Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #129

[Skully]

I can see this interpretation based on the "...a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene." wording alone. However, when taken into context with the paragraph that came before, it sounds to me that there was a lot more physical evidence at the scene than at a typical, cut and dry murder. JMO

The very first case I handled as prosecuting attorney back in 1987 and 1988 -- a fellow shot his wife in Deer Creek, Indiana. And, he pinned her up against the refrigerator, shot her in the back of the head. She fell on the floor, he shot her twice more in the chest. So, you had a dead person with three bullets in them. They were dead. Um, he was seen at the scene. You know, things like that.

All I can say about the situation with Abby and Libby is that there was a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene, and it’s probably not what you would imagine.

Thank you. That makes more sense when read that way. And it is not what I would imagine.

 

[Yemelyan]

I've read the earlier threads and news articles. And I wouldn't be rehashing it if I thought it had been hashed sufficiently already.

I don't dispute that somebody thought they saw two deer (not Kelsi though - and maybe not even the person who Kelsi was communicating with about the shoe) - I guess some man in the same search group as the person who talked to Kelsi about the shoe - so I guess in that sense it becomes almost like third person hearsay - or at least something that I think it should be acceptable on these threads to rehash..).

"Then the same person put up his phone and saw two deer in the ground moving." "And so, he (again, I think is a different person than the one who yelled up about the shoe) was looking to see what it might be, and he saw two deer standing up there, and when he saw them, he moved the camera down, and that's when he saw them."
-------

"was looking to see what it might be" ?
"in the ground moving" ?
"two deer standing up there" ?
"and when he saw them, he moved the camera down" ?
"and that's when he saw them" ?

From Kelsi, who got it from the girl, who got it from the guy with the phone (on zoom).

It seems unlikely to me that the deer were standing anywhere close to two dead girls. And I seriously doubt that the deer were standing within 100 yards or so of the search group.. So just how far away were the deer? How far above the girls? Could the man have only thought he saw two deer - when actually he was looking directly at the crime scene? I think it's possible. Would LE have told us if that is what happened?

From a distance in the woods, deer and deer antlers can look like a lot of different things (branches, for one). I have also thought before that BG may have been a deer hunter. We've also been told he left a "signature".

In an attempt to ID the perp, and knowing that there was a "signature" (or more than one "signature") left at the crime scene - and that the crime had a "twist" - many of us have been speculating about the crime scene itself.

It is not unreasonable to question whether a searcher in the woods, looking at trees and branches and leaves, from a long way away, and speaking through another party to Kelsi (three translaters if we count Kelsi) might've related seeing something that they only thought was two deer.

Again, IF LE came to find out that it wasn't two deer - and that instead it turned out to be the "signature" - they would not have released this info to the public, and we would all still be certain that somebody saw two deer. It's at least within the realm of possibility. Just speculating and trying to think outside the box. Jmo

TL - from whom we originally heard that the crime has a twist to it that he had never seen in his career before - recently did a Q&A with the Carroll County Comet where he was explicitly asked "what is the twist? Is it that you have video of the killer?" And he answered what "the twist" was. It's just the fact that in Carroll County when people go missing they have always been located and none of those missing people were murdered in the woods. That's it. That's the twist he was thinking of. It's not anything really crazy or to do with the crime scene or signatures.

The funny thing is, I didn't realize it but he actually already told us this. I re-listened to several episodes of "Down the Hill" yesterday and there is a part where TL is talking about how he heard that the victims were found. He was at the command center at the fire station and he describes the "twist" being that they were found murdered instead of alive and how that made him feel as someone in a leadership position. I believe this was from episode 2.

 

[Indyhandmade]

For many jobs too like lifeguard, surgeon, (my sister was a summer lifeguard in HS, is now a surgeon and got fingerprinted for both) nurse maybe, EMT?, maybe pilot, anyone who works with kids I’d assume, maybe people who work in jails? Government jobs. Maybe people who work with a lot of other peoples money.

I’ve only known healthcare workers to be fingerprinted if they work for government facilities, like the VA, corrections, and maybe schools. Community hospitals and clinics do not require fingerprinting.

 

[Yemelyan]

I can see this interpretation based on the "...a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene." wording alone. However, when taken into context with the paragraph that came before, it sounds to me that there was a lot more physical evidence at the scene than at a typical, cut and dry murder. JMO

The very first case I handled as prosecuting attorney back in 1987 and 1988 -- a fellow shot his wife in Deer Creek, Indiana. And, he pinned her up against the refrigerator, shot her in the back of the head. She fell on the floor, he shot her twice more in the chest. So, you had a dead person with three bullets in them. They were dead. Um, he was seen at the scene. You know, things like that.

All I can say about the situation with Abby and Libby is that there was a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene, and it’s probably not what you would imagine.

I very much agree. Listening to the entirety of the context of his statement shows that he means there was more physical evidence at the crime scene than you would expect, and some of it was odd, and some of it is not what you would imagine.

What is physical evidence? Physical evidence is a legal term, and remember RI is a former prosecutor. Physical evidence is any object or item that establishes that a crime has been committed or establishes a link between a crime and its perpetrator or crime and its victim. Physical evidence can be hair, body fluids, fibers, dirt, footprints, paint scrapings (in terms of trace evidence) or larger items left behind such as bindings or restraints, notes, weapons, clothing, the list of examples could go on to include any item that establishes a link between a particular perpetrator and the crime.

 

[Skully]

Physical evidence can also be any items collected at the crime scene, such as cigarette butts, soda cans, paper container or food wrappers; anything that you collect in and around the crime scene. You can always test it and see if you get any useful DNA or prints, but you collect it because it is there.

 

[Yemelyan]

I have a question about fingerprints. Does anyone remember how often, and where, we get fingerprinted?

I remember at least twice, the first time was bureaucratic, and the second time, something exceptionally routine. I don't remember being fingerprinted for the passport, though.

But - the army, the Navy, any immigrant, I would assume. Definitely green cards. How come there is not enough in all databases to compare to a partial?

Well, I'd ask this question...how many of those databases that are not directly maintained by LE interface with those that do? The criminal background check for civilians (the kind that teachers get) might, but I do not believe the military ones do. What I mean by that is, they are not open for LE to trawl through hunting for matches when they don't even know the name of the person they are looking for.

It's actually the same answer for DNA. A poster here who claimed to be involved in LE said that the military has DNA databases and will work with LE. Yes, if you have a warrant and a name of who you are looking for (which Delphi doesn't have). They don't open their DNA database meant to identify deceased soldiers for LE every time police need to go outside of CODIS. Pretty sure it's the same for any non-criminal fingerprint database. But JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I wonder what made them trace him clear back to the trailhead. Do they consider that to be where the bridge begins or where the signs are located near the drop-off point?

 

[Yemelyan]

I wonder what made them trace him clear back to the trailhead. Do they consider that to be where the bridge begins or where the signs are located near the drop-off point?

Carter said it was right by the trailhead sign.

 

[TL4S]

I wonder what made them trace him clear back to the trailhead. Do they consider that to be where the bridge begins or where the signs are located near the drop-off point?

I've wondered about that myself. I've considered, perhaps, that some of the witnesses saw him there on the trail prior to the murders, or maybe something in the audio indicates the girls encountered him earlier on the trail, or maybe it's simply where the girls take their fateful turn towards the bridge. JMO

 

[TL4S]

Carter said it was right by the trailhead sign.

Has it been specified if it's the trailhead near Freedom bridge, or the one on the trail near where the girls were dropped off?

 

[Yemelyan]

Has it been specified if it's the trailhead near Freedom bridge, or the one on the trail near where the girls were dropped off?

At the Mary Gerard Nature Center entrance where they were dropped off. It's evidently not the same sign now as it was back then.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I've wondered about that myself. I've considered, perhaps, that some of the witnesses saw him there on the trail prior to the murders, or maybe something in the audio indicates the girls encountered him earlier on the trail, or maybe it's simply where the girls take their fateful turn towards the bridge. JMO

Since I'm among the 'He's a spitter" group, I wonder if he was spitting tobacco all over the place.

 

[TL4S]

Since I'm among the 'He's a spitter" group, I wonder if he was spitting tobacco all over the place.

That would be great if he was, because I'd imagine they would have a lot of DNA if that was the case.

 

[Skully]

.

 

[Yemelyan]

Here's my theory on the deer seen by the searcher. I don't know whether the searcher really saw two deer on the ridge above where the girls were found, or if he saw movement that he later interpreted to be deer. But I do know that we humans will come up with mythical or symbolic elements to help us assign meaning to, or cope with, extreme emotional distress like the searchers and families were under that morning. It's pretty obvious to me that whatever was seen or not seen, the story about seeing the deer is less about the crime scene itself and more about the two deer being symbolic of the girls' spirits "watching" over the scene. In a way, leading the searchers right to the bodies.

 

[Ekliptika]

Physical evidence can also be any items collected at the crime scene, such as cigarette butts, soda cans, paper container or food wrappers; anything that you collect in and around the crime scene. You can always test it and see if you get any useful DNA or prints, but you collect it because it is there.

When something is characterized as physical evidence in relations to a crime scene, is that all the items found no matter whether it is to be considered related to the crime or is it only those items LE suspects is related to the crime?

 

[Yemelyan]

When something is characterized as physical evidence in relations to a crime scene, is that all the items found no matter whether it is to be considered related to the crime or is it only those items LE suspects is related to the crime?

It's really anything recovered at the crime scene because at that point in time, investigators do not know what is related and what is not. At trial, it would be defined more narrowly as that which was used in the commission of the crime or establishes the link between perpetrator and the crime. IMO

 

[Skully]

When something is characterized as physical evidence in relations to a crime scene, is that all the items found no matter whether it is to be considered related to the crime or is it only those items LE suspects is related to the crime?

Most agencies have a forensic team, but the detectives are on site, so the decision as to what to collect is made by both. They work together. You can't know what is relevant to your crime scene unless you collect it. If you see something near by or close, it may be relevant, so you take it.

 

[TL4S]

I really appreciate HLN for their work in the Delphi case, but I don't think I agree with their theory about BG being at the south end of the bridge (unless I'm misunderstanding them). Why would he be there? It's not a likely spot to watch for random victims, IMO. And why would he then get on the bridge and head north only to turn around and come back as seen on the video? Would he really take time to check if anyone was coming, especially when he could likely see there was nobody else on the bridge? That only gives more time for someone else to enter the picture or the girls to react, imo. Just my thoughts...

 

[Skully]

I really appreciate HLN for their work in the Delphi case, but I don't think I agree with their theory about BG being at the south end of the bridge (unless I'm misunderstanding them). Why would he be there? It's not a likely spot to watch for random victims, IMO. And why would he then get on the bridge and head north only to turn around and come back as seen on the video? Would he really take time to check if anyone was coming, especially when he could likely see there was nobody else on the bridge? That only gives more time for someone else to enter the picture or the girls to react, imo. Just my thoughts...

I agree, I just couldn't find that screen shot in the video of the bridge and then the yellow dotted line they used to depict where he was on the South end. But I think he came up behind them, not that he was there already waiting for them. JMO