Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #141

[Jealoushe]

No one brings a dog to a murder....seriously. Way too much can go wrong and evidence everywhere. Not to mention carrying a dog in a jacket and not having it seen is not easy! Especially walking across that bridge.

 

[FrostedGlass]

He might be; but it doesn’t rule out him operating well with his right hand; there are many versions of handedness among so-called “lefties”.

Yes, I remember we discussed that in depth. Still, if I was a cop, I'd probably take a special interest in the lefties.

 

[Trebor5591]

There are endless examples like this of course one that comes to my mind is of a man wo killed a young woman in her bedroom on her birthday did all kinds of horrible things like wrapping her intestines around her head and then wrote a note on her door saying come in it's my birthday.

 

[MrsConDi]

If there was a dog in BG’s jacket I think the girl’s would have commented on that even if they thought the guy was creepy.

The whole “guy is creepy” thing hasn’t been released to the public and we don’t know all the facts. So they could have said something.

 

[MrsConDi]

No one brings a dog to a murder....seriously. Way too much can go wrong and evidence everywhere. Not to mention carrying a dog in a jacket and not having it seen is not easy! Especially walking across that bridge.

Why assume it was not seen or being hidden? I possibly see it.

Someone may have brought a dog to a murder at some point. Do you know for a fact no one has brought a dog to a murder?

There could be evidence of a dog, we don’t have a list of evidence.

Completely ruling out possibilities…seriously?

 

[TheVisual]

No one brings a dog to a murder....seriously. Way too much can go wrong and evidence everywhere. Not to mention carrying a dog in a jacket and not having it seen is not easy! Especially walking across that bridge.

My POI would. But how would we know? They haven't released the whole audio or maybe not all of the video. . Wouldn't the witnesses have noticed the movement of the dog in his jacket? (but LE has told them to not reveal it)Could the misstep have been the result of Abby jumping at his back causing him to almost lose his grip on the dog? Look really close at the whiteness between his feet in the video. Abby's tennis shoes? (white soles, you only see it for a split second) No one has commented on this except me. What do you think it is?

 

[Jealoushe]

Why assume it was not seen or being hidden? I possibly see it.

Someone may have brought a dog to a murder at some point. Do you know for a fact no one has brought a dog to a murder?

There could be evidence of a dog, we don’t have a list of evidence.

Completely ruling out possibilities…seriously?

<modsnip>

No one mentioned a dog. No one saw a dog. Do you have a dog? Why would they bring a dog and hide it. Dogs are not stuffed animals. They move, they cry, they bark, they wiggle, they run off. <modsnip> IMO.

Maybe someone had a dog at a murder previously but I would struggle to find a case where a child killer has brought Froo Froo along for the kill.

 

[MistyWaters]

Why assume it was not seen or being hidden? I possibly see it.

Someone may have brought a dog to a murder at some point. Do you know for a fact no one has brought a dog to a murder?

There could be evidence of a dog, we don’t have a list of evidence.

Completely ruling out possibilities…seriously?

Well for starters, LE have never associated the suspect on the bridge with a dog. As it’s claimed he was sighted by witnesses, a man with a dog has never once been mentioned. So what’s the point of going down this path, because the photo is quite grainy just like clouds, anyone can see anything. Just because it might be your reality doesn’t mean it’s a true fact of this case. The problem with that is then we must imagine what we think we know.

 

[minazoe]

<modsnip>

No one mentioned a dog. No one saw a dog. Do you have a dog? Why would they bring a dog and hide it. Dogs are not stuffed animals. They move, they cry, they bark, they wiggle, they run off. <modsnip> IMO.

Maybe someone had a dog at a murder previously but I would struggle to find a case where a child killer has brought Froo Froo along for the kill.

well, how about JBC? didn't he allow his dogs to bite his would be murder victim? mOO

 

[Charlot123]

Yes, I remember we discussed that in depth. Still, if I was a cop, I'd probably take a special interest in the lefties.

I agree. I just don’t want them to drop “righties” altogether. He might be using L hand for tennis or shooting, but hold a pen in his R hand. Very common.

 

[carbuff]

If so, then like the abomination that he is, he probably wolfed it down immediately after he destroyed those two darlings.

It was a joke. I just meant that I can't see well enough to tell what the bump is. It could be anything.

 

[carbuff]

I don't see how it could be a larger dog without requiring him to hold onto it to keep it from falling out of the bottom of his jacket--unless he always carried it that way and had a dog sling similar to a baby sling (yes, such things exist). Even then I'd be surprised if it was anything bigger than maybe 15lbs.

It's pretty common for child molesters to use a dog, fictional or real. "Help me find my dog," or in this case, maybe "My dog hurt his paw back there on one of the railroad ties. Can you help me carry him back to my car? It's parked down the hill."

I don't believe it for a variety of reasons, and I don't see it in the photo, but I don't find it inherently implausible either, unlike some of the other theories.

Can't be JBC's dogs though. His dogs are large, almost as big as a person.

 

[JnRyan]

<modsnip>

No one mentioned a dog. No one saw a dog. Do you have a dog? Why would they bring a dog and hide it. Dogs are not stuffed animals. They move, they cry, they bark, they wiggle, they run off. <modsnip> IMO.

Maybe someone had a dog at a murder previously but I would struggle to find a case where a child killer has brought Froo Froo along for the kill.

I can't imagine carrying a dog across that bridge and then trying to keep it under control while controlling two girls. Right off, I can only think of one murder that MIGHT have been committed by someone who brought a dog to the scene. The East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker (EAR/ONS, also known as Golden State Killer) was rumored to have brought a dog to one of his double murders. And even in that instance it is only a rumor.

 

[TL4S]

I don't see how it could be a larger dog without requiring him to hold onto it to keep it from falling out of the bottom of his jacket--unless he always carried it that way and had a dog sling similar to a baby sling (yes, such things exist). Even then I'd be surprised if it was anything bigger than maybe 15lbs.

It's pretty common for child molesters to use a dog, fictional or real. "Help me find my dog," or in this case, maybe "My dog hurt his paw back there on one of the railroad ties. Can you help me carry him back to my car? It's parked down the hill."

I don't believe it for a variety of reasons, and I don't see it in the photo, but I don't find it inherently implausible either, unlike some of the other theories.

Can't be JBC's dogs though. His dogs are large, almost as big as a person.

I agree with all this. I can make myself see a dog there, but I don't think it is. Like you said, the use of a real and/or imaginary dog to entice young girls wouldn't be an unrealistic thought, at all, but in this case, BG didn't need anything to lure/trick/or otherwise deceive them once at the south end of the bridge. There really was nowhere for the girls to go, especially if he had a weapon. The family has described the audio as basically happening when the man met them at the very end of the bridge, and nothing much more. No "look at my dog," "hey, I'm a park worker and you're trespassing," or "my buddy needs our help at the bottom of the hill," or anything else like that. LE has said there wasn't much more to the audio, so I respect that for now.

I'm not dismissing the theories put forth on here, because none of us know really anything. I've had my share of unpopular ideas. We're all just guessing, but the interpretation I get from the few details we've been given, was that BG reached them at the south end of the bridge and immediately took control, per LE via "intimidation and manipulation," which to me suggests a weapon. That really just makes the most sense to me, personally.

 

[carbuff]

I agree with all this. I can make myself see a dog there, but I don't think it is. Like you said, the use of a real and/or imaginary dog to entice young girls wouldn't be an unrealistic thought, at all, but in this case, BG didn't need anything to lure/trick/or otherwise deceive them once at the south end of the bridge. There really was nowhere for the girls to go, especially if he had a weapon. The family has described the audio as basically happening when the man met them at the very end of the bridge, and nothing much more. No "look at my dog," "hey, I'm a park worker and you're trespassing," or "my buddy needs our help at the bottom of the hill," or anything else like that. LE has said there wasn't much more to the audio, so I respect that for now.

I'm not dismissing the theories put forth on here, because none of us know really anything. I've had my share of unpopular ideas. We're all just guessing, but the interpretation I get from the few details we've been given, was that BG reached them at the south end of the bridge and immediately took control, per LE via "intimidation and manipulation," which to me suggests a weapon. That really just makes the most sense to me, personally.

Hm. I had interpreted intimidation and manipulation to be something short of a weapon, like pretending to be a cop or other authority.

I mean, you're right, we're guessing, and at this point I don't think there's very much that would surprise me.

 

[TL4S]

Hm. I had interpreted intimidation and manipulation to be something short of a weapon, like pretending to be a cop or other authority.

I mean, you're right, we're guessing, and at this point I don't think there's very much that would surprise me.

I can totally see that perspective of "intimidation and manipulation," as well. I'm also at at point where I'm betting we're all wrong and the truth will be something else, but not really surprising.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

<modsnip>

No one mentioned a dog. No one saw a dog. Do you have a dog? Why would they bring a dog and hide it. Dogs are not stuffed animals. They move, they cry, they bark, they wiggle, they run off. <modsnip> IMO.

Maybe someone had a dog at a murder previously but I would struggle to find a case where a child killer has brought Froo Froo along for the kill.

Unless, A&L went there to meet someone who was giving away/rehoming a dog. Every child knows it's much harder for a parent to say no to a dog when the child has already 'found the stray.' That could have been the story they were going with after they picked up the dog.

 

[GoBuckeyes]

Unless, A&L went there to meet someone who was giving away/rehoming a dog. Every child knows it's much harder for a parent to say no to a dog when the child has already 'found the stray.' That could have been the story they were going with after they picked up the dog.

And keeping the dog hidden could have been a ploy on BG's part not to be connected to a dog and more readily identified.

 

[TL4S]

Hm. I had interpreted intimidation and manipulation to be something short of a weapon, like pretending to be a cop or other authority.

I mean, you're right, we're guessing, and at this point I don't think there's very much that would surprise me.

TL was not stating the "intimidation and manipulation" words as legal charges, I know, but this is how Indiana law defines "Intimidation." Just for anyone curious...
Indiana: Statutory Criminal Law | Without My Consent
Intimidation

1. Introduction
   
   Under Indiana’s intimidation statute, an individual is prohibited from communicating with the intent to create fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act, or to force a person to engage in conduct against his or her will. Under the statute, the term “threat” is defined to include, among other things, an expression intended to “expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule.” The State may be able to charge an individual with intimidation if the individual threatens to publish, or publishes, intimate photographs or videos of the victim without his or her consent as retaliation for a prior lawful act (e.g., ending a prior relationship) or forces the victim to engage in conduct against his or her will (e.g., continuing a relationship).
   

 

[Jealoushe]

well, how about JBC? didn't he allow his dogs to bite his would be murder victim?

In his home, where the dog lived. That isn't bringing a dog with him somewhere to commit a murder.

Dogs are not robots, they react to situations and they would be too unpredictable and leave too much evidence to risk bringing with you to something like this. It just doesn't make sense imo