Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #115

[cody22]

Hi Cody, Go Astros!!! Do you know if you use a VPN or incognito does it put your searches in the history?

Hi, tresir. I do not know. Opinion - If BG is a member of the family( even not by blood), friend of the family, or LE, this computer search evidence would probably mean little as real evidence. ....... I have sleuthed this case so long that LE would probably wonder about me....moo

 

[busymcmoody]

It also makes it seem that the girls were not victims of SA. Which surprised me. I had assumed that was the motive or trigger. This case baffles me.

Is this confirmed or rumor? I thought this was one of the details LE didn't divulge.

ETA - just realized you said "makes it seem." I'm not sold on this not being a SA even if there isn't DNA. There are different kinds of SA. JMO

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Is this confirmed or rumor? I thought this was one of the details LE didn't divulge.

I am confused. Is it a fact they don’t have dna? Thankyou.

 

[distracted]

Absolutely. But there is a reason to believe the car is associated with BG. More than a reason, actually, as @kc1023 pointed out.

Are there scenarios and stories one can draw up to show why he traveled only on foot...sure!

Is it reasonable to do so given the PC lead off with a req for info in the driver of a vehicle, and given LE saying "The importance of the car also ties into why police now believe the killer is local...."? I dont think it is. <modsnip: personalizing>

And im not quite following...

So LE needs help identifying the driver of a car, because they are a witness to BG, but they dont know who that witness is? How exactly do they know he/she is a witness then? Im not seeing any logic there. What am I missing?

And which is more likely? That LE needs the public's help finding the driver of a parked car between 12 and 5 because they are a witness but they dont know who it is, but somehow know they are a witness....

Or

It was BG that parked his (or someone's) car there ?

I believe the car was either BG's car or his ride.

And the reasons for that - one, as you said, they opened with that request at the beginning of the PC. And, two, because the car could have been parked there for any number of reasons having nothing to do with BG, the bridge or the trails, and would be of no significance to LE if it wasn't involved somehow.

I can't come up with a single scenario connecting a witness to the car without LE knowing who the car belongs to. If a witness brought the parked car to the attention of LE, it obviously didn't belong to the witness. That only leaves BG. If LE observed the car, they wouldn't need the public's help.

I still believe that LE is looking for an additional witness who observed the car, to place BG at the scene.

 

[busymcmoody]

I am confused. Is it a fact they don’t have dna? Thankyou.

Now I'm confused lol - I think you didn't mean to quote me? Because I have no idea whether they have DNA or not. They never said.

 

[Falling Down]

I believe the car was either BG's car or his ride.

And the reasons for that - one, as you said, they opened with that request at the beginning of the PC. And, two, because the car could have been parked there for any number of reasons having nothing to do with BG, the bridge or the trails, and would be of no significance to LE if it wasn't involved somehow.

I can't come up with a single scenario connecting a witness to the car without LE knowing who the car belongs to. If a witness brought the parked car to the attention of LE, it obviously didn't belong to the witness. That only leaves BG. If LE observed the car, they wouldn't need the public's help.

I still believe that LE is looking for an additional witness who observed the car, to place BG at the scene.

I'm open to the idea the vehicle in question might be a personal one, a family member's or friend's, or occupational in nature.

JMO

-FD

 

[Falling Down]

I hate to be bothersome, but can you elaborate any on the notion that the killer may have had wet clothing on at the time of escape? Is there any evidence or proof of that, or all speculation?

That's a great question and I wonder what witnesses may have told LE. I've wondered if BG had a change of clothes left at the crime scene before the crimes.

Early on LE mentioned that people should call in a tip if they saw a man near or not far from the scene who had a bag or backpack. I've wondered what kind of feedback they got after that.

If I saw someone on a trail who was wet from the knees or waist down (I hike when the weather cooperates), I'd be very suspicious of that person.

JMO

-FD

 

[taximama24]

they are looking for the driver. I posted that link yesterday.

Thanks for clarifying, an important distinction that I definitely was thinking of differently based on what I thought they were asking for. I do still agree with a pp however, this request alone doesn't indicate they feel certain this car was BG's transportation or that he did not leave the area on foot. Realistically its unlikely they think BG was driving this car and simply asking the driver to come forward is going to solve this case. It could also be they feel this car may have had a vantage point to witness BG leaving, it could be they found something nearby that they want to know if the driver also saw when he/she parked and/or left. It could be they suspect someone has given them questionable information that they think could be corroborated (or not) by something that driver would have seen. In my opinion there is still enough plausibility one way or the other with what little we actually know to be fact.

I'm not sure what I think about how BG left the area. Two things comes to mind when I think about it. LE has said the new sketch was drawn a few days after the murders, by a witness who said they "saw something they felt needed to be reported." At the time whatever the "something" was it was questionable enough for LE to have the sketch drawn up, but yet it wasn't an obvious enough connection to prevent that sketch from being shelved in favor of the original sketch for two years either. My gut feel is that this car was part of that "something." But I also think about the only search warrant in this case so far, and IIRC it stemmed from the results of the tracking dog's trail. That leads me to believe BG left on foot and came to that property and was either picked up from there or perhaps the scent went from there to that parking lot, etc (I've often wondered if he waited there until his clothes dried, etc). Wish we knew more...

 

[TL4S]

I am confused. Is it a fact they don’t have dna? Thankyou.

Good question! I think they have usable DNA. Here's what Tobe Leazenby said about it in June 2018. BBM

Familial DNA search might unlock Delphi killer's identity

Recently asked about familial DNA searches and the homicide investigation into German and Williams' death, Carroll County Sheriff Tobe Leazenby said, “Obviously the answer hasn‘t come to the surface, yet.

“This is out of the box, so what can it hurt?”

Leazenby said Indiana State Police Maj. Steve Holland telephoned Leazenby after the Journal & Courier interviewed Holland, who is director of the Indiana State Police laboratories. Leazenby said Holland was giving him a courtesy call to expect the J&C's questions about familial DNA.

“That’s being discussed," Leazenby said of the outcome of Holland's call, "but there hasn’t been a decision made yet. It’s on the table.

“It might help us reach success.”


And just an extra for anyone interested in reading an overview of what they can do with touch DNA:

Touch DNA: From the Crime Scene to the Crime Laboratory

 

[ScumbagTrav]

It’s also possible the clothing that was found in the water may have been Abby’s because she stayed overnight at Libby’s so perhaps Abby had extra clothing in her bag.
MOO

Did she have her back with her on the trail/bridge? I dont recall seeing it in then photo Libbys posted, or reading that she did.

Didnt Kelsi let Abby borrow a jacket?

 

[ScumbagTrav]

Another thing that makes me lean towards a possible SA on the girls is that LE requested Etter's autopsy and DNA results. Etter didn't kill the woman, he committed SA on her.

Great point! And i agree...it doesnt mean they were SA...but like you, it makes me lean towards they were, sadly.

 

[sleuther0192837465]

Did she have her back with her on the trail/bridge? I dont recall seeing it in then photo Libbys posted, or reading that she did.

Didnt Kelsi let Abby borrow a jacket?

Speculating. That’s why I said MOO I’m hoping there was no SA...so if Abby did happen to have an overnight bag, it could explain the clothing. IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Now I'm confused lol - I think you didn't mean to quote me? Because I have no idea whether they have DNA or not. They never said.

DC said they have DNA, in an interviews in 2017. I can find it. It was in a strange, nonchalant, way, “oh, we have DNA”, but I heard it.

 

[Charlot123]

Great point! And i agree...it doesnt mean they were SA...but like you, it makes me lean towards they were, sadly.

If there was SA, there should be more than touch DNA. Unless they forgot to take swabs.

 

[busymcmoody]

DC said they have DNA, in an interviews in 2017. I can find it. It was in a strange, nonchalant, way, “oh, we have DNA”, but I heard it.

AFAIK they have DNA but they never said that they have his DNA. There's a difference. I suspect they do but they never said I think. JMO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Thanks for clarifying, an important distinction that I definitely was thinking of differently based on what I thought they were asking for. I do still agree with a pp however, this request alone doesn't indicate they feel certain this car was BG's transportation or that he did not leave the area on foot. Realistically its unlikely they think BG was driving this car and simply asking the driver to come forward is going to solve this case. It could also be they feel this car may have had a vantage point to witness BG leaving, it could be they found something nearby that they want to know if the driver also saw when he/she parked and/or left. It could be they suspect someone has given them questionable information that they think could be corroborated (or not) by something that driver would have seen. In my opinion there is still enough plausibility one way or the other with what little we actually know to be fact.

I'm not sure what I think about how BG left the area. Two things comes to mind when I think about it. LE has said the new sketch was drawn a few days after the murders, by a witness who said they "saw something they felt needed to be reported." At the time whatever the "something" was it was questionable enough for LE to have the sketch drawn up, but yet it wasn't an obvious enough connection to prevent that sketch from being shelved in favor of the original sketch for two years either. My gut feel is that this car was part of that "something." But I also think about the only search warrant in this case so far, and IIRC it stemmed from the results of the tracking dog's trail. That leads me to believe BG left on foot and came to that property and was either picked up from there or perhaps the scent went from there to that parking lot, etc (I've often wondered if he waited there until his clothes dried, etc). Wish we knew more...

I can only think of two search warrants that were issued specifically related to the Delphi investigation. The first was for the house on Bicycle Road on February 16 2017 and the second was for RL’s property about a week or so later. You have to figure the one for RL’s property was mostly due to it’s proximity to the crime scene but the Bicycle Road search warrant was always a mystery, to me anyway, as to why it was issued etc. Is this the one you say “...stemmed from the results of of the tracking dog’s trail”? That’s very interesting. I have never heard that before. Wondering where that info came from.
As I’ve said before, in my opinion, since the April PC everything from early in the investigation needs to really be looked at closely, like these search warrants. It would be great to know what led LE to issue the search warrants, what they were looking for, and why they haven’t been back. Pretty sure that’s not going to happen though.

 

[busymcmoody]

If there was SA, there should be more than touch DNA. Unless they forgot to take swabs.

SA doesn't necessarily mean that there will be ejaculation fluids. IE he could have been unable to perform, use a condom or just masturbated into a condom. That's SA too.

 

[JnRyan]

His familiarity to the area could be based on brief visits during childhood; which might explain why he wasn't recognized as a local.

This has been one of my theories as well. I had places I visited in the Mid-West that I knew from visits over the summer and holidays. I knew my way around very well, but I wasn't a resident.

 

[Charlot123]

Could be. I hadn't considered that, but im very familiar with an area of KY because of annual visits as a child/teen. It hasn't changed much over the decades, and if I went there today not a soul would know who i was...but i could navigate around with my eyes closed (figuratively speaking).

this actually tells us BG has a great photographic memory. If I were to visit very flat MA, or IA, watch how fast I’d get lost.

 

[Charlot123]

AFAIK they have DNA but they never said that they have his DNA. There's a difference. I suspect they do but they never said I think. JMO

They did. DC was interviewed by a lady journalist, rather young and pretty, a year after it happened. And he said, “oh, we have DNA”. He did not want to talk about it, but he said it. I might find it, I don’t remember her name. I think she is local.