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

[TL4S]

If I take a guess and read between the lines from what he is saying then my guess is there is something unusual or a little bit different in how the girls were left by BG.

Seeing two dead bodies is horrific enough but for him to point out about not being able to unsee things then it kind of points to something was different about it and it had a big impact on the people that were there when the girls were discovered.

Whether that was BG posing them in a certain manner or just the sheer damage and destruction that he caused to their bodies in his act of killing them. Not sure what he is referring to but IMO I think it was something unusual as compared to what one would consider a "standard" murder (if there is such a thing).

I know this case must be really difficult one for LE and I know they are doing their best but one thing that has bothered me is when LE causes confusion by not being clear in the few times they do address the public and media.
This is an example because its not clear what he is meaning. Is it just that he is concerned about his people seeing dead bodies or is it something else that was unique about the crime scene and if so, and if he cannot say more, then he probably should not have said anything at all. Because now we have confusion about what he was really meaning.

Same with the 2nd sketch news. Talk about confusion. IMO they needed to be much clearer on the background of both sketches and why they have now chosen the 2nd sketch over the 1st and to at least give us some general background on why we are also supposed to just concentrate on sketch #2 and throw away sketch #1.

They could have just explained their reasoning better to get us on board with them. They could have done that in a general way that does not hurt the case in any way.

Oh well. It is what it is and BG is still not arrested.

I guess my interpretation is not necessarily that the bodies were posed or that abnormal violence was done (beyond the obvious). It could mean either of those things, but I felt he was insinuating that after you take away the badge and uniform, these are human beings working cases which would make most of us mentally and/or physically ill. Not only did they have to process the crime scene and two bodies, but they had to listen to however long of audio, which most likely included the girls' deaths. I can't even imagine carrying the burden.

 

[Deleted member 238128]

Great suggestion.

It would not be too difficult for LE to identify if she was actively taking any classes. The hard part would be for LE to try to get photos of every person taking the same class but I agree it would be well worth the effort.

Somehow BG ended up on the same bridge as the girls that day. Its still a question whether it was a random encounter by him or if he somehow knew in advance that they would be there.

When I first saw Bridge Guy, he reminded me of my dad. My dad is a tiny 5ft 1 irish man, so it took me a while to work out why! He was a welder and BG’s clothes remind me of when I used to visit him at work, he’d be in a sort of garagey- I guess “shacky” type place, freezing cold, welding clothes, mask hanging round neck. I just heard this week that Libby’s family have said she was taking a welding class and had picked up a new welding machine the night before for her class. The classes she was involved in is an interesting line of thought.

 

[Deleted member 238128]

I guess my interpretation is not necessarily that the bodies were posed or that abnormal violence was done (beyond the obvious). It could mean either of those things, but I felt he was insinuating that after you take away the badge and uniform, these are human beings working cases which would make most of us mentally and/or physically ill. Not only did they have to process the crime scene and two bodies, but they had to listen to however long of audio, which most likely included the girls' deaths. I can't even imagine carrying the burden.

Tobe Lazenby has said that the “attack” was not recorded, but I do wonder if he was referring to video and maybe there is audio. Must relisten to the interview he gave to James Renner where he was asked about this

 

[onabus]

If I take a guess and read between the lines from what he is saying then my guess is there is something unusual or a little bit different in how the girls were left by BG.

Seeing two dead bodies is horrific enough but for him to point out about not being able to unsee things then it kind of points to something was different about it and it had a big impact on the people that were there when the girls were discovered.

Whether that was BG posing them in a certain manner or just the sheer damage and destruction that he caused to their bodies in his act of killing them. Not sure what he is referring to but IMO I think it was something unusual as compared to what one would consider a "standard" murder (if there is such a thing).

I know this case must be really difficult one for LE and I know they are doing their best but one thing that has bothered me is when LE causes confusion by not being clear in the few times they do address the public and media.
This is an example because its not clear what he is meaning. Is it just that he is concerned about his people seeing dead bodies or is it something else that was unique about the crime scene and if so, and if he cannot say more, then he probably should not have said anything at all. Because now we have confusion about what he was really meaning.

Same with the 2nd sketch news. Talk about confusion. IMO they needed to be much clearer on the background of both sketches and why they have now chosen the 2nd sketch over the 1st and to at least give us some general background on why we are also supposed to just concentrate on sketch #2 and throw away sketch #1.

They could have just explained their reasoning better to get us on board with them. They could have done that in a general way that does not hurt the case in any way.

Oh well. It is what it is and BG is still not arrested.

I agree. I think it's weird-- why say anything if you can't disclose these details?-- that multiple LEOs are alluding to this crime being particularly horrific, almost like they wish they could share what they have seen and how it has affected them but they can't in order to keep the integrity of the investigation. Murders happen everywhere, but I think it's rare to hear this kind of phrasing come up so much as it has with these murders...

 

[mtnlites]

I don't believe there is MSM or LE quoting
8 minutes either which is why I am asking for a link for that.

I think @ab01 explained it well. Twice.

It's the same when it comes to the "creepy guy" statement. People continue to reference it, even though the comment was made outside of MSM.

The original question was "does more audio or video exist". I explained that I made a mistake by quoting a non-MSM source, but I also listed at least 4 MSM sources that DOES answer the question as to whether more audio/video exists. My post was made early this morning and by the time someone quoted it, I was not able to edit it.

 

[BigTexas]

I understand the toll it can be taking on Carter, but he needs to remain professional. What I mean is, when he talks at a press conference, I don't think it is pertinent to inject his own feelings/beliefs/thoughts about aspects of the case. Save that for the television. It seems like when this happens, some sleuths begin to cross the line between facts and emotional thoughts of Carter as they analyze his verbiage. I, at least, take a press conference more fact-injected and it's easy to get confused on what he is trying to tell us based upon his words, tone, and demeanor. MOO

 

[cluciano63]

I can’t make head nor tails of anything Carter says, to be honest. I can’t recall such muddled responses and statements from any other case. Dissecting his meaning, if any, seems to be a fulltime job. Jmo

 

[mtnlites]

I guess my interpretation is not necessarily that the bodies were posed or that abnormal violence was done (beyond the obvious). It could mean either of those things, but I felt he was insinuating that after you take away the badge and uniform, these are human beings working cases which would make most of us mentally and/or physically ill. Not only did they have to process the crime scene and two bodies, but they had to listen to however long of audio, which most likely included the girls' deaths. I can't even imagine carrying the burden.

Yeah, I don't think that something unique has to have been done to the bodies, or that they had to be posed in any certain way, to illicit horror and sadness from LE. They're law enforcement but they're still human beings who are talking about murdered children.

 

[SeattleStew]

Let's hope that doesn't start a new string of theatrical theories.

And anyway, I don't see anything odd about the way BG was dressed. It seems perfectly normal for the time of year, rural America.

BBM. Except maybe his coat is inside out. MOO'ing along...

 

[mtnlites]

Let's hope that doesn't start a new string of theatrical theories.

And anyway, I don't see anything odd about the way BG was dressed. It seems perfectly normal for the time of year, rural America.

To me, too. I see nothing that BG's wearing that would point to any kind of vocation or that says anything about him other than that he's wearing average clothes that can be purchased at about any Rural King, Walmart, or other big box store that sells clothing and home items anywhere in the south or midwest. He's wearing what appear to be carpenter jeans (a little baggy, but that's the way that those kind of jeans fit anyway so they may not be too big on him), a blue jacket, and possibly a hoodie or hat. Something that my 73-year-old dad and 33-year-old husband both have in their closets-and one's a college professor who moonlights in SAR and the other sells firearms.

 

[MassGuy]

I understand the toll it can be taking on Carter, but he needs to remain professional. What I mean is, when he talks at a press conference, I don't think it is pertinent to inject his own feelings/beliefs/thoughts about aspects of the case. Save that for the television. It seems like when this happens, some sleuths begin to cross the line between facts and emotional thoughts of Carter as they analyze his verbiage. I, at least, take a press conference more fact-injected and it's easy to get confused on what he is trying to tell us based upon his words, tone, and demeanor. MOO

That press conference wasn’t for us though.

If people want to read certain things into his tone, words, demeanor, or anything else, that’s on them.

What’s important is that a witness comes forward to break this case.

That was the purpose, and if we are confused, it doesn’t really matter. This isn’t for us to solve.

 

[MassGuy]

I agree. I think it's weird-- why say anything if you can't disclose these details?-- that multiple LEOs are alluding to this crime being particularly horrific, almost like they wish they could share what they have seen and how it has affected them but they can't in order to keep the integrity of the investigation. Murders happen everywhere, but I think it's rare to hear this kind of phrasing come up so much as it has with these murders...

It’s rare to have a double murder of two teenage girls in the first place.

Low risk victims aren’t commonly attacked and murdered by a psychopath in the woods.

This is particularly horrific, and it doesn’t even have to allude to what many people are getting at.

 

[SeattleStew]

Looks like HLN aired another snippet (the one that others referenced in earlier messages). Will transcribe and update this post.

Edit:

"Reporter: If you can speak to the person who did this, if they're watching, what would you say?

Carter: Why? ... Why? See this is--- Carrol County, specifically Delphi, is-- that represented evil, complete evil amongst humanity. And that little county has been dealt several blows. Just a few months before that, there were four little girls killed in a house fire that was intentionally set. So, that's any county in America. And I have this extraordinary responsibility to bring closure to that and I'll work toward that end until my final day.

Respectfully snipped above by me for focus:

Thank you very much, onabus, for posting this. Bolded by me above.

I am confounded by Carter's reply to the bolded question by the reporter. He's got the chance, hypothetically or maybe even literally, to speak directly to the killer, and he wants to know "why"?

Not who are you? Turn yourself in? Call me, we can talk?

As the victim of a violent crime (a long time ago) Carter's response literally makes me angry.

MOOing and IMOing along now.

Does anyone else feel "funny" or "off" about his statement? Am I overly sensitive?

 

[MassGuy]

Respectfully snipped above by me for focus:

Thank you very much, onabus, for posting this. Bolded by me above.

I am confounded by Carter's reply to the bolded question by the reporter. He's got the chance, hypothetically or maybe even literally, to speak directly to the killer, and he wants to know "why"?

Not who are you? Turn yourself in? Call me, we can talk?

As the victim of a violent crime (a long time ago) Carter's response literally makes me angry.

MOOing and IMOing along now.

Does anyone else feel "funny" or "off" about his statement? Am I overly sensitive?

I think the “who,” goes without saying.

The whole purpose of this investigation is to determine that answer.

The “why,” is a question we’re all asking. Why would you slaughter two innocent girls?

 

[sumzero]

Respectfully snipped above by me for focus:

Thank you very much, onabus, for posting this. Bolded by me above.

I am confounded by Carter's reply to the bolded question by the reporter. He's got the chance, hypothetically or maybe even literally, to speak directly to the killer, and he wants to know "why"?

Not who are you? Turn yourself in? Call me, we can talk?

As the victim of a violent crime (a long time ago) Carter's response literally makes me angry.

MOOing and IMOing along now.

Does anyone else feel "funny" or "off" about his statement? Am I overly sensitive?

I expected him to repeat some of the verbiage from the PC. So, yes, his answer is a bit odd. More odd is that the bulk of his answer has nothing to do with the question the reporter just asked. Then again, DC often strings together sentences, the connecting logic of which escapes me.

 

[Hatfield]

Respectfully snipped above by me for focus:

Thank you very much, onabus, for posting this. Bolded by me above.

I am confounded by Carter's reply to the bolded question by the reporter. He's got the chance, hypothetically or maybe even literally, to speak directly to the killer, and he wants to know "why"?

Not who are you? Turn yourself in? Call me, we can talk?

As the victim of a violent crime (a long time ago) Carter's response literally makes me angry.

MOOing and IMOing along now.

Does anyone else feel "funny" or "off" about his statement? Am I overly sensitive?

JMO
My reaction to his response is I feel it is an amateuristic reply because over the years of following cases I have learned that the "why" doesnt matter because a lot of times the "why" makes absolutely no sense and sometimes even the killer doesn't know why they decided to kill someone.

Its always a stupid reason "why" and the reason is never good enough so its a pointless question really. The perp's answer will never satisfy anyone and especially not the victim's
family.

I have learned to forget about the "why" these murderers do what they do and just capture them and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

So yea I am surprised why he even wants to know why. He should already know it doesnt matter whatever sick reason the BG had in his head. It doesnt matter one iota and never will.

 

[SeattleStew]

I think the “who,” goes without saying.

The whole purpose of this investigation is to determine that answer.

The “why,” is a question we’re all asking. Why would you slaughter two innocent girls?

Respectfully, if you find out the who, you get the why. But why doesn't equal who. My only other thought about "why" is if he has a specific suspect in mind already. So it might make sense to ask "why" not "who".

 

[onabus]

It’s rare to have a double murder of two teenage girls, in the first place.

Low risk victims aren’t commonly attacked and murdered by a psychopath in the woods.

This is particularly horrific, and it doesn’t even have to allude to what many people are getting at.

In that same interview with Carter, he talked about four girls that were killed in the same county. Is this murder less horrific because it happened in their home? No one is trying to perpetuate rumors about what may or may not have happened to Abby and Libby, but it's impossible not to speculate when Carter and others in this particular investigation are using this kind of language to describe this crime.

 

[mtnlites]

Respectfully snipped above by me for focus:

Thank you very much, onabus, for posting this. Bolded by me above.

I am confounded by Carter's reply to the bolded question by the reporter. He's got the chance, hypothetically or maybe even literally, to speak directly to the killer, and he wants to know "why"?

Not who are you? Turn yourself in? Call me, we can talk?

As the victim of a violent crime (a long time ago) Carter's response literally makes me angry.

MOOing and IMOing along now.

Does anyone else feel "funny" or "off" about his statement? Am I overly sensitive?

It is worded a bit oddly, but I think I might get what he's saying.

Asking BG "why" might appeal to different sides of him. It's the psychology of it. Asking "who" are you implies that LE has no idea and that could work against them. Make BG feel like he really DID get away with it. Then he has no reason to turn himself in (not that he would anyway)or not to commit another crime. After all, he got away with it once...

But asking "why" is different. Rather than pointing a finger at BG it's opening a conversation. It shows that LE is "curious", in a sense. Some killers feel so good about what they did that they WANT to talk about it. They want credit. It's one of the reasons some of them send messages to LE. But others are ashamed of what they did. They think everyone will hate them. "Why" covers both of these scenarios and more.

It's saying "we know you killed them, but we're also interested in you as a person". Which, you know, to the victims of crime is kind of a slap in the face. You don't care what kind of person the perp is-you just want justice. But to the perp...it makes them curious. And sometimes that can make them drop their guard.

 

[MassGuy]

In that same interview with Carter, he talked about four girls that were killed in the same county. Is this murder less horrific because it happened in their home? No one is trying to perpetuate rumors about what may or may not have happened to Abby and Libby, but it's impossible not to speculate when Carter and others in this particular investigation are using this kind of language to describe this crime.

That’s the same language anyone would use though. I’ve followed countless cases where law enforcement has said the exact same thing.

I’d be shocked if he didn’t characterize it that way.