, you Can not be convicted on DNA alone, there has to be other evidence placing you at the scene of crime at the time. This Can be finger prints, a witness, a photo etc.
Can this stand alone or would you also need evidence that the person was actually at the crime scene at the time of the crime?
Where I live, you Can not be convicted on DNA alone, there has to be other evidence placing you at the scene of crime at the time. This Can be finger prints, a witness, a photo etc.
Ozoner
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,636
- Reaction score
- 19,305
In the US, it is up to the jury. People have often been convicted on DNA evidence alone.
In the US it does happen - in legal terms it's called a "pure cold hit." The legal problem with such cases is that the DNA "match" is never a 100% match, it's a statistical statement called a random match probability - such as, there's a "1 in 1.1 million chance that this sampling of genetic material at this number of locations in the genome could match a random, totally innocent person." And sometimes that random match probability is much weaker, like "1 in 450." Some pure cold hit suspects have ended up being exonerated because it was discovered - either in the investigatory stage or on appeal - that the cold hit was coincidental or erroneous. And this is actually only going to happen much more often, because criminal DNA databases like CODIS are getting larger by the day (due to laws about taking DNA from felony arrestees and other detained people) so there's ever larger likelihood that coincidental matches will occur. This article does a great job explaining this: The Dark Side of DNA Databases
And then there's this: DNA's Dirty Little Secret - Type Investigations
That article talks about the case of John Puckett. In 1972 a nurse was raped and murdered in San Francisco. The initial suspect was a man named Robert Baker, who had escaped from an asylum a month prior, had raped a woman less than a quarter-mile from the murder victim's home, and who, when questioned, had a parking ticket in his van that had blood on it matching the nurse's blood type. But the case ended up going cold until DNA technology caught up. In 2004 authorities re-opened that case and compared the deteriorated sample of DNA found on the victim's body to California's state database version of CODIS (which contained over 300,000 DNA profiles) and found one cold hit match, to a then-71 year old man named John Puckett, who shared 9 alleles with the DNA profile found on the victim's body. At his trial, the primary evidence against him was the DNA profile match - that a person picked at random would have a 1 in 1.1 million chance of matching the DNA found (as well as the fact that he had lived in the general Bay Area around the time of the murder and had a previous sexual assault conviction). The judge allowed the jury to hear the defense's argument that other than the cold hit, there was really no other evidence against John Puckett, but did not allow the defense to tell the jury that the chance of sharing 9 alleles is not uncommon and that in fact there were probably about 40 other people in California who matched the sample as exactly as he did. John Puckett was convicted of this crime and appealed.
The bottom line, and why all of this relates to Delphi, is this:
1. If the Delphi investigators have a deteriorated or partial sample, OR
2. If it is a sample with mixed contributors (including the victim)
THEN even a partial match in a DNA database may not be very strong evidence because it could "include" quite a lot of innocent people.
ETA: If I had to guess, I'd say the Delphi investigators have #2 - a mixed sample that contains, say, Libby's DNA, Kelsi's DNA, and the (perhaps partial) DNA of an unknown male contributor. So LE doesn't know if the unknown profile they've isolated belongs to the killer or even if they've isolated it correctly.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 15, 2019
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 402
"Notice that type of comment is coming from the small town sheriff..."
Good point here that the interpretations could be from a less erudite, cosmopolitan interpretation.
Local LE does readily admit that they get few murders of this type where the motive is not apparent soon after the crime. However, I'm skeptical of the idea that the local LE is not following a strategy to apprehend the perpetrator. Even rural community LE study modern forensics and attend criminology seminars. Some crimes are difficult to solve especially if "someone" is providing an alibi or sheltering the perpetrator.
"Making progress" references could mean that they can set aside the likelihood of a specific suspect or connection to certain evidence. Not necessarily that they have positive evidence. Knowing who didn't commit this crime is equally as important as who did and how the evidence connects together.
LE strategy could be to let the perpetrator of the murders feel comfortable and think that country bumpkin LE that isn't capable of dealing with this type of crime or offender. In many of these type of cases, the criminal mind gloats over how much smarter s/he is to outsmart LE. If the perpetrator gets overconfident and slips up, LE is waiting to pounce.
LE releasing information in press conferences could be designed to get the perpetrator to let down his guard, push to insert himself into the case, revisit the scene, or something similar. Perhaps, it is not just the spontaneous, emotional ramblings of local LE. It could also be that some of the local LE press conference comments could indicate specifics to which we are not privileged to know.
For example, any references to religious concepts in the press conference could be due to a religious symbolism at the crime scene. Crucifix, posing the deceased praying, or other religious type symbols. Possibly, there was evidence at the scene that indicated the perpetrator thought his victim's souls were "his" or that the victims would suffer for all eternity. Rankling the perpetrator with "no the girls are not suffering any more" could be bait to draw the perpetrator out. Perhaps, it is not just the off-the cuff ramblings of religious local LE.
All MOO.
I swear if this isn't him I give up. He is fascinated with bridges and trains, hangs out in nature, has a history of impulsive, brazen, violent attacks (police officer, prison guard), but now we know it's not all "tough guy" in a brawl stuff - he is a pedophile as well and was violent to a 9 yr old girl. Every time I read through his FB and think he doesn't seem that scary, I remember he is the same person that was absolutely going to kill a 9 yr old. He is smack in the middle of the height and weight parameters. He has a ton of hair like the sketch and that was always what I figured made him "appear younger than his true age." He started a new job in early April which means he very possibly was unemployed in February. He is just the type to know about the Monon High bridge. Lives near it, fishs in creeks, sleeps under bridges, makes his FB cover photo a train crossing a bridge! Says guys all the time!
I don't think Kelsi saying LE hasn't given her positive feedback means anything. They are not going to say "I think it's him" until they know and he is ready to be charged. The fact they haven't told her he is ruled out means way more.
There certainly are many factors pointing toward Chadwell. It’s like nothing excludes him.
I, too, have had the feeling that, well, he doesn’t seem so bad and then, like you, I remember that he abducted, sexually assaulted, and attempted to strangle to death a 9 year old girl.
At this point I believe LE is stuck with regard JBC as a POI. By that I mean they not only can't rule him in, but they likely can't rule him out either. LE has DNA, but they don't know if it is the killer's. So if JBC's DNA is not a match it doesn't necessarily rule him out. Maybe the same with the fingerprint and other crime scene evidence. If LE has asked where he was that day and if he was unemployed or off from work he may not recall where he was over 4 years ago. And even if he did LE would want some third party verification. If LE came up to me and asked me where I was on a particular date over 4 years ago unless it was a weekday (at work) there isn't really anything I can give them. If LE came to me and asked me if I saw one of my neighbors on a particular date over 4 years ago I wouldn't likely be able to confirm or deny that I saw them. MAYBE if I was assisting my neighbor with working on a car, for example, I might remember doing that IF prompted or reminded by LE. But even then I probably wouldn't be able to pinpoint it beyond the season and at best MAYBE the month.
IOW, with no ties to the evidence and maybe no verifiable alibi LE probably doesn't know what they have with JBC. If that is the case, the best thing LE can do for now is say nothing.
IOW, with no ties to the evidence and maybe no verifiable alibi LE probably doesn't know what they have with JBC. If that is the case, the best thing LE can do for now is say nothing.
In full agreement with all you stated. It goes to show how difficult this has become 4 years on.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2017
- Messages
- 12,962
- Reaction score
- 75,069
Definitely guesswork on our part but it’s LE who deals with evidence.
Now that his name is ‘out there’ I wonder how many tips have poured in to LE with claims of “oh yeah, I didn’t think it was important at the time but he said ......” or “he acted strangely.....” by the unscrupulous who just want to take a shot at collecting the $325k reward. It must be difficult for LE to separate fact from fiction, a challenge common to most high profile cases.
JMO
Ozoner
Former Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2013
- Messages
- 4,636
- Reaction score
- 19,305
JBC's 9-year-old victim didn't die, so he doesn't seem to be the efficient killer that I take BG to be. Maybe he couldn't go through with it; maybe he needed to get his nerve up, which I don't think BG would have needed to do. The survival of the victim argues against JBC's being BG.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
