IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #40

[Billy Mabou]

Anyone that looks "strange" to you is not allowed to go out in public?

I've quietly read and followed here for a while and I totally agree that this person knew this trail was frequented by young people/girls, if it in fact, was.
I bet he had been there before. Knew area around it. Knew where to take someone once he had them so they wouldn't be seen or heard. Reminds me of the creepers that hangout at parks. That strange guy that seems so out of place, just watching everyone else. Icky. I've reported more than one at my local park before. These creeps seem to go places where they can find prey easily.
And this trail, seems to fit that type of place to me.
And I think this BG gave those girls that creepy feeling immediately hence the video.

 

[WebSight]

I've quietly read and followed here for a while and I totally agree that this person knew this trail was frequented by young people/girls, if it in fact, was.
I bet he had been there before. Knew area around it. Knew where to take someone once he had them so they wouldn't be seen or heard. Reminds me of the creepers that hangout at parks. That strange guy that seems so out of place, just watching everyone else. Icky. I've reported more than one at my local park before. These creeps seem to go places where they can find prey easily.
And this trail, seems to fit that type of place to me.
And I think this BG gave those girls that creepy feeling immediately hence the video.

:happydance::wagon::happydance:

 

[liltexans]

We don't know that LE doesn't have a DNA match. I'm not in LE, but it seems logical and reasonable to me that DNA won't tell the whole story and will only be part of the evidence.

It's true that DNA is considered circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence and often leads to an arrest when a match comes back, but we don't know if they have DNA from the crime scene or if they have found a match.

 

[SilentRogue]

It's true that DNA is considered circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence and often leads to an arrest when a match comes back, but we don't know if they have DNA from the crime scene or if they have found a match.

DNA is absolutely not circumstantial evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ninij9]

They probably would. I think where this situation gets sticky, in regards to Abby and Libby at least, is that it almost veers into victim blaming. They should have ran, they should have fought back, they should have...For what it's worth, we don't know that they didn't do those things. We don't know that they weren't educated on these things. And we weren't there, in the situation, ourselves.

Good post. I agree with you. Libby seems to have done things right or we wouldn't have almost 40 threads here mostly discussing her footage of BG.

I was in a situation where split second thinking was important. Know what I learned? It's not just "flight or fright". They left out "froze". That moment where your brain disbelieves what's happening because it's so unimaginable.
An full sized adult man with evil intent on his mind? These poor kids were no match for him. They were out doing teenage things, thinking teenage thoughts when they crossed paths with him. He had intent. They couldn't have imagined what would befall them. [emoji17]

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[liltexans]

DNA is absolutely not circumstantial evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts—but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered circumstantial. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case, especially in the absence of any direct evidence.

 

[Bemused]

It's true that DNA is considered circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence and often leads to an arrest when a match comes back, but we don't know if they have DNA from the crime scene or if they have found a match.

They're also not done wth their investigation based on the police statement they're still following up on leads. Why would they file charges if they have a suspect in mind but the investigation isn't complete? Once charges are filed there is a time limit imposed on them.

Also, even after someone has been accused and arrested, isn't the next step afterwards in the legal process a prelimary hearing so a judge can decide if there is enough to proceed to trial? That's like a mini trial, isn't it? The prosecutor doesn't present the entire case and all the evidence. I may be wrong but that's how I understand it.

 

[mtnlites]

Bemused's Avatar
Bemused said:
Today 12:55 AM
Quote Originally Posted by rkot View Post
It's seems like LE could release the video Liberty took (Slocum mentioned last week they got pics of BG from her video and enlarged them) of BG walking even if from a distance, it may help to recognize his walk. Also early on a video stated RL's neighbor followed footprints when he located the bodies. If they have footprints, wouldn't they know what shoe size BG has? These pieces of information might be helpful to public and not harmful to investigation IMO. Time to release more information, 6 weeks today.


What's your take on why they have not released a more detailed description, more video & shoe size, or anything else that may get the big tip?

Baffled why no more description because I think it would be helpful and not harmful, but IMO the details of their deaths were so gruesome they do not want to cause hysteria.

I actually feel more confident because they haven't released any more information. In my experience, the more information they release, the less confident they feel in solving the case. By keeping so much to themselves, it makes me think that they have a better grip on the case and are closer to some answers.

 

[jackiejack35]

Anyone that looks "strange" to you is not allowed to go out in public?

Awfully big leap for you to suggest that's at all what I meant. Being alert and aware of ones surroundings is very different from deciding who should be allowed in public. I was speaking from my own personal experiences.
And obviously, this man on the bridge gave the girls that same feeling. They didn't record him because he seemed harmless.

 

[No it's not]

There is no thread # 34 listed on page 1 of this thread, just a heads-up

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...3-amp-Liberty-German-14-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-40

-Nin

 

[Etilema]

I've quietly read and followed here for a while and I totally agree that this person knew this trail was frequented by young people/girls, if it in fact, was.
I bet he had been there before. Knew area around it. Knew where to take someone once he had them so they wouldn't be seen or heard. Reminds me of the creepers that hangout at parks. That strange guy that seems so out of place, just watching everyone else. Icky. I've reported more than one at my local park before. These creeps seem to go places where they can find prey easily.
And this trail, seems to fit that type of place to me.
And I think this BG gave those girls that creepy feeling immediately hence the video.

Totally agree.

 

[ocgrad]

Even though I think it would be awfully hard to run on that bridge with all the gaps and rotted wood, your post still gave me a start. What a frightening thought.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I also think he was moving faster than normal and aggressively. But because of the challenging surface of the bridge itself he had to keep his head mostly down and that's why she was able to catch him on video. I also think he was coming up right behind Abby.

 

[Theforeigner]

Little FYI: we do know from Libby's IG account another friend was invited to go along but was unable to go.That adds a another potential person who could have inadvertently shared their location. It also (IMO) greatly decreases the chance that there was a Catfish situation because if there was a plan to meet someone then the other invited friend would probably have been told.

I'm also back to thinking that this could have been someone they knew. Logically you would assume that if they knew him they would say his name. However I was recently watching When Murder Calls on ID and a young woman and her husband were murdered by her stepfather and the stepfather's nephew.. She managed to call 911 and was trying to give a description to the operator while literally begging for her life. She was unfamiliar with the area so she was trying to say anything she could think of to give the operator an idea of where they were. Despite being quick enough to try to let the operator know where they were at no point did she mention the names of the two killers.Jennifer could be heard literally begging her stepfather not to kill her but she never said his name.

I highlighted in red.

I could actually also mean the opposite, bc if Libby and/or Abby shortly before going to the trail, in some way, was contacted by the killer and agreed to meet this person for whatever, they considered, a secret reason, they might very well have given the friend some explanation in order to be able to go to the trail by themselves.
And IMO this does not have to have been through social media, it could be someone they met, someone they knew, a local person.

 

[No it's not]

Awfully big leap for you to suggest that's at all what I meant. Being alert and aware of ones surroundings is very different from deciding who should be allowed in public. I was speaking from my own personal experiences.
And obviously, this man on the bridge gave the girls that same feeling. They didn't record him because he seemed harmless.

It is going to be interesting to see after the arrest (..), whether the girls had noticed the POI/BG before their encounter on the bridge and whether they had possibly texted someone about him ( "There is a creepy guy following us/ watching us.." e.g.).

All IMO

-Nin

 

[ab01]

It's true that DNA is considered circumstantial evidence, but it is evidence and often leads to an arrest when a match comes back, but we don't know if they have DNA from the crime scene or if they have found a match.

jumping off your post: I have also heard the comment from posters here saying;"They must have DNA why else would they have been taking samples from other people to compare with the suspect". I think thats a big leap to assume that is the case based on the evidence that we have. I think its highly plausible that they were taking samples in hopes that the evidence from the crime scene may have yielded DNA. DNA can't be seen and I'm sure LE originally hoped that they would be able to develop a DNA profile based on swabs that they processed at the crimes scene. But at the time that they were taking samples from people to compare, my belief is that they probably hadn't gotten results from the crime scene back from the lab yet. All is MOO

 

[ninij9]

Awfully big leap for you to suggest that's at all what I meant. Being alert and aware of ones surroundings is very different from deciding who should be allowed in public. I was speaking from my own personal experiences.
And obviously, this man on the bridge gave the girls that same feeling. They didn't record him because he seemed harmless.

I for one understood exactly what you meant. People should follow their gut instincts more. I most definitely have been in a park and noticed an unsavory character or two and have adjusted my path to not cross with them. If you ask me, too often we are too polite to listen to our inner alarms. It's what criminals depend on, your politeness.
Keep on keeping yourself safe.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Yellow Rose]

If they know who it is and have dna tgere would have been an arrest by now, they either dont have dna or dont have a suspect.

I definiteky agree that a better photo should be released, it is strange they havent yet.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

They have said they do NOT HAVE a better photo so I'm assuming they gave us the best they had. I'm sure they would have put out the best picture they had to help the public help THEM.

 

[oc1234]

Hmmm though. I wonder that caused him to take the juvenile? What was their relationship? I wouldn't be so fast to discount a connection at all.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Hence, "Likely" as my first word.

 

[xmsmadex]

We don't know that LE doesn't have a DNA match. I'm not in LE, but it seems logical and reasonable to me that DNA won't tell the whole story and will only be part of the evidence.

If they had a match someone would be in jail, they wouldnt let him be free while they build a case, thats not how it works. If they have proof you committed a crime you sit in jail for as long as it takes them to go to court.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt Toast]

This is a rural area so depending on your definition of weapon it may be that you would find more people on the trail with than without. I don't know any males in this town that would be caught without a knife. Women carry knifes, pepper spray, batons, guns, and who knows what else. Why do you think the sheriff recommended people carry if they had a permit after this happened? This isn't a big city where people that "carry" to commit crime. These folks carry to prevent it.

How bad would you feel if you came across this crime and couldn't help those girls?

Thanks for that....

Coming in relatively new to the case ...... the Land owner does seem a valid candidate.

Has it been mentioned or discovered that he used the trail to walk to town as a shortcut? .....

I just caught up on his DUI's .... is it possible that he would walk to town rather than drive..... I know his not young....

but I checked out the topography from his house and there appears to be areas he could access as short cuts through his property that lead to relatively flat land ....and an easy crossing over the river .....where the girls were found.

I saw one interview where he showed a reporter (pointed to) the spot the girls were found...... he appeared quite spritely with a quick step..... he had to walk there for the interview....shows he has the stamina to do so easily.... (just an observation).

For me, it's more logical to believe what the police aren't saying is possibly more important than what they are saying. It's easy to confuse details because I've also done so, but people are arriving at conclusions based on what hasn't been said and taking a huge leap in logic analyzing it, imo

i agree. i think what they are not saying speaks volumes.