Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #103

[Boxer]

Carter did clarify that the two sketches were not of the same person, though.

Yes he did say they were two different people, the he also said that the two sketches together might be the right image
(WISH TV interview)
I am trying to think how both statements could be true.
Unless I completely misunderstood or he mispoke.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

VISP superintendent provides update on Delphi double murder investigation

Correct. But I understood him to be referring to the sketches. Others don't. Listen about the 3:30 mark.

Thank you for re-posting!

I still don't think he is referring to the sketches.
I still think that
"Between the two" means the photograph and the sketch....not both sketches.

I can agree to disagree though!
I know it can get tedious for others to re-read the same stuff being hashed out multiple times.

I sure wish the Carter would come up with clarifications to some of our questions from that last interview though!

 

[bradfordsleuth]

I just re-listened. The interviewer said, "The sketch, and to be clear you did clarify this after for folks who didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both sketches anymore? You only want the newly released sketch, correct?"

To which Carter replies, "Correct. But remember, a sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being something that, uh, between the two is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion based upon what I believe."

So I can understand why it's subjective. In the same sentence Carter is both agreeing that he doesn't want people to look at the first sketch while also saying that it could be a combination of both. However, Carter does NOT use the word "sketch". He just says "between the two" without specifying what two things he's talking about. Within the context of that exchange it does sound like he could mean both sketches. However, since they'd just finished showing the video clip, he could also mean that.

IMO he's not referring to both sketches since the last question is the interviewer asking if people should disregard the first sketch and Carter answers in the affirmative. This would also back up similar things that's been stated in the past 2-3 weeks.

Thank you!!
This is stated much better than I attempted to...

 

[mtnlites]

Thank you for re-posting!

I still don't think he is referring to the sketches.
I still think that
"Between the two" means the photograph and the sketch....not both sketches.

I can agree to disagree though!
I know it can get tedious for others to re-read the same stuff being hashed out multiple times.

I sure wish the Carter would come up with clarifications to some of our questions from that last interview though!

I agree with you on all counts here. Until Carter comes forward and clarifies this, we could go back and forth on it all day. Like you, I still don't believe he was referencing the sketches or, if he was, his meaning wasn't clear. He can't say to disregard the first sketch while, in the same breath, say that the image in it might still be BG. I mean, he DID sort of say that, but I don't think that's what he meant.

 

[HockeyMom330]

Why would he say it is his subjective opinion if he were talking about the perp looking like a blend between sketch and the video picture? LE says they depict same person so that would not be subjective, just a fact.

I assume if LE doesn't know exactly who BG is or what BG looks like today (he could have changed his appearance or merely aged in the past 2 years) then it is subjective, or just his personal perspective/opinion, that BG most likely looks like a blend of the sketch and video--meaning some features from each give an accurate appearance. I think he is trying to explain to the public that the sketch is a resemblance of BG but not an exact likeness (like a photograph would be) because it is based on witness memory/description. The video is BG but is too grainy and pixelated to get a true sense of his facial features. When BG is finally arrested we may find that he does in fact have skinny chicken legs (as seen in the video but not the sketch) and does have the prominent chin (as seen in the sketch but not the video), hence he is sort of a blend of both.

 

[Backstroke10]

Snipped:
For some reason, I don’t see BG getting a burner phone but hopefully he had a cell phone with him. MOO

Do you think it's fair to say where as cell phone tracking is one of the first things that LE uses to try and identify a suspect, and where as it's been two years now since this crime, that they have no phone evidence from the suspect?

Yes, I think it’s very fair to say and after 2 years with no arrest, I don’t think he had a cell phone with him. MOO

I doubt they could have obtained a warrant for phone if they did not evidence against a specific person.

I am at a loss as to how anyone can think they know who the killer is, based on what has been said by LE. They sound more confused than I am. And my confidence level that the newly shown sketch is a better representation is zero. Jmo

I agree. I don’t think they know who BG is at all. MOO I also don’t think the new 2nd sketch is accurate. MOO

 

[Charlot123]

We put him in Gedmatch too. Same results.

Sorry. wishing you the best of luck, sooner or later, someone will pop up!

 

[HockeyMom330]

SABBMFF:

Interviewer: The sketch, and to be clear, and you did clarify this after, in case folks didn't hear it, you don't want them to look at both sketches anymore. You only want them to look at the newly-released sketch, correct?

DC: That's correct, but remember, the sketch is not a photograph. It's something similar to a resemblance. And the likelihood of this being something between the two, is probably pretty strong. But again, that's a subjective opinion, based on what I believe.

Okay.

LE does not want the public to look at both sketches any more.
Focus on Sketch #2.

Got it.

But DC thinks there's a pretty strong likelihood that BG's appearance is something "between the two sketches."

Got it.

Wait.
Hold up.
Stop this bus, I'm getting off.
The logic is escaping me here.

Why would LE tell the public to disregard Sketch #1 and to focus solely on Sketch #2, if there's a strong likelihood that BG's actual appearance is some kind of amalgamation of 1 and 2 combined?

I really wish the interviewer had clarified what DC meant by "this being something between the two."

What "this" is likely between the two "whats," exactly?

JMO.

I think what is confusing for many (myself included) is that the interviewer questions DC about the two sketches but DC's answer is in regard to the likeness of the new sketch and a photograph. He says, "...remember, the sketch is not a photograph...and the likelihood of this being something between the two is probably pretty strong". He never actually says "between the two sketches", he says "between the two", and the two things he was most recently talking about are #1 a sketch and #2 a photograph (which I think is the video/image of BG on the bridge). Unfortunately there is a lot of inferencing and interpretation with so much of what DC has said. Just like the confusion over whether the car was abandoned at the CPS buidling or parked at the abandoneded CPS building.

 

[Charlot123]

Dear Charlot123,

Thanks for your informative post!

My thought is that sketches give an "idea" of what the perpetrator looks like. It's just really an approximate base of what he looks like.

The sketch wouldn't apply to the appearance of most men. But some, yes.

The sketch's purpose is two-fold, to narrow down individuals with similar features but most importantly - to receive tips from people who find the sketch very "familiar' to someone they know and why they feel the person could be guilty of this.

"Does the individual in this sketch look familiar to you? Was this person in the Delphi area on February 13th?"

If someone has reason(s) to suspect someone they know that was in the Delphi area Feb 13th and resembles the sketch, I hope they have already called in.

These are my thoughts and opinions.

You are very right. Also, probably, to give an idea of how the perpetrator does not look like. However, the Delphi story is somewhat unusual, sketch-wise, tbh.

 

[Backstroke10]

I assume if LE doesn't know exactly who BG is or what BG looks like today (he could have changed his appearance or merely aged in the past 2 years) then it is subjective, or just his personal perspective/opinion, that BG most likely looks like a blend of the sketch and video--meaning some features from each give an accurate appearance. I think he is trying to explain to the public that the sketch is a resemblance of BG but not an exact likeness (like a photograph would be) because it is based on witness memory/description. The video is BG but is too grainy and pixelated to get a true sense of his facial features. When BG is finally arrested we may find that he does in fact have skinny chicken legs (as seen in the video but not the sketch) and does have the prominent chin (as seen in the sketch but not the video), hence he is sort of a blend of both.

IMO It really doesn’t matter if Carter meant a combination of the sketches (1st sketch was based off of the video) or a combination of the video and sketch, because either way, I don’t think they know who he is. I hope I’m wrong. MOO

 

[Boxer]

Thank you!!
This is stated much better than I attempted to...

I misunderstood it to be between the the two sketches. I went back and that was not what he meant. Not sure if he meant between the sketch and the suspect or a photo of a suspect.
But I see he did not mean between the two sketches.

 

[Boxer]

IMO It really doesn’t matter if Carter meant a combination of the sketches (1st sketch was based off of the video) or a combination of the video and sketch, because either way, I don’t think they know who he is. I hope I’m wrong. MOO

MOO don't know yet. Elimination is constantly diminishing the pool of possible suspects.

 

[sunshineray]

Been going over early articles and I just can't fathom something.

At midnight on Feb 13th this was said,

"Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby say there is no reason to suspect foul play or to believe the girls are in immediate danger."

You have two young girls missing for 6 1/2 hours while hiking in a rural and in some places treacherous terrain, they're not answering phone then phone goes dead, it's getting colder, how in the heck can you make that statement? And then call off the search for darkness!? Did they really think they were off somewhere joyriding or had walked to a friend's house and we're having a good time at 12 midnight and not bothering to tell their parents where they were, 13 and 14 years old girls who's whole history pointed to the opposite being true?

Sorry for rehashing this, just seems so wrong to me. God Bless Libby, Abby and their families </3

 

[Razz]

I feel DC is straddling the fence. He's covering himself all ways. Ie: "he may not be in the room but I'm 100% sure he is listening." He will never have to prove that so it's a safe assumption.

He backpedals on the sketches. It's the 2nd one but...it really could be a combo of both.

About the phones: I doubt BG had one.
And perhaps the reason BG didn't take Abby's phone is because he was worried LE could track him...and/or, he didn't want to get caught with her phone.....ever. Keeping it simple. And I seriously doubt he knew he'd been videographed as he was far enough away. And as it has currently turned out, it doesn't seem to have made a lick of difference.

I want to see more of how he walked.
Why won't LE release that?! Did he expose himself? Honestly, that would be important to know as I feel certain
he's exposed himself before. (to young girls who may recall such an incidence.)

He may be a loner and even though he may live within 50 miles where it happened, people can't put 2 and 2 together: 1). Because of the "disguise"
2). The confusion between the 2 sketches 3). No one knows him.

I have someone in mind (only since the reveal of the latest sketch) but I'm scared to death to reveal the person to LE. I don't want to finger or even suggest someone who may be completely innocent.

 

[Miya]

I doubt they could have obtained a warrant for phone if they did not evidence against a specific person.

I am at a loss as to how anyone can think they know who the killer is, based on what has been said by LE. They sound more confused than I am. And my confidence level that the newly shown sketch is a better representation is zero. Jmo

I don't know about the laws in the US, but see my previous post about the boy in Germany who was killed in 2010. They went through 240,000 (two hundred and forty thousand) cell phone data protocols and found the perp. I also don't know much about the German laws but that's what they did and I'm guessing they got a warrant for that. So that's probably different in the US. I just think that 2 girls were murdered here and if they need 300,000 cell phone data protocols to find who did this, they should get them. If the law doesn't allow that, that would be very disappointing.

MOO.

I also don't believe they know who the perp is, for a moment after the PC I thought maybe they do know, but since then things just got confusing and I think that it is confusing because they are confused. I just said if they have cell phone evidence (and they would never tell the public that, so we have no idea what they have or don't have), then they know who the perp is.

MOO.

 

[castilloisno1]

So, I have only been involved here for a year. How do the long timers feel about catching this killer? Hopeful or not?​

 

[MistyWaters]

MOO don't know yet. Elimination is constantly diminishing the pool of possible suspects.

Either that or their Persons of Interest list has grown by leaps and bounds.

“We have talked to well over 1,100 people. That includes persons of interest, that includes anybody and everybody that's involved in this case. If their name has been turned in, we've talked or attempted to talk to 99.9 percent of them."..”
Delphi murders: What we still don't know two years after the slayings of 2 teenagers

“Everybody as we've gone along, I guess in my mind, is considered a person of interest," Leazenby said......<>...I'm going under the basic theory of everyone we talk to is a person of interest. We are interested in seeing what they were up to on Feb. 13."
UPDATED: ISP: Man arrested in Colorado not person of interest in Delphi case

 

[Rosegold68]

i've only been aware of this case for a week now. i feel the window of opportunity has passed. sorry

 

[Cutiekitty]

Snipped:
For some reason, I don’t see BG getting a burner phone but hopefully he had a cell phone with him. MOO

Do you think it's fair to say where as cell phone tracking is one of the first things that LE uses to try and identify a suspect, and where as it's been two years now since this crime, that they have no phone evidence from the suspect?[/QUOTE

Dbm

 

[Jax49]

So, I have only been involved here for a year. How do the long timers feel about catching this killer? Hopeful or not?​

I've been here since they were missing and I am very hopeful.

ETA: Thru the bodies being located, the memorial service, the funerals and the families' tears. I refuse to give up hope.