IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #49

[MistyWaters]

Im wondering if it someone considered well respected in the community as well. The girls knew him, he was someone everyone knew, maybe that's why they were taking a photo, maybe they thought he looked funny in those clothes are were being playful. (my friends and I used to take photos of people in public in their casual clothes, like teachers and pastors.. we were just being kids) Maybe they caught him doing something he shouldn't have been, he had to do something about it so he wouldn't be exposed. I know several of you have already come up with this theory, I'm just thinking it over in my head... seeing if maybe I can spark any ideas. There's so many possibilities

Endless possibilities, for sure. I can think of another scenario where from 80 feet away the girls would become alarmed enough to take the video of an identifiable person, if he were just walking along, head down, and no other unusual or threatening behaviours.

It would be because one or both recognized a person who they had good reason to be wary or cautious of, causing suspicion they were being stalked.....which ultimately proved to be true.

What I don't understand, if the sight of BG caused alarm, why they didn't text or call someone. One thing, his head down in the photo indicates they wanted to video him while not attracting attention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[asyousay]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1702/16/ptab.01.html

RILEY: Right. One of the family members of one of the girls dropped them off at one of the tributaries, so to speak, of the trail, and then they

were supposed to be picked up between 3:00 and 3:30 that afternoon.

The family members couldn't find them and reported them missing at 5:30 pm

So they was probably getting ready to head back over the bridge to get back the pick up spot

As the last photo was taken at 14.07 and then the times they walked to the end of the south end of the bridge.

 

[Bemused]

Real, intelligent investigative journalism seems to be a rare occurrence in America these days. It's largely been replaced by tabloid-style opinionated windbags, political pundits, and "experts" who sometimes know zilch about their supposed area of expertise. It seems that the better IJ's have gone on to work for NPR, the BBC, RT, and the like. Maybe someone could contact one of them to dig into this case, if we don't have some answers within the next few weeks?

Reporters and LE need each other whether either are ever completely happy about that fact. Why do you think certain questions haven't been asked on the record, or why there are so few media pieces of late except recapping the same material with few new details?

 

[AmateurAnalyst73]

I would assume it would be out of sensitivity and respect for her family. I don't think anyone would want to see a video or photo that might depict the abduction or physical harm of their child, assuming that's what the next several frames might show. Nor would they want it broadcast to the nightly news to have to see it over and over again. JMO

I think this also, tho I fail to see the need to crop her out, it hinders the photo if anything

 

[Sir WiggleBottom III]

I would assume it would be out of sensitivity and respect for her family. I don't think anyone would want to see a video or photo that might depict the abduction or physical harm of their child, assuming that's what the next several frames might show. Nor would they want it broadcast to the nightly news to have to see it over and over again. JMO

Even if it increases the odds of capture exponentially?

 

[Elley Mae]

So they was probably getting ready to head back over the bridge to get back the pick up spot

As the last photo was taken at 14.07 and then the times they walked to the end of the south end of the bridge.

Posters/billboards of suspect have his image as being taken at 2:30 jmo

 

[Shiressleuth]

It'd be near impossible for a retired person who lives alone in a rural area, who probably doesn't use the internet much, to have a provable cast iron alibi for every minute of the day.

I'd imagine the same can be said for a good percentage of people who live in Carroll County. Tracking people by CCTV on every corner is an urban thing.

But that LE continues to state RL is not a suspect says to me they are fully aware of internet rumours and speculation and so they don't want the general public to be placated into believing it's Case Closed.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

He didn't keep them
He marched them off the bridge down the hill over to the crime scene and murdered them.
Then he was gone

We don't actually know when or where this all happened AFAIK. We have no time or cause of death, we do not know if the girls were taken elsewhere or not, we do not know if they were walked from the bridge to the creek or back across the bridge or into a waiting vehicle. We therefore do not know when the police need people to have an alibi for exactly do we?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Considering RL's past offenses and interactions with LE over the years, not to mention he has lived on the same property for 53 years....and LE & FBI say they blew up the picture of BG and studied it, etc., why is it no one recognized BG to be RL right off the bat? Why wait so long for the SW? The girls were found on his property. Surely that qualifies for a limited SW the day of (?).

And no one in the community or his direct neighbors are saying hey, look at that BG he walks/dresses/sounds just like our old buddy RL. And I say this because wouldn't there have been LE action/search warrant at his house right away if they did recognize him?

If LE couldn't recognize BG as RL then I've lost faith that anyone will recognize him. But I don't believe they were unable to recognize him because IMO it isn't him.

Maybe it was the Violation of Probation petition that caused them to look closer at his alibi, which in turn, resulted in the SW?

How is it possible that they didn't check out his alibi thoroughly in the very beginning?

 

[Bird of Paradise]

We don't actually know when or where this all happened AFAIK. We have no time or cause of death, we do not know if the girls were taken elsewhere or not, we do not know if they were walked from the bridge to the creek or back across the bridge or into a waiting vehicle. We therefore do not know when the police need people to have an alibi for exactly do we?

If you haven't visited the scanner thread, maybe you will find some answers.

 

[Bird of Paradise]

Maybe it was the Violation of Probation petition that caused them to look closer at his alibi, which in turn, resulted in the SW?

How is it possible that they didn't check out his alibi thoroughly in the very beginning?

But I wasn't addressing his alibi. I was speaking of recognizing HIM.
FGS he's been around there for 5 decades.

 

[franci]

As ive said I remain pretty much a fence sitter in this case but here's a random and hopefully relevant thought ...was just considering the double edged sword that a bit of knowledge can be. A poster on here quoted some really sobering stats about the significantly reduced resolution rate of major crimes over the last 50 years .May it in part be due to the fact that we all, including the bad guys, now know a lot more about police procedure, trace and DNA evidence and a lot of the fundamental forensics of LE due to the way in which crime has become a modern entertainment staple for tv films novels etc.??? Hate to think that we're feeding the monster but these people watch too Im sure and become ever more adept at covering their tracks.
Nevertheless, i hope BG is out there somewhere feeling very nervous as to how successfully he has "cleaned up" the gruesome scene he created.. I hope he's genuinely fearful about the possibility of his dna being left in some form and cursing the fact that even if he wasnt in CODIS before, he probably is now so the next time he decides to tear apart the fabric of decent society, his dna is waiting in the data base like an accusatory finger pointing right at his own dark heart

 

[her]

We don't actually know when or where this all happened AFAIK. We have no time or cause of death, we do not know if the girls were taken elsewhere or not, we do not know if they were walked from the bridge to the creek or back across the bridge or into a waiting vehicle. We therefore do not know when the police need people to have an alibi for exactly do we?

While I agree with most we do know an alibi is needed between 2:30 and directly after more or less.

 

[FrostedGlass]

But I wasn't addressing his alibi. I was speaking of recognizing HIM.
FGS he's been around there for 5 decades.

I was addressing your question:

Why wait so long for the SW?

 

[Sir WiggleBottom III]

perhaps I am not interpreting correctly tho this seems to allude to two killers?

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/...-later-5-questions-delphi-killings/100413504/

 

[MistyWaters]

IMO LE does not want to use the term "suspect" unless they are ready to arrest and file charges. If they label someone a suspect, then the public will naturally demand an arrest and LE would be compelled to make that arrest. If the person is already in custody, they'll still have to file charges on a timely basis. And IF the person is already in custody, there is absolutely no rush to file charges until they have all the information they need to be sure they can prosecute successfully. So RL's sentence on unrelated charges is quite convenient for LE.

So IMO each time LE says RL "has not been named a suspect" or "is not a suspect at this time" they are leaving the door open for that changing in the future.

Meanwhile it is absolutely respectful and kind to RL if it turns out they do not ever name him a suspect, this limits the damage to his reputation. I believe any of us would hope for the same respect and kindness if we were in a similar situation.

Below is a citation regarding what most jurisdictions have to do once someone is arrested:

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/how-long-may-police-hold-suspects-before-charges-must-be-filed.html

"The Right to a Speedy Trial: The Constitution and State Time Limits
The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed to criminal defendants by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A "speedy trial” basically means that the defendant must be tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although arrestees cannot be held without formal charges for an unreasonable amount of time, the Constitution does not spell out what this time is. Instead, these are typically set forth by state law, and the time period differs from state to state.

As a general rule, however, if you are placed in custody, your "speedy trial" rights typically require the prosecutor to decide within 72 hours which charges, if any, will be filed. Many states adhere to this 72-hour limit.

The U.S. Supreme Court explains that this protects defendants from serving lengthy jail times before a conviction. Speedy trial rights also lessen the time that the accused must endure the anxiety and publicity of an impending trial, and minimize the damage that delay might cause to the person's ability to present a defense."

This --- "And IF the person is already in custody, there is absolutely no rush to file charges until they have all the information they need to be sure they can prosecute successfully."

If LE doesn't have all the information, how could they determine who could be "prosecuted successfully"? Once again, this is the cart before the horse scenario. LE cannot identify a suspect without information, yet you suggest they may have done so and this is a normal course of events? Predetermining the outcome before all the information has been received will certainly not serve justice.

If there "is absolutely no rush to file charges" would indicate they're still in the midst of investigation and have identified no suspects.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[asyousay]

Posters/billboards of suspect have his image as being taken at 2:30 jmo

So it was 23 mins from the Abby photo to BG photo and them getting to the south side.



I feel like we are missing a big piece of the puzzle. He obviously spooked them somhow and yet when I look at that photo at face value he looks so casual and doesn't seem to have a care in the world.

IMO

 

[her]

He has never been named a suspect, according to what we've read and he's still not a suspect according to what LE tells MSM. How much more can they say other than "He is not a suspect."? (many times)

Actually I think the issue is they cleared the other two publicly known search warrants in the beginning very quickly almost immediately. Yet, they haven't for RLs and it's been I don't know 4 weeks now? Odd I can't wait till they speak on this aspect. Because the SW is different then the probation violation charges.

 

[AmateurAnalyst73]

Jumping off your theory...how 'bout it was simply a matter of the area not getting much traffic, especially the bridge, and everybody in the area probably pretty much knows, or has seen, everybody else local at one time or another, and this guy just wasn't "right", as in: didn't belong, had hands in pockets(always piques my suspicion of people)maybe appears to be packing a pistol, and is maybe "too quiet"(i.e. no talking, no smile to greet them, no eye contact). IMO, the guy just wasn't "right" given their surroundings, and it caused concern, and rightfully so. I get the impression this was a fairly street-smart kid(Liberty)who may have been around enough unsavory characters in her short life to develop some keen instincts.Somehow, I think she just "knew" this guy was a predator.

Endless possibilities, for sure. I can think of another scenario where from 80 feet away the girls would become alarmed enough to take the video of an identifiable person, if he were just walking along, head down, and no other unusual or threatening behaviours.

It would be because one or both recognized a person who they had good reason to be wary or cautious of, causing suspicion they were being stalked.....which ultimately proved to be true.

What I don't understand, if the sight of BG caused alarm, why they didn't text or call someone. One thing, his head down in the photo indicates they wanted to video him while not attracting attention.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

I am starting to think Abby was in that photo as what else could of been in that photo that they would need to edit it and crop it ?

Then the scenario would then be that Abby was walking along side of BG and Libby was 80 feet ahead? If that were so, odds are that at least Abby personally knew him.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Shiressleuth]

If you haven't visited the scanner thread, maybe you will find some answers.

I have visited. Which questions do you think the scanner answers?