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

[Prime8]

That would be someone that isn't high on the psychopathy scale, (firestarter, torture animals, etc) but rather for another reason (ie to make money) and the fear was too high. Psychopaths don't feel fear in the way normally wired people would.

IMO, MOO

Fear may not be high on the psychopathy scale but I think the other factors could be in play - he didn't get the thrill he wanted, it bored him, it just wasn't for him, the work involved wasn't worth it, etc.

 

[Prime8]

I retrieved the article with the broken link:

ISP on Delphi killer: 'Somebody may have already interviewed him'

Thanks for pointing it out. There are two interesting quotes from Riley here.

"The importance of the car also ties into why police now believe the killer is local."

"after reviewing many tips, investigators determined he was able to get around quickly."

So something in the "many tips" has led LE to believe BG is local and he must have parked at CPS. And they sound certain about that.

What tips could have led them to believe he was getting around quickly? Knowledge of where he was going and where he was coming from?

Keeping in mind that LE hasn't told us a lot and they could be using "tip" to mean anything, the "tips" could be witnesses and/or cameras confirming where he didn't go.

 

[Prime8]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before but I was using a weather app this morning that lets you look at past (and future) dates for the weather. When the girls left, it was quite warm out. BG is usually noted as being "overdressed" but it was in the 20's around 8am and didn't get into the 30's until around 11am. So he would have been dressed for the weather of the morning.

 

[sandy_80]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before but I was using a weather app this morning that lets you look at past (and future) dates for the weather. When the girls left, it was quite warm out. BG is usually noted as being "overdressed" but it was in the 20's around 8am and didn't get into the 30's until around 11am. So he would have been dressed for the weather of the morning.

why do you suppose he was there since morning ? if he was covering his face and his head.. then he would be overdressed compared to ppl who were on the trails including the girls..
personally .. this is one aspect I don't wonder about.. he was using clothes as a disguise/for covering tools

 

[Pimlipo]

@Pimlipo, I had trouble replying to your post, but here's what you said in regards to KR's statement about the car:

Does this not mean they know the car he used and they definitively know where it was at certain times that day?? And if they do know that they surely know who’s car it is.

I can't be certain how much LE knows about the car, but I found some old posts here on WS referring to KR saying they didn't have the make/model, etc. However, I can't find a link to support that. There's rumors of it being seen by someone who reported it, but again, there's nothing substantial to support that, so we're left only with unconfirmed stories. I could be wrong, but I think if LE had more info on the car, they would have included that in their ask. Jmo.

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

 

[Marlo56]

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

It makes sense if you take the interpretation that they know who the killer is already.

Riley's other quote in that article is interesting. He says they may have interviewed the suspect already, but that he's not going to tell us if they have or haven't. And that the person "apparently gave investigating officers the information they were looking for" - a scenario that sounds too specific to be a hypothetical scenario he's coming up with on the spot.

Pair that quote with the other one about the vehicle. Do they know the killer was getting around quickly because they know precisely where he was at other times that day? EG a work place or his house.

 

[Ekliptika]

Maybe it is not related, maybe a copycat?

10 years later, Gilgo Beach serial killer remains elusive | PIX11

Scroll down; in the article, it mentions two women being killed in provocative poses, their left shoe missing.

Do you remember the shoe in driveway? Was it R or L?

Interesting thought. I am not able to open the link, so don’t know what the article says, but you thought about the shoe just opened up another scenario for me that I have not thought of before. Maybe he took the shoe(s) from the girls, went back across the creek to the bridge side and crossed the bridge heading back on the trail to his car? And he lost Libby’s shoe for some reason, maybe he was in a hurry?
Or maybe he left the shoe on purpose as a hint or clue?

 

[Deleted member 229974]

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

Perhaps LE knows the vehicle.

 

[Ekliptika]

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

Maybe he and/or the car was spottet somewhere else that day? He could have parked at the CPS building in the morning, Walked the trail and crossing the bridge, discovering the dirt road and decided to use that as a parking spot for his car? Went back to the CPS building, drove his car to the area that leads to the dirt road, was seen by someone and/or a security camera, decided that it was not a good plan and went back to the CPS building, where he parked again around noon. Remember the witness who saw something that day they felt needed to be reported? And the sentence (was it Carter, who said this?): “you made mistakes, we have a witness”?
Just MOO and speculations.

 

[Prime8]

why do you suppose he was there since morning ? if he was covering his face and his head.. then he would be overdressed compared to ppl who were on the trails including the girls..
personally .. this is one aspect I don't wonder about.. he was using clothes as a disguise/for covering tools

I just thought it was interesting because people still discuss it. It doesn't mean he was out there in the morning, but he could have been. Or he left his house dressed for the weather.

 

[Charlot123]

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

Either his phone was pinging in different places, indicating movements. Or else, he started out early in one town and got to Delphi rather soon. Then, moved somewhere else, to establish the alibi, then back. Maybe he was seen at different places in very short periods of time, so it is hard to prove that he, indeed, was at MHB at 2-2:30. Someone might have seen him in the area at 8 AM, but at 1, he was in the adjacent city, and then at 3, somewhere else. I think the person, whether unknown or known to LE, intended to be seen, but in places unrelated to Delphi; maybe he even bought something on his way.

Another possibility - I am always thinking of people who come to expositions. There might have been some around Delphi, or else, someone living in/close to Delphi, established an alibi by allegedly being at some fair with his products. He could have returned to Delphi, killed the girls, and rapidly returned back, so his coworkers confirmed that he was “in the booth all the time”. (Such an alibi would be super difficult to shake, btw, because often the customers don’t look at the time, or don’t remember the situation very well, with lots of people around and no one checking who takes bathroom breaks, and when). It is also a possibility, I am not totally sure that the “alibi provider” is a relative/spouse. Maybe a devoted employee.

However, such situations, with the alibi and all, imply preplanning, and it would hint at the girls being targeted, specifically. Not a random hit.

 

[Confusion]

I don't remember reading this anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's been suggested several times. My thoughts lately have been that he had a history of sexual assault, and may have committed one or more since the girls' deaths. I believe it's possible that he planned to assault the girls and leave them there, thinking he could be out of the area before any help arrived. Once he grabbed one, or both, of them, he got more of a fight than he expected and ended up killing Abby while trying to get control of them. Once he finished (whether he actually raped Libby or just got too scared to do anything more), he also killed Libby and left.

If murder wasn't his original plan, it's possible that he hadn't killed anyone before them, and hasn't killed anyone else since. If that's the case, I really think the only way he'll ever be captured is if one of his assault victims identifies him. Arresting him for another assault could be just what they need to tie him to the murder of the girls.

 

[Boxer]

Maybe he and/or the car was spottet somewhere else that day? He could have parked at the CPS building in the morning, Walked the trail and crossing the bridge, discovering the dirt road and decided to use that as a parking spot for his car? Went back to the CPS building, drove his car to the area that leads to the dirt road, was seen by someone and/or a security camera, decided that it was not a good plan and went back to the CPS building, where he parked again around noon. Remember the witness who saw something that day they felt needed to be reported? And the sentence (was it Carter, who said this?): “you made mistakes, we have a witness”?
Just MOO and speculations.

MOO if they had a specific description of a vehicle they would make a public appeal.

MOO
"You made mistakes" seems a like a general attempt to intimidate.

 

[Charlot123]

this was said very early one ..then repeated by kelsi on a podcast ( Abby was a hero too for staying with libby ).. i cant recall which podcast.. it was referenced here by me and others many times

It was said, I would not remember by whom, if I were to bet, I'd say, a local gazette repeating someone. It was said so definitely, that the initial phrase "one girl had a chance to escape but stayed" morphed into "why are we talking about one? Both girls were heroes". Kelsi, probably, said it in response to another phrase, "Libby was a hero by videotaping him". It was touted so much that Kelsi has to say "Abby was a hero, too", to balance it. MOO - the word "hero" has been used too much, by different sources. But Mike Patty, who said, "they stayed together till the very end", probably, put it in the best way.

 

[Charlot123]

It would be nice if we got, at least, a hint if LE think he is local and living in the area now, or not. I came to the conclusion that "if local", chances are, girls were targeted, and it is not a SK case.

If not local, then he is likely a SK. There is a chance the predator roams the Midwest, likes pools of water, maybe has a certain preference for heavier blondes and quite possibly, finds them by crawling through their SMs. He might attend fairs at MW states. Also, might share interest in the game we do not mention here. The issue with shoes, that I found mentioned in at least three cases, is eye-catching.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Thanks, I don’t know what happened with my previous post.
If they don’t know much about the car or who was driving it then how can they know that the driver “was able to get around quickly on the day the girls were killed, and seemed to know the area”?
I’m just wondering what there reference points for that statement could be. Getting around quickly on the day suggests they know of this vehicles movements in different places at various times.

I thought LE’s statement you mention was very odd too.
Either LE knows the car(but not the owner) by seeing it on multiple videos in the area, or it’s another muddled comment by LE that just confuses everything.
If it’s the former, a little more information could bring some very helpful info from the public. I’m not holding my breath on that.
If it’s the later, I’ll just file it away with all the other confusing things that have come out.

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

There are certain clues at a crime scene which by their very nature do not lend themselves to being collected or examined. How's one collect love, rage, hatred, fear...? These are things that we're trained to look for. — James Reece

I somehow wonder if one of these said clues is what made LE go in a different direction in 2019.

 

[MistyWaters]

I thought LE’s statement you mention was very odd too.
Either LE knows the car(but not the owner) by seeing it on multiple videos in the area, or it’s another muddled comment by LE that just confuses everything.
If it’s the former, a little more information could bring some very helpful info from the public. I’m not holding my breath on that.
If it’s the later, I’ll just file it away with all the other confusing things that have come out.

I think some, or most, of the multitude of these past, vague statements are nothing more in general than to leave the impression LE knows more than they really do. If they knew the vehicle, or other places he was known to have went to, they’d certainly not be asking for tips for his identity ….it’s as if we’re stuck in a time warp of analyzing LE comments made years ago. But it’s what LE doesn’t yet know that will hopefully result in an arrest at some point, soon to come. JMO

 

[Marlo56]

I think some, or most, of the multitude of these past, vague statements are nothing more in general than to leave the impression LE knows more than they really do. If they knew the vehicle, or other places he was known to have went to, they’d certainly not be asking for tips for his identity ….it’s as if we’re stuck in a time warp of analyzing LE comments made years ago. But it’s what LE doesn’t yet know that will hopefully result in an arrest at some point, soon to come. JMO

This is why I don't think the tip they want is literally the identity, it's someone to say they saw that person at / around that car in that location at a particular time, a time which would contradict that person's story.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is why I don't think the tip they want is literally the identity, it's someone to say they saw that person at / around that car in that location at a particular time, a time which would contradict that person's story.

But comment was made almost two years ago now and LE is no longer saying anything at all about the vehicle, nor is there any mention of it on the FBI wanted poster. When LE goes quiet about a prior request for information from the public it usually means the topic has been satisfactorily addressed. I think it would take far more than an “I saw” coming forward two years later. If nothing else ties that person to the crime scene just sighting a person around a parked car is far too weak evidence to convict, alibi or not. The onus is on the State to prove guilt for a conviction, not for a defendant to prove he’s innocent.