Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #116

[sleuther0192837465]

All speculation:

One small similarity between this case and T.W.'s is that when Tim Watkins was murdered in Colarado his shoe was found first, then his bike, next his wallet contents were found scattered and finally his body was found three days later.

Murder on a Mountain Bike

"A local search party formed; around 2 P.M. on Saturday, a volunteer found a cycling shoe on the side of Mount Herman Road, three feet from an upright beer can and not far from the popular Limbaugh Canyon Trail. Ginger confirmed that it was her husband’s shoe—a size 42 Pearl Izumi. Years ago his feet had been disfigured in an accident, and he almost never took a step without his shoes on. She figured he couldn’t be far."

As we know, Libby's shoe was also found first on the private road/driveway. (Linked previously in several threads.)

We have been told that the searchers followed a set of footprints and then located the girls.

2 bodies found positively ID'd as missing teens

" The bodies were found on private property, about 50 feet from the shore of Deer . Sources tell Call 6 Investigates that a set of footprints are what led volunteers to the area the bodies were found."

We don't know how soon after finding the shoe, but I imagine it wasn't too long.

In Tim's case, it was like a following a trail of breadcrumbs before they located him, although it took 3 days.

It could have been the same in Abby and Libby's case.

We don't know where Libby's phone was found.....although it is my opinion that she kept it hidden the whole time.

There is video of searchers in the creek, and a heavy implication that some of their clothing was found in there. (Source is the scanner thread as well as a tweet that has been mentioned here.)

Maybe this was similar enough to catch LE's attention, along with possibly the murder weapon thought to be used in both cases?

DN similarity to sketch #1 and being tied to both states was also obviously a factor.

Just thinking out loud...and JMO

That’s very good info for those that maybe were not here for the discussions. Thank you.
I’m asking if it is possible that one of the similarities could be the make/model of DN’s car?
The change in the sketch was shocking to me. But the vehicle...I found that very odd. It seemed kinda glossed over & it’s really puzzling to me.
@Boxer you could be right. I just don’t know what to make of it.
I’m wondering if his car was similar to vehicles that were mentioned....
MOO

 

[Tiger Stripes]

Married?
This once made GRK, Gary Ridgeway, less dangerous, for a while

"...for a while" (BBM)

Scary.

 

[Tiger Stripes]

(snipped by me/TS for better focus)

My question is this:
Why after 26 months why did their investigation take this new turn?
Why do YOU think that after 2 plus years of working on the case, did the investigators come to a conclusion that they had been on the wrong path. Why are they "Just beginning?"

I do have a theory, but want to know what others think.

EBM

Dear@Ravenmoon,

LE was not just misinformed (MOO); I believe that they were intentionally misinformed/misdirected (again MOO).

And -- what makes it worse -- is that the misinformation/misdirection came from someone well-known to them, someone who (at least in past associations w/LE) had been very.trustworthy. And... someone who had been very credible.

They had no reason to not believe that person.

So let's ask: What about the case is "close to home" on the part of LE's once-"key" informant? What would cause a previously trustworthy, credible informant -- one well-known to LE -- to inexplicably change their tune, so deftly, that LE had no reason to doubt the informant's words?

We deem people trustworthy when they have a "track record", so to speak, of being/having been trustworthy toward us.

But when a person previously deemed trustworthy experiences personal changes in his/her life, it isn't as if they "announce" those "personal changes" to all the world; rather, their internal changes/the effects of those internal changes come out via.their.words (whether those words are written or spoken).

Thus, it is easy to see (in retrospect, unfortunately) how, and why, a person once believed honest/trustworthy/a person of great integrity could have changed -- all, without telling LE.
--
At this very moment, that informant is banking on LE to never figure out the enormous personal "shift" (great integrity --> great deception) in the informant's life/way of thinking. Because the informant is well-known and is still very highly respected in the community (MOO), that individual feels secure that no one will cast any aspersions on his/her character. Ever.

Sounds to me like cause for a "change in direction" on the part of LE -- again, JMOO.
--
Here are a few new questions (related to @Ravenmoon's original questions) to ponder:

What kind of an individual in a community (especially in a small, tightly-knit community) receives such high respect/trust? What vocation do many people view as highly trustworthy? What kind of work requires individuals known for their impeccable character? for their extreme confidentiality? for their high level of personal integrity?

It is an individual bearing such traits whom LE first trusted. (All entirely MOO; have absolutely no "insider" knowledge/connections.)

 

[tresir2012]

PHOTO: Police Seek to ID Man in Abigail Williams & Liberty German Case | Heavy.com

This is an item from very early on that shows that LE were looking for info about vehicles right from the beginning.

“We are asking for anyone to come forward with information or were in the area of the Delphi Historic Trails or Monon High Bridge that might have seen a person or persons, vehicles parked in the area or were taking pictures. Any information may be helpful to solving this case,” police said in a press release. “You can contact the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department or the Delphi Police Department at 765-564-2413, option #1, or the Indiana State Police at 765-567-2125.”
They added, “Also, if you were parked at High Bridge Trail Head on February 13, 2017 between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. we would like to talk to you.”

This was in many of the articles early on. Also, volunteers manned the telephones in the early days so something could have been missed or not taken down properly IMO.

 

[sleuther0192837465]

PHOTO: Police Seek to ID Man in Abigail Williams & Liberty German Case | Heavy.com

This is an item from very early on that shows that LE were looking for info about vehicles right from the beginning.

“We are asking for anyone to come forward with information or were in the area of the Delphi Historic Trails or Monon High Bridge that might have seen a person or persons, vehicles parked in the area or were taking pictures. Any information may be helpful to solving this case,” police said in a press release. “You can contact the Carroll County Sheriff’s Department or the Delphi Police Department at 765-564-2413, option #1, or the Indiana State Police at 765-567-2125.”
They added, “Also, if you were parked at High Bridge Trail Head on February 13, 2017 between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. we would like to talk to you.”

This was in many of the articles early on. Also, volunteers manned the telephones in the early days so something could have been missed or not taken down properly IMO.

Yes, but I do not recall LE asking about this vehicle specifically....MOO

 

[bradfordsleuth]

That’s very good info for those that maybe were not here for the discussions. Thank you.
I’m asking if it is possible that one of the similarities could be the make/model of DN’s car?
The change in the sketch was shocking to me. But the vehicle...I found that very odd. It seemed kinda glossed over & it’s really puzzling to me.
@Boxer you could be right. I just don’t know what to make of it.
I’m wondering if his car was similar to vehicles that were mentioned....
MOO

I agree that starting the presser with the mention of a vehicle seemed glossed over. Almost random since they made no mention of a make or model or colour.

The first indication that they had a specific vehicle in specified location in mind was on April 22nd.

Prior to that, it was a general request for any vehicles seen near the trails as per @tresir2012's link posted above.

I believe that LE had a very targeted purpose for making mention of this vehicle, and that they hoped it would corroborate the story of another person who saw it.

JMO

 

[taximama24]

Back then SC videos weren’t as long as they are today, but that video of BG on the bridge isn’t exactly all that long either. There could be multiple short SC videos actually.

I go back and forth - SC video or regular video. SC makes more sense due to their age and the fact that she had it open shortly before the video. She could’ve had things set to save to memories and camera roll or just memories and never had to post it.

I agree. The only hangup I have with it being SC is that you have to actually then click what you want to do with it after the record time expires or you stop holding the circle down. Considering she got "down the hill" on the recording, I'm assuming she was completely preoccupied with BG and what was happening at that point that her video recording ended, and I can't reconcile how she would have completed the process to save it to memories, that is a small little button down in the corner....

 

[sleuther0192837465]

I agree that starting the presser with the mention of a vehicle seemed glossed over. Almost random since they made no mention of a make or model or colour.

The first indication that they had a specific vehicle in specified location in mind was on April 22nd.

Prior to that, it was a general request for any vehicles seen near the trails as per @tresir2012's link posted above.

I believe that LE had a very targeted purpose for making mention of this vehicle, and that they hoped it would corroborate the story of another person who saw it.

JMO

Thank you! Yes, everything you said! I would love to know what LE has found out about it, if anything.

 

[taximama24]

The other concerning part is the eyewitness. Maybe the sketch and the car are not related to the same eyewitness, but I think they are. Don't you really have to question any eyewitness who can provide a description to police for a sketch, but cannot remember the make and model or license plate of a car?

They didn't ask for details about the car though, they asked for the driver of the car, I had the same thought as you and asked that clarifying question a thread or so back. That solidified for me that they weren't really wanting tips about that at the PC, as you said who could possibly remember details like that 2yrs later when it hadn't previously been asked for, they made that comment to let BG know they know they finally connected the dots and that the image they were about to release in that PC was from the interaction he knows he had with that witness that day, who we know sat for that sketch a few days after the murders because she saw something that day that was off.

 

[Boxer]

They didn't ask for details about the car though, they asked for the driver of the car, I had the same thought as you and asked that clarifying question a thread or so back. That solidified for me that they weren't really wanting tips about that at the PC, as you said who could possibly remember details like that 2yrs later when it hadn't previously been asked for, they made that comment to let BG know they know they finally connected the dots and that the image they were about to release in that PC was from the interaction he knows he had with that witness that day, who we know sat for that sketch a few days after the murders because she saw something that day that was off.

That makes a lot of sense.
Ask for witnesses who may have seen the driver of the car, then show the witness sketch of who they think was the driver if the car.

 

[Ozoner]

They didn't ask for details about the car though, they asked for the driver of the car, I had the same thought as you and asked that clarifying question a thread or so back. That solidified for me that they weren't really wanting tips about that at the PC, as you said who could possibly remember details like that 2yrs later when it hadn't previously been asked for, they made that comment to let BG know they know they finally connected the dots and that the image they were about to release in that PC was from the interaction he knows he had with that witness that day, who we know sat for that sketch a few days after the murders because she saw something that day that was off.

First of all, I'm not convinced that LE has a prime suspect or even a short list of suspects.
However, one simple explanation for the comments about the car is that LE knows what car was there, and they have a suspect who they think was the driver, but someone else gave that suspect an alibi by saying, "He wasn't driving the car that day, I was." People get bogus alibis all the time, especially from parents or spouses. If a bogus alibi is preventing LE from making an arrest, that tells me that they don't have DNA. A jury will trust DNA over an alibi from a parent or spouse, but without DNA, the prosecutor would be worried about reasonable doubt.

 

[JnRyan]

Unfortunately I think an unaccounted for car near the trail head sounds like an error of original police work.
Or maybe police saw a car in a satellite photo and then realized a sighting of it never came up in witness canvassing.

I wonder about that aspect myself. Early on we had scores of personnel working this case. Probably close to a hundred. Nearby jurisdictions were lending detectives in what was considered a win-win for those jurisdictions and Delphi. IOW, these personnel provided much needed staffing to handle the volume of tips and those loaned detectives received some experience in a murder investigation. (It was actually stated like that in the media.) With that many people who had not worked together before and the massive volume of tips, I believe the possibility of miscommunication is very possible. I wouldn't be surprised if either GBI or a team of 2-3 investigators was assigned to go back to the beginning and discovered some missteps. That April PC may be the result of a report from that effort. The vehicle in front of the CPS building may have been erroneously thought to be identified when in fact it was confused with another vehicle. That same effort may have questioned the logic as to why the sketch drawn in the days after the murder was filed away and another sketch released instead.
That 'new direction' term in April may be a public relations effort to release the corrections without coming out and stating, "Hey, we messed up." LE may have been concerned that simply stating an error may have been made would have a devastating effort on the community's mind set. And yet, they made a courageous decision to set all these corrections out at once and sweetened the deal by adding another part of the audio. This April PC really had no other speakers - such as the sheriff, prosecutor, FBI, lead investigator or spokesperson, Sgt Kim Riley - but rather just the superintendent. That way there was no issue in getting everyone on the same page. Maybe the superintendent tried to take a bad turn of events and turn it into psychological message to the killer while getting the corrections out at the same time.

 

[JnRyan]

First of all, I'm not convinced that LE has a prime suspect or even a short list of suspects.
However, one simple explanation for the comments about the car is that LE knows what car was there, and they have a suspect who they think was the driver, but someone else gave that suspect an alibi by saying, "He wasn't driving the car that day, I was." People get bogus alibis all the time, especially from parents or spouses. If a bogus alibi is preventing LE from making an arrest, that tells me that they don't have DNA. A jury will trust DNA over an alibi from a parent or spouse, but without DNA, the prosecutor would be worried about reasonable doubt.

The DNA. That part is really strange the way LE is addressing it. In the Heidi Childs/David Metzler case, the sheriff came right out said, "We have your DNA..." and we will find you. In the Golden State Killer case LE stated they had the killer's DNA. But here LE seems to dance all around the question, "Do you have the killer's DNA?" We here statements like, "We won't comment on DNA." early on to a statement later (at Crime Con by 1st Sgt Holeman?) that "We have DNA." Then 1st Sgt Holeman says in another interview 'that almost every crime scene yields DNA', but stops short of saying "We have the killer's DNA." To me there is BIG difference between stating "We have THE KILLER'S DNA." and simply "We have DNA." I believe LE have DNA, maybe multiple sets of DNA, but simply aren't sure if it, or any one of them, belong to the killer.

 

[stattlich1]

I believe that they were intentionally misinformed/misdirected (again MOO).

What kind of an individual in a community (especially in a small, tightly-knit community) receives such high respect/trust? What vocation do many people view as highly trustworthy? What kind of work requires individuals known for their impeccable character? for their extreme confidentiality? for their high level of personal integrity?

It is an individual bearing such traits whom LE first trusted. (All entirely MOO; have absolutely no "insider" knowledge/connections.)

MHO follows:

I'm with you on this. Question for me is, could there be a motive for the misdirection OTHER than/in addition to, protecting the killer?

I think these LE guys are mad. They were led astray, duped. They knew who the killer was early on but were led in a different direction, for what reason? To protect who? What?

And the tough question to ask is, of course, WHO? Who has that much power and influence to steer local LE, ISP, and FBI in this investigation? Who did they trust so much that they ignored that NBG sketch for 2+ years?

And THIS is why I smell a rat.

 

[Charlot123]

MHO follows:

I'm with you on this. Question for me is, could there be a motive for the misdirection OTHER than/in addition to, protecting the killer?

I think these LE guys are mad. They were led astray, duped. They knew who the killer was early on but were led in a different direction, for what reason? To protect who? What?

And the tough question to ask is, of course, WHO? Who has that much power and influence to steer local LE, ISP, and FBI in this investigation? Who did they trust so much that they ignored that NBG sketch for 2+ years?

And THIS is why I smell a rat.

There may be very many people who have this power or money, but not the person implied by the @Tiger Stripes.

But, if the person has power/money, why not hire an assassin? (That could explain the DNA not matching anyone.)

Another possibility - covering up for a local hero, a big-time role model.

The simplest question - who was manning the tip lines? Maybe some tips “disappeared” because the person(s) the LE trusted to screen tips was not trustworthy?

 

[SolwayFirth]

The DNA. That part is really strange the way LE is addressing it. In the Heidi Childs/David Metzler case, the sheriff came right out said, "We have your DNA..." and we will find you. In the Golden State Killer case LE stated they had the killer's DNA. But here LE seems to dance all around the question, "Do you have the killer's DNA?" We here statements like, "We won't comment on DNA." early on to a statement later (at Crime Con by 1st Sgt Holeman?) that "We have DNA." Then 1st Sgt Holeman says in another interview 'that almost every crime scene yields DNA', but stops short of saying "We have the killer's DNA." To me there is BIG difference between stating "We have THE KILLER'S DNA." and simply "We have DNA." I believe LE have DNA, maybe multiple sets of DNA, but simply aren't sure if it, or any one of them, belong to the killer.

This bothered me from the beginning as well. I eventually came to my own personal conclusion that, yes, they have DNA - and - It's completely unusable. IMO if they had usable DNA none of us would be here right now.

 

[cluciano63]

If they don’t have DNA they can use, I doubt there will ever be an arrest. Not sure how a jury could be convinced in this case without it. It has been handled oddly from the start, and the confusion over the images does not help matters. Not sure on what basis proof could be offered, short of a confession or DNA that any particular man is the killer.

I know convictions were obtained for decades prior to DNA but that is not how the world works now, imo.

 

[busymcmoody]

I agree. The only hangup I have with it being SC is that you have to actually then click what you want to do with it after the record time expires or you stop holding the circle down. Considering she got "down the hill" on the recording, I'm assuming she was completely preoccupied with BG and what was happening at that point that her video recording ended, and I can't reconcile how she would have completed the process to save it to memories, that is a small little button down in the corner....

Did they say that she recorded it on SC? I always figured that she started her phone camera and that's how they got the video, especially because they said they got the media off Libby's phone, not snapchat.

 

[sleuther0192837465]

Did they say that she recorded it on SC? I always figured that she started her phone camera and that's how they got the video, especially because they said they got the media off Libby's phone, not snapchat.

LE has not stated that Libby’s recording of BG was from SC.
You are correct. LE has stated that the recording was on Libby’s phone. Only mention of SC was the photo of Abby on the bridge.
MOO

 

[JnRyan]

This bothered me from the beginning as well. I eventually came to my own personal conclusion that, yes, they have DNA - and - It's completely unusable. IMO if they had usable DNA none of us would be here right now.

And 'unusable' could be LE is not confident that it is the killer's DNA - i.e, touch DNA. Or LE only has a partial DNA profile. Then there is the case of Patty Atkins being missing in Ohio. LE has something they obtained from the primary suspect, but if they test it the entire sample will be used up. There will be nothing left for the defense to test in discovery and therefore the defense council could have a strong reasonable doubt. Maybe LE has a SOURCE for DNA - and are confident it will yield DNA - but it is too small to be tested and allow for the defense to use the same in discovery. Whatever it is I believe LE is in a frustrating situation.