Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #102

[Cutiekitty]

Nice post Wells.

Snipped:
He found out where she was going to be that day, he had been planning something like this for a while, he hightailed it to the CPS parking lot, made his way to the trail and waited. I think initially someone saw his vehicle but it was common enough that it wasn't paid much attention to.

My question is this...
If the girls didn't know that they were going to the bridge until a half hour or so before they went, then how did the perp know they'd be there?

They could’ve sent a message via Snapchat. Once it’s sent it’s gone. Once it’s read it’s gone. Like gone gone.

 

[gitana1]

They would if they made the sketch look just like the suspected perp.

That doesn't make sense to me. It is quite clear, IMO, that they don't have an ID. They asked the public for help identifying the perp.

 

[gitana1]

Do you mean they made up the bit about the sketch being two years old? Or that the sketch is so perfect, it turns out to actually look just like the perp they now know? Why, then, would they insist it is not necessarily a likeness of how he looks, and give such a broad age range?

I can’t find any other case, ever, where a sketch was used when LE already knew who they were eyeing as the perp. I also can’t find case when LE used a PC in that way, i.e appealing nationwide with little more than a sketch, if all they really need is one tip about a specific, known suspect. All the true crime shows I have seen detail how the police work quietly with friends and relatives of the suspect behind the scenes...not issuing a PC on a broad scale, in hopes the very person they need to call in, will do so.

I will eat my cat’s gross canned food if LE knows exactly who they are looking for info on. I just don’t buy it on amy level. Jmo

Exactly.

 

[Boxer]

Hate to admit it, but that was my first thought based on how DC was acting. I don’t want that to be the case at all though.

MOO Spt. Carter could also have been reacting to the uncovering of new information pointing to some egregious deputy error in the early days, a deputy not following up on something due to knowing and/or liking or being related to a "witness" and accepting a lie, or interviewing a possible suspect and accepting a lie.

That would have left case having to grab onto a theory that a transient did it.

In Yosemite 3 women were abducted and brutally murdered, LE in a stunning error of judgement had the motel handyman help them collect evidence out of their motel room. He was murderer.

 

[rosesfromangels]

The emotion is normal and understandable. As I've said, he's heard them die. He heard their last moments. He saw their bodies. He's met many times with their loved ones and stared into their eyes.

I remember how emotional Chief Tim Longo was during the Hannah Graham case.

This becomes personal to them.



Odd? They're kids. I don't care about their size. That's irrelevant.

Many females in general don't fight back. For various reasons. And these were kids. Kids taught to obey authority as most kids are.

It would be relatively easy to control, assault and kill kids this age without detection, IMO.

From a site about sexual assault about "fighting back":

If a victim does not say "no" or does not "fight back," it is not sexual assault.
False. Sexual assault victims may not say "no" or not fight back for a variety of reasons including fear and confusion. Rape victims often report being "frozen" by fear during the assault, making them unable to fight back (this is known as “tonic immobility”); other victims may not actively resist for fear of angering the assailant and causing him to use more force in the assault. Pressure to be liked and not be talked about negatively by a peer will sometimes cause adolescents or children to avoid fighting back or actively resisting.

California Megans Law

BBM.

Thank you Gitana, such an important message. In my mind, and pure speculation, he quickly obtained compliance by placing a weapon on one of them. These dear girls would not have abandoned one another.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Cutiekitty]

MOO Spt. Carter could also have been reacting to the uncovering of new information pointing to some egregious deputy error in the early days, a deputy not following up on something due to knowing and/or liking or being related to a "witness" and accepting a lie, or interviewing a possible suspect and accepting a lie.

That would have left case having to grab onto a theory that a transient did it.

In Yosemite 3 women were abducted and brutally murdered, LE in a stunning error of judgement had the motel handyman help them collect evidence out of their motel room. He was murderer.

I hope so. He just seemed really mad and some of his other statements made me think he was eluding to something that I do not want to consider.

 

[mtnlites]

True. People say the reaction to fear is fight or flight, but I say it’s actually fight, flight, or freeze (full compliance). Only 3 people know what went down that day and there is a task force of people who probably have a pretty good idea. None of us on here knows what happened and we are all Monday morning quarterbacking based on life experiences, logic/reasoning and maybe a little emotion which is why there are so many different theories and a lot of speculation. I think that it’s a good thing to explore all of the different view points - it prevents tunnel vision.

I hope I’m not coming off as questioning the girls actions or inactions - I don’t know what they were. I’m also hope it doesn’t appear that I’m saying what they should’ve done - that would be pointless. Based on the few facts provided to the public, life experience, what I’ve read on here, and interviews from family regarding the type of girls Libby and Abby were I find myself questioning the theory of abduction at gun point and total compliance - definitely open minded though.

No, I get what you're saying. It's natural for us to mentally put ourselves in such situations to try and figure out how the crime might have gone down. And with there being two of them, and one of him, logically it seems like they would've fought and made noise. When you're on the outside of the situation, though, the perspective is much different. I've been through 3 self defensive classes over the years and one of the things that our instructors has always told us is that "muscle memory" is one of most important parts of reacting in a dangerous situation. You can't always rely on logic or thought process because sometimes that part of your brain actually freezes. It doesn't always matter what advice you've learned over the years or what you "know" that you should do-sometimes you literally just have to rely on your body to physically react. It's one of the main reasons why, in classes, we are constantly practicing the "fight back." It's similar to what dancers learn during routines. In the beginning you're trying to remember and think about what move comes next. Once you've done the routine enough, though, you know longer have to think about it-your muscle memory takes over and your body responds accordingly.

I think that, for a lot of us, the idea that someone could literally just come from out of nowhere and whisk these two kids away and kill them without anyone hearing a sound is almost too terrifying to even imagine. So it's natural to try to determine what may or may not have happened because we have to try to explain it to our brains somehow. Otherwise, we have to accept the fact that this whole crime went down so fast, and so quietly, that there wasn't even time for reacting or fighting. And that's scary.

 

[Hatfield]

No, I get what you're saying. It's natural for us to mentally put ourselves in such situations to try and figure out how the crime might have gone down. And with there being two of them, and one of him, logically it seems like they would've fought and made noise. When you're on the outside of the situation, though, the perspective is much different. I've been through 3 self defensive classes over the years and one of the things that our instructors has always told us is that "muscle memory" is one of most important parts of reacting in a dangerous situation. You can't always rely on logic or thought process because sometimes that part of your brain actually freezes. It doesn't always matter what advice you've learned over the years or what you "know" that you should do-sometimes you literally just have to rely on your body to physically react. It's one of the main reasons why, in classes, we are constantly practicing the "fight back." It's similar to what dancers learn during routines. In the beginning you're trying to remember and think about what move comes next. Once you've done the routine enough, though, you know longer have to think about it-your muscle memory takes over and your body responds accordingly.

I think that, for a lot of us, the idea that someone could literally just come from out of nowhere and whisk these two kids away and kill them without anyone hearing a sound is almost too terrifying to even imagine. So it's natural to try to determine what may or may not have happened because we have to try to explain it to our brains somehow. Otherwise, we have to accept the fact that this whole crime went down so fast, and so quietly, that there wasn't even time for reacting or fighting. And that's scary.

Good points about muscle memory and natural reflexes that sometimes overrides any thought process.

This famous funny video of a prank gone wrong came to mind about that. It is a situation where the person that got scared by a guy jumping out of a trash can had an involuntary natural reaction to defend himself.

You can tell that the person that punched the guy in the trash can did it involuntarily and even he himself was surprised he ended up punching the guy. He obviously had a good natural reflex to defend himself before his mind could even process what was happening.

 

[EarthtoMel]

I’ve wondered about something for quite some time. Is it possible to scream and run at the same time? I’m imagining that running in panicked terror requires full concentration including deep breathing in and out. Wouldn’t the act of screaming cause a shortness of breathe? If so, especially if a victim knew nobody was close enough to intervene, wouldn’t it be advantageous to just focus on attempting to flee? ie fight or flight.

I remember going to the library with a friend when I was in college...we went in the back way and a man approached us with a large stick in his hands. My friend yelled RUN and that's what we did. Neither of us screamed, we were just determined to run away and get out of there. I am not sure how other people would react, but that's what we did.

 

[Wells]

I just had the uncomfortable thought that realistically, if my own mother saw a grainy three second video of me wearing (possibly) two pairs of pants, an undershirt shirt, a hoodie and a jacket I'm not sure she'd recognize me. Same situation holds true for acquaintances who might pass by me if a public park, especially if I kept my head down.

 

[gitana1]

Thank you Gitana, such an important message. In my mind, and pure speculation, he quickly obtained compliance by placing a weapon on one of them. These dear girls would not have abandoned one another.

Amateur opinion and speculation

I agree. Pull a gun and order them to do something. Heck with kids all you have to do is show them a badge depending on how well behaved they are.

I remember the famous Stanley Milgram experiments in which people were ordered to press a button and give an anonymous person who they could hear, jolts of electricity when the anonymous person scored wrong on a test. Most people obeyed the person ordering them to to do it, even when ordered to go into voltage marked "extreme pain" and "death".

It was noteworthy that if the person ordering them to administer the shocks has a white lab coat the person was more likely to shock the person they could hear screaming. If the person ordering them had a brown lab coat, less likely.

The point is that full grown adults obey authority. Without question. Without weapons. I mean there were people sweating and anxious but they still administer the shocks when ordered to.

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia

And it goes to all sorts of other situations. We are trained to obey authority. Scammers know this. If they use enough confidence and command in their voice they're able to get people to give up info they shouldn't, quite easily.


Yet we think kids must've fought back against an adult predator?

I think it's actually unlikely. Until they had to fight to breathe.

 

[mtnlites]

I just had the uncomfortable thought that realistically, if my own mother saw a grainy three second video of me wearing (possibly) two pairs of pants, an undershirt shirt, a hoodie and a jacket I'm not sure she'd recognize me. Same situation holds true for acquaintances who might pass by me if a public park, especially if I kept my head down.

Sometimes it's hard to place people when they're out of context, too. Like if I'm only used to seeing Person A behind the counter at the grocery store then I might have trouble recognizing them in different clothes in another location.

You're right, though. As much as people claim to see in the video/image, it's still blurry and pixelated and details are difficult to see-NOT because the photo hasn't been enhanced enough, but because the photo lacks integrity of pixels and that can't be changed.

 

[Cutiekitty]

Can one make a false profile on SC? Most likely.

Also, it could be Libby’s sister SC friend. Also, Libby took great pics, could anyone repost them? This is another way for the perp to see them. One random post is enough...

They definitely can, but the SC account is tied to a phone number or email address. If it’s by phone they send a verification (made an account a couple of years ago, but I don’t use it often). Not sure if they send a verification by email (I did it by phone number). I don’t like the fact that you have to screen shot anything you want to save so I tend to favor other SM for sharing pics.

 

[x_files]

I am still pages behind so this may fall in the midst of whatever the topic is currently.

I just want to say on catching up and seeing this post that I can see doing this for that reason. I can see doing it for investigative reasons as well, but also to deny him the notoriety of his detailed brutality, or shocking COD would be against what certain types of killers would want.

It is one reason I wish the media etc. would not adopt names like BTK because he, for instance, loved that name and notoriety. He so badly in that case wanted the notoriety and attention and to play he was smarter than LE that he contacted media to taunt. He may have used that name but once he was put away I sure do not have to refer to him that way any longer nor does media. I have my own name for him...

I am not saying we have that type of personality here with this child murderer as we do not know enough to be sure, but it is quite possible we do and he wanted the "shock" value and to "hear" about it and be "famous" in his "sick" way.

And LE is denying him that. I am all for that.

jmo.

I agree giving serial killers nicknames seems to satisfy their desire for attention, infamy and they relish it. Calling him a COWARD however, isn't very flattering.

 

[Jaclin]

Hate to admit it, but that was my first thought based on how DC was acting. I don’t want that to be the case at all though.

I'm still wondering if the new sketch wasn't improperly placed (or blown off by the wrong lower ranking person) for all this time and that's why DC acted so upset during the conference. Maybe DC saw this sketch as a lead that the major players were denied the whole time setting the case back. They haven't given us any reason why the sketch was disregarded for the first 2 years and is all of a sudden relevant. I think they screwed up somehow with this sketch and they knew it.

 

[Ursamajr]

I've been mulling over the general idea that Abby and Libby didn't know they were going to the bridge until a half hour before they went, therefore, no one inside or outside the family knew they were going. I don't think thats definitive.

Abby and Libby very well might have not asked anyone else to take them to the bridge until a half hour before they went but they most likely had talked about it earlier. Just from my own experience as an exploring kid, there were times I didn't think my mom would let me do whatever it was I wanted to do - "it's too dangerous!" / "you need an adult!" / "i need to talk to your friends parents first (doesn't call to the next day)" / "i need to know more about this before i say yes" - I would dread asking. I also probably hoped not giving my parents enough time to think would get a "oh okay fine. but we are picking you up in an hour!!" but it at least would be a yes.

Abby and Libby may have talked with friends and acquaintances the previous few days about how, with the upcoming day off, they hoped to go to the bridge. I would have thought i won the lottery! No school, mostly secluded spot, semi dangerous looking hike across a bridge that is relatively safe. Anyway, kids talk to their older siblings "hey these two girls at school are going to the bridge on monday, can you take me on...". Abby and Libby were in 8th grade. Last year in the middle school before they moved up to the high school. The Delphi middle school are grades 6-8. High school is 9-12. My school was the same way. I had classmates who had older siblings I never even saw or met. By the time i got into high school they had graduated the previous year or two before that.

An older brother could have heard that Abby and Libby were going to try and head to the bridge that day. It was a vacation day and kids love to make the most of those. A person that knows the perp, and if he is young, they might not have noticed a late teen boy gone for a few hours and just figured they were out with friends.

TL;DR (too long; didn't read):
I don't necessarily believe that no one knew they were headed to the bridge that day until a half hour before. I wouldn't rule out POIs because I assumed no one knew.

 

[Ursamajr]

I just had the uncomfortable thought that realistically, if my own mother saw a grainy three second video of me wearing (possibly) two pairs of pants, an undershirt shirt, a hoodie and a jacket I'm not sure she'd recognize me. Same situation holds true for acquaintances who might pass by me if a public park, especially if I kept my head down.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

 

[MDATCA]

MOO reaction is about the particular situation, .it all depends how close the handgun is. Your instincts deliver instant risk calculation.
Basically he sucker punched them, using common courtesy as getting close was his main weapon.

When a handgun is too close and aimed at you, your instincts to tell you the aggressor probably can't miss and running won't work. With more distance there more impulse to run and take a risk to dodge and hide behind obstructions.

By surprising with sprint I think he was able to get a hold of Abby on the bridge, and then by having control of her, had control of both.

I agree with you. If not using a gun or a stun gun then he used Abby's slower moving on the bridge to his advantage. I almost wonder if it wasn't Abby's first time and that Libby didn't keep going ahead a bit ahead to record parts of it. The girl talk was probably Libby encouraging Abby. Anna said on Dr Phil her first thoughts on seeing the pic was going to ground Abby for being on the bridge. The pic of Abby looks like she is a bit scared and choosing her steps slowly and carefully.

 

[Cutiekitty]

Absolutely but in today’s digital world it’s very unlikely that LE wouldn’t be able to uncover who was using said fake profile.

It can be done through vpn etc. but said individual would need to be extremely tech savvy imo

Even secure vpn tunnels are not completely anonymous to investigators abilities

The tricky part of a fake SC profile would be getting someone to add your fake account and not block you once they realized your account is fake. You have to be added for LE to know you are following/“friends” with someone on SC. I think it would be tricky for LE to determine who is using a fake account because of how you go about creating one. Not impossible though.

Way more than you need to know. For some reason I’m wordy today.

 

[MDATCA]

I just had the uncomfortable thought that realistically, if my own mother saw a grainy three second video of me wearing (possibly) two pairs of pants, an undershirt shirt, a hoodie and a jacket I'm not sure she'd recognize me. Same situation holds true for acquaintances who might pass by me if a public park, especially if I kept my head down.

Exactly why I think they need to release more if they can