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

[xmsmadex]

Respectfully, what you are talking about has nothing to do with circumstantial vs direct evidence. DNA is, in fact, circumstantial evidence.

It is enough for an arrest though, in a case like this. Depending on where and what kind of dna was found (most likely sperm, saliva or under fingernails) then it is enough for an arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[finine]

I'm so anxious for this creep to be arrested. I can't help but think when we finally *see* him we'll be surprised at his looks in comparison to the photo Libby took. Not to veer off topic but I saw Billy Joel on TV last night -- he is nearly bald and what little hair he does have is completely white. It didn't look like the Billy Joel I remembered. What if BG is totally bald and that *is* a hoodie? That would really alter his looks from what we've been thinking all along .... he could look like Mr Clean, for all we know!

 

[xmsmadex]

Lol, but with all due respect NOTHING goes without saying here on Websleuths...[emoji12]

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Haha I know that now. Thank you[emoji4]

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Mamamerced]

What I cant wrap my head around is the fact that this appears to be a crime of opportunity. No one could have known those girls would be there unless they were family or it was discussed at school and someone overheard.

Who goes to a seemingly empty trail with weapon(s) on hand? What purpose would he have to be carrying any kind of weapon out there on his own?

If he did just happen upon the girls and decided to approach them, which we can only speculate as to why, especially without more information on COD, he would have had to be fairly confident no one else was out there. Although, its a very rural area there are homes nearby, cemetary etc. He had to have been familiar enough with the area to believe no one would see, hear or come along that way.

I just cant see how he just happened upon them, ready with a weapon and the mindset to attack. Makes me believe he had done this before giving him the confidence to do it in an open area and with two victims.

I also wonder if it was premeditated and he was someone who knew they would be out there so he came prepared.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Agree.
I can't get rid of the thought that the girl(s) may have threatened to reveal to family members/authorities some incriminating information regarding BG/perp. My suspicions are, and this is MOO, that there perhaps could have been ongoing abuse of a sexual nature or knowledge of criminal activity.....one girl told the other(?) and one or both threatened to tell.
As a former teacher, I have known of two students that, separately, did speak out once they became teens and the abuser in both cases was busted by law and shamed/ostracized in our small community. People don't like their filty, secreted little truths revealed.

 

[ReggieHammond]

I agree so much with this. When I asked why record and not run or call for help I wasn't victim blaming, just trying to figure out why. No one but the girls and the killer was there and know how it went from a video recording to murder.

Totally fair thing to wonder, and not victim-blaming at all. What happened from the time they were dropped off, until the time they were on the bridge, that alerted Libby enough to hit record? We may never know.

 

[Bemused]

Jmo, it depends what the DNA is sometimes. If a family member finds a loved one murdered, their semen should not be on the victim, i.e, whereas hair, skin cells, etc may be there legitimately.

A transient or neighbor smokes and discards a cigarette butt two hours before the murders in the exact area the girls are found. DNA is extracted and there is a match either on fie or from collection after the murders. You're going to arrest him for a double murder based on DNA from a cigarette but without any other evidence?

Sorry to this poster because I meant to reply to someone else.

 

[ninij9]

Agree.
I can't get rid of the thought that the girl(s) may have threatened to reveal to family members/authorities some incriminating information regarding BG/perp. My suspicions are, and this is MOO, that there perhaps could have been ongoing abuse of a sexual nature or knowledge of criminal activity.....one girl told the other(?) and one or both threatened to tell.
As a former teacher, I have known of two students that, separately, did speak out once they became teens and the abuser in both cases was busted by law and shamed/ostracized in our small community. People don't like their filty, secreted little truths revealed.

You never do know. Dirty little secrets have been known to blow whole families out of the water, mine included.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[TheOtherChristina]

It is enough for an arrest though, in a case like this. Depending on where and what kind of dna was found (most likely sperm, saliva or under fingernails) then it is enough for an arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

This is getting a bit circular. I don't disagree with this assertion. I just wanted to correct your misstatement of fact. DNA evidence is a form of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bemused]

Thats why I said in a case like this. If someone lives with the victim then its obvious how their dna would get on them. These girls were killed out in the woods, not at home. If they found dna on them, and depending on where they found it and what kind, sperm, under fingernails, bite marks, its safe to assume its the killer. All of this is taken into consideration with dna, I thought this went with out saying.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

What if you were regularly in the area or owned the property and your DNA is all over? It doesn't make you guilty of these murders. DNA doesn't tell the whole story and that was my point.

 

[ninij9]

A transient or neighbor smokes and discards a cigarette butt two hours before the murders in the exact area the girls are found. DNA is extracted and there is a match either on fie or from collection after the murders. You're going to arrest him for a double murder based on DNA from a cigarette but without any other evidence?

I think her post substantiates yours...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[xmsmadex]

A transient or neighbor smokes and discards a cigarette butt two hours before the murders in the exact area the girls are found. DNA is extracted and there is a match either on fie or from collection after the murders. You're going to arrest him for a double murder based on DNA from a cigarette but without any other evidence?

You created your own scenario that of course doesnt fit this situation. If the dna is found on the girls, sperm, saliva, dna under fingernails then yes, LE would bring the person in, question and arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Zac90]

Exactly, fear can do funny things to people especially young girls.

IMO they recognized this guy and probably didnt think for a second he was going to do what he did. I think thats why she recorded jt, thinking we're going to get this guy in trouble once we get out if here.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Everyone reacts to fear differently. I've been in some very precarious situations as a young girl, then a teenager and as an adult. I think it's miraculaous I have survived some encounters. I've had a couple of very close calls. I only called police once and only because this gentleman told me what he was going to do to he and I believed it. PD setup an operation at my home and caught this man and placed him into a mental institution. I live a very low risk lifestyle but as a young lady/woman we are continuously facing threats from men. If I called PD every time a man followed me, stalked me, approached me in a scary way, etc...I would be on a permanent speed dial with 911. I'm sure these girls were like I am...you recognize that it could be a threat and you take precaution but you always tend to think it won't actually happen. Sadly it does sometimes.

 

[xmsmadex]

Everyone reacts to fear differently. I've been in some very precarious situations as a young girl, then a teenager and as an adult. I think it's miraculaous I have survived some encounters. I've had a couple of very close calls. I only called police once and only because this gentleman told me what he was going to do to he and I believed it. PD setup an operation at my home and caught this man and placed him into a mental institution. I live a very low risk lifestyle but as a young lady/woman we are continuously facing threats from men. If I called PD every time a man followed me, stalked me, approached me in a scary way, etc...I would be on a permanent speed dial with 911. I'm sure these girls were like I am...you recognize that it could be a threat and you take precaution but you always tend to think it won't actually happen. Sadly it does sometimes.

Yes, exactly. You rarely think its going to happen to you and sometimes it does.

Im sorry about your encounters, good for you for not being afraid to call LE. I too, have been in a few situations that could have ended very bad, as women it can be very difficult to not be paranoid all the time.

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).

I wish we could get an update. Even though they don't owe us one. I just wish we knew how far along they are...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

i agree. so many things seemed veiled in secrecy.

 

[xmsmadex]

What if you were regularly in the area or owned the property and your DNA is all over? It doesn't make you guilty of these murders. DNA doesn't tell the whole story and that was my point.

You again missed the point. We're talking about dna being found on the girls (ie sperm, saliva, blood, dna under fingernails, I dont care if your dna is all over the property it would not show up on the girls in this way unless you were apart if the crime.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[Elley Mae]

tml, i agree with everything, except imo the dark mark in the one image of the suspect is imo the suspects arm/jacket from the frame before since the image is taken from the video that was taken by one of the girls. Jmo

hey y'all! first time poster in this forum...a few questions/comments/thoughts today:

1. I'm confused as to why many posters seem to be sure that the one picture of BG on the bridge also has Abby in it, leading to the theory that this is where BG pulled a gun or otherwise subdued the girls. Why do people think this? I'd be more inclined to think the slight blur/dark spot on the left side of the picture is simply a smudge or a finger, as Abby was not wearing a blue or purple or black jacket that day, in fact from the Snapchat photo of her we see that she was wearing a tan, LIGHT jacket that day. Is there some evidence or clue I'm missing here?


2. To be honest I don't think there is enough public, LE sourced evidence to speculate on ANYTHING about how this crime went down. Yes, we can make educated guesses, and yes we can hypothesize and we may get close or even hit on the truth, but I'm simply failing to feel the confidence that other posters seem to feel about their version of events. For example, the most obvious method for subduing two people at once is a gun. I can get behind that. But I don't think the girls were shot, and I think if they were there would have been people who heard the shots, so now we're talking two weapons. It's not at all uncommon to carry a handgun particularly in more rural areas and I'm not sure about Indiana's concealed carry laws, but let's assume this guy carries a gun at all times and on this particular day also had another weapon. This assumption has huge implications - it matters for motive, premeditation, and who this person is. Already I'm off track because I'm guessing based on other guesses.


IMHO the number one clue we have right now is not necessarily the picture of BG - because first of all, BG might not be our guy, and also because the picture itself really tells us very little until we have a suspect in front of us to compare it to. The number one clue is only this: An adult person abducted and murdered two girls in broad daylight and got away with it for 7 weeks and counting. Who would do something like that, and how would they get away with it?


Who would do something like that:
We have two options, a serial offender or an opportunist. I know most people lean serial offender because of there being two victims among other reasons, but to me this was a crime of opportunity. I am NOT saying this guy hasn't offended before, but I'd be willing to bet it's been primarily sexual based offenses against similarly aged girls, not resulting in death, and this is of my own admission pure gut feelings and speculation.


Based on what we do know of this crime, I don't think it was premeditated. I think that by this point in time LE would have tracked the victims' social media accounts and interactions and would know if one of the girls had met someone on there or planned to meet in person. There is no way a random person could know the girls were going to be there on that day at that time, and alone, unless it was someone they knew and had discussed plans with (including people at school). HOWEVER, in this scenario, would the girls not have known their attacker? Of course, we don't know that they didn't, but under the presumption that there is more to the audio LE recovered from Liberty's phone, and neither girl named their attacker, I feel comfortable saying they either didn't know him or didn't know his name.


This + lack of prior interaction/relationship through social media + random day off school + unseasonably warm temps allowing for outdoor activities + 2 victims = opportunity. I think the two victim part is really important - why would someone who planned this crime PLAN to deal with two people, outside, in a public location, during the day? It was a thrill kill.


Moving on. Premeditated or crime of opportunity, who would do something like this? What is the motivation? Well, unfortunately and though we have no confirmed evidence of it, the motivation here seems to be fairly clear. There are more than enough examples of murderous rapists honing in on young girls to make it a subset of forensic psychology in and of itself. If the girls were not sexually assaulted, the next clearest motivator to me is pure anger and arrogance, seeing what he can get away with. But honestly, I don't think that's it. The voice on the audio is calm and clear and steady - there's even a hint of reassurance in it when I listen, and that to me says ickier things than just anger.


Look at the choice of victims as well: he didn't choose CHILDREN, either because that's not attractive to him or (more likely) the younger the child, the harder to get alone. He chose young, healthy, white teenage girls. I don't think it was a situation where he would have picked someone else if the girls hadn't have wandered into his path; I think he saw a SPECIFIC chance and he took it. Taking a chance like this also says something to me about this guy's personality and mindset. Either 1, he's ridiculously arrogant, or 2, the possibility of getting caught heightened the crime for him, or 3, he really didn't think he WOULDN'T get caught, although this is a hard one for me to swallow unless this guy does turn out to be a serial offender who desperately wants to stop but needs help. IMHO this was sexual assault turned murder.


Second part; How would they get away with it?
Like this. By keeping a low profile up to now, by not murdering before or at least not like this, by not being in any systems. We have a lot of info on this guy (if BG is the guy) - we have his face, his body, his gait, his voice, potentially his DNA. What we don't have is anything linking all these together. Guy would have known this about himself, but what he couldn't know was 1. when the girls were to be picked up, 2. that no one was waiting for them on another part of the trail, 3. that family and searchers wouldn't find the girls that first night, 4. that the girls wouldn't survive their attacks, 5. that no one saw him on the bridge/in the woods/with the girls, 6. etc. There are a LOT of unknowns from unsub perspective - the number one thing he has going for him so far is his marked lack of links to any prior criminal activity. Again, this to me says crime of opportunity.


And that's it! I think that as sleuthers our best use is in thinking in these directions. Just saying "this guy is evil!" does not help in analyzing the type of person who could actually go through with these actions, and I think that's honestly all we have to go on at this point. Thanks for reading y'all!

 

[ocgrad]

hey y'all! first time poster in this forum...a few questions/comments/thoughts today:

1. I'm confused as to why many posters seem to be sure that the one picture of BG on the bridge also has Abby in it, leading to the theory that this is where BG pulled a gun or otherwise subdued the girls. Why do people think this? I'd be more inclined to think the slight blur/dark spot on the left side of the picture is simply a smudge or a finger, as Abby was not wearing a blue or purple or black jacket that day, in fact from the Snapchat photo of her we see that she was wearing a tan, LIGHT jacket that day. Is there some evidence or clue I'm missing here?


2. To be honest I don't think there is enough public, LE sourced evidence to speculate on ANYTHING about how this crime went down. Yes, we can make educated guesses, and yes we can hypothesize and we may get close or even hit on the truth, but I'm simply failing to feel the confidence that other posters seem to feel about their version of events. For example, the most obvious method for subduing two people at once is a gun. I can get behind that. But I don't think the girls were shot, and I think if they were there would have been people who heard the shots, so now we're talking two weapons. It's not at all uncommon to carry a handgun particularly in more rural areas and I'm not sure about Indiana's concealed carry laws, but let's assume this guy carries a gun at all times and on this particular day also had another weapon. This assumption has huge implications - it matters for motive, premeditation, and who this person is. Already I'm off track because I'm guessing based on other guesses.


IMHO the number one clue we have right now is not necessarily the picture of BG - because first of all, BG might not be our guy, and also because the picture itself really tells us very little until we have a suspect in front of us to compare it to. The number one clue is only this: An adult person abducted and murdered two girls in broad daylight and got away with it for 7 weeks and counting. Who would do something like that, and how would they get away with it?


Who would do something like that:
We have two options, a serial offender or an opportunist. I know most people lean serial offender because of there being two victims among other reasons, but to me this was a crime of opportunity. I am NOT saying this guy hasn't offended before, but I'd be willing to bet it's been primarily sexual based offenses against similarly aged girls, not resulting in death, and this is of my own admission pure gut feelings and speculation.


Based on what we do know of this crime, I don't think it was premeditated. I think that by this point in time LE would have tracked the victims' social media accounts and interactions and would know if one of the girls had met someone on there or planned to meet in person. There is no way a random person could know the girls were going to be there on that day at that time, and alone, unless it was someone they knew and had discussed plans with (including people at school). HOWEVER, in this scenario, would the girls not have known their attacker? Of course, we don't know that they didn't, but under the presumption that there is more to the audio LE recovered from Liberty's phone, and neither girl named their attacker, I feel comfortable saying they either didn't know him or didn't know his name.


This + lack of prior interaction/relationship through social media + random day off school + unseasonably warm temps allowing for outdoor activities + 2 victims = opportunity. I think the two victim part is really important - why would someone who planned this crime PLAN to deal with two people, outside, in a public location, during the day? It was a thrill kill.


Moving on. Premeditated or crime of opportunity, who would do something like this? What is the motivation? Well, unfortunately and though we have no confirmed evidence of it, the motivation here seems to be fairly clear. There are more than enough examples of murderous rapists honing in on young girls to make it a subset of forensic psychology in and of itself. If the girls were not sexually assaulted, the next clearest motivator to me is pure anger and arrogance, seeing what he can get away with. But honestly, I don't think that's it. The voice on the audio is calm and clear and steady - there's even a hint of reassurance in it when I listen, and that to me says ickier things than just anger.


Look at the choice of victims as well: he didn't choose CHILDREN, either because that's not attractive to him or (more likely) the younger the child, the harder to get alone. He chose young, healthy, white teenage girls. I don't think it was a situation where he would have picked someone else if the girls hadn't have wandered into his path; I think he saw a SPECIFIC chance and he took it. Taking a chance like this also says something to me about this guy's personality and mindset. Either 1, he's ridiculously arrogant, or 2, the possibility of getting caught heightened the crime for him, or 3, he really didn't think he WOULDN'T get caught, although this is a hard one for me to swallow unless this guy does turn out to be a serial offender who desperately wants to stop but needs help. IMHO this was sexual assault turned murder.


Second part; How would they get away with it?
Like this. By keeping a low profile up to now, by not murdering before or at least not like this, by not being in any systems. We have a lot of info on this guy (if BG is the guy) - we have his face, his body, his gait, his voice, potentially his DNA. What we don't have is anything linking all these together. Guy would have known this about himself, but what he couldn't know was 1. when the girls were to be picked up, 2. that no one was waiting for them on another part of the trail, 3. that family and searchers wouldn't find the girls that first night, 4. that the girls wouldn't survive their attacks, 5. that no one saw him on the bridge/in the woods/with the girls, 6. etc. There are a LOT of unknowns from unsub perspective - the number one thing he has going for him so far is his marked lack of links to any prior criminal activity. Again, this to me says crime of opportunity.


And that's it! I think that as sleuthers our best use is in thinking in these directions. Just saying "this guy is evil!" does not help in analyzing the type of person who could actually go through with these actions, and I think that's honestly all we have to go on at this point. Thanks for reading y'all!

I appreciate all your questions.
As for why I think that dark shape in the frame is the edge of Abby's hoodie because you can see the lining is dark and the way she has her hands in her pocket pulls the lining forward, she may have been turning slightly as he came up behind her also, so we see that lining which matches up fairly well with how it looks in the earlier picture here.
And I think it was a planned abduction and murder but instead of thinking SM, I think how it was done and how they have gotten away with it thus far are all wrapped up in the same answer and that is another possibility you left out which is a gang. Search a little on the illegal activities of motorcycle gangs and drug gangs in Indiana and you will see a whole different side to the small towns there. It is prevalent. I saw a post on a forum recently that many bars in Lafayette nearby are posting signs to prevent people from coming in wearing their colors. Covering for each other is exactly how they work. It is their forte and what keeps them thriving. How could someone who knows the area commit this crime and not be recognized at least by their closest friends and relatives? Who would cover for someone? I don't think this is a recluse who lives with his elderly mother. I think these people had a reason to target one of the girls.

 

[Bemused]

I think her post substantiates yours...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

By the time I finish typing, losing it due to refresh, and retyping it there are often many posts to catch up with.

The OP is entitled to an opinion but I don't think DNA is the only thing they're relying on to build their case. So saying if they had DNA there should've been an arrest is not making sense to me.

 

[ab01]

By the time I finish typing, losing it due to refresh, and retyping it there are often many posts to catch up with.

The OP is entitled to an opinion but I don't think DNA is the only thing they're relying on to build their case. So saying if they had DNA there should've been an arrest is not making sense to me.

I think it's still reasonable to think that if LE had a definitive DNA match from a person to the crime scene, there would be an arrest made. Many times additional charges may be added later, but based on other murder investigations I have followed there would be an arrest. Moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bemused]

Haha I know that now. Thank you[emoji4]

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

It is enough for an arrest though, in a case like this. Depending on where and what kind of dna was found (most likely sperm, saliva or under fingernails) then it is enough for an arrest.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

You don't know what kind may have been found or where it was deposited. No one but the police know that.

My point is we just don't know too many things to make assumptions that if DNA was recovered and matched there'd be an arrest.

I'll go harp on some other aspect now.