Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #131

[Yemelyan]

However, the Court's ruling was very narrow and did not otherwise change the third-party doctrine related to other business records that might incidentally reveal location information, nor overrule prior decisions concerning conventional surveillance techniques and tools such as security cameras. The Court did not expand its ruling on other matters related to cellphones not presented in Carpenter, including real-time CSLI or tower dumps (a download of information about all the devices that connected to a particular cell site during a particular interval).

But, the point here is that the rulings on this matter are an evolving area of law. So, if LE in Delphi feel that they can solve the case without getting into this tenuous area, why would they introduce investigative tactics that have the potential to ruin their case? Do you really think no one on the multiagency task force has yet considered doing a DNA sweep?

 

[EndlessEnigma]

If you are talking about the murderer Gary Schara (Agawam), he was a suspect right after the murder occurred and was caught through advances in DNA technology, including the use of Parabon snapshot. LE had a court ordered warrant for the collection of his specific DNA, it was not a voluntary sweep. (source: Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder)

Also I want to point out that though a DNA sweep was done in Truro, it did not solve that murder either. The suspect, the man eventually convicted of the crime, had already submitted a DNA sample when questioned by police prior to the sweep. Due to crime lab backlogs, they just hadn't matched his sample to the one at the crime scene yet.

Here is data on how well DNA dragnet work solving cases:

And contrary to the claims of law enforcement, DNA dragnets do not have an impressive success rate in catching criminals. The Baltimore Sun recently reported on a study by researchers at the University of Nebraska that focused on eighteen DNA dragnet cases. “Only one — which focused on just 25 nursing home employees — successfully identified the suspect,” the paper reported. A recent ACLU report, according to USA Today, found similarly low levels of success. “More than 7,000 people have been tested in DNA dragnets nationwide since 1995,” the paper noted, but “only one has identified a suspect.”

Source: DNA Dragnets

Finally, a major reason LE should be reluctant to use "voluntary" sweeps is because what they do with the DNA samples from non-suspects is a serious legal question. Some LE departments were promising to destroy DNA samples from non-suspects but were instead entering them into databases for comparisons to other unsolved crimes.

Plenty of investigative and legal strategies that were once considered okay are now restricted in use to last resort situations because of their tenuous constitutional status. In my opinion, if you read the comments of both LE and prosecution in the Delphi case, they don't believe they are in that last resort area at this time. For the evolving legal status of dragnets, read more here:

DNA Dragnet

Thanks. But the Gary S story is more involved than what you have stated. They developed a composite drawing from DNA then went to each suspect to collect “voluntary” DNA. He felt the pressure, took off, attempted suicide...you know how it ends. He was caught. It worked.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

If you are talking about the murderer Gary Schara (Agawam), he was a suspect right after the murder occurred and was caught through advances in DNA technology, including the use of Parabon snapshot. LE had a court ordered warrant for the collection of his specific DNA, it was not a voluntary sweep. (source: Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder)

Also I want to point out that though a DNA sweep was done in Truro, it did not solve that murder either. The suspect, the man eventually convicted of the crime, had already submitted a DNA sample when questioned by police prior to the sweep. Due to crime lab backlogs, they just hadn't matched his sample to the one at the crime scene yet.

Here is data on how well DNA dragnet work solving cases:

And contrary to the claims of law enforcement, DNA dragnets do not have an impressive success rate in catching criminals. The Baltimore Sun recently reported on a study by researchers at the University of Nebraska that focused on eighteen DNA dragnet cases. “Only one — which focused on just 25 nursing home employees — successfully identified the suspect,” the paper reported. A recent ACLU report, according to USA Today, found similarly low levels of success. “More than 7,000 people have been tested in DNA dragnets nationwide since 1995,” the paper noted, but “only one has identified a suspect.”

Source: DNA Dragnets

Finally, a major reason LE should be reluctant to use "voluntary" sweeps is because what they do with the DNA samples from non-suspects is a serious legal question. Some LE departments were promising to destroy DNA samples from non-suspects but were instead entering them into databases for comparisons to other unsolved crimes.

Plenty of investigative and legal strategies that were once considered okay are now restricted in use to last resort situations because of their tenuous constitutional status. In my opinion, if you read the comments of both LE and prosecution in the Delphi case, they don't believe they are in that last resort area at this time. For the evolving legal status of dragnets, read more here:

DNA Dragnet

Thanks. But the Gary S story is more involved than what you have stated. They developed a composite drawing from DNA then went to each suspect to collect “voluntary” DNA. He felt the pressure, took off, attempted suicide...you know how it ends. He was caught. It worked.

But, the point here is that the rulings on this matter are an evolving area of law. So, if LE in Delphi feel that they can solve the case without getting into this tenuous area, why would they introduce investigative tactics that have the potential to ruin their case? Do you really think no one on the multiagency task force has yet considered doing a DNA sweep?

No because in this case they don’t know if the dna even belongs to the killer.

 

[Yemelyan]

Thanks. But the Gary S story is more involved than what you have stated. They developed a composite drawing from DNA then went to each suspect to collect “voluntary” DNA. He felt the pressure, took off, attempted suicide...you know how it ends. He was caught. It worked.

The link I posted shows that when they went to collect his DNA, they had a court ordered warrant.

Officials have said the endgame began when a state trooper went to Schara’s West Springfield apartment in September 2017 with a court order for him to provide a DNA sample. But Schara wasn’t home, and he left the area after learning about the trooper’s visit. He was arrested on Sept. 16 at Johnson Memorial Medical Center in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, where he sought treatment after he tried to kill himself.

Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder

With a court order, LE would have been able to procure the sample. It was not voluntary and it was not a sweep in the way that you and others are recommending for all the males in the town of Delphi.

You've actually hit on something very important. There has to be some type of other evidence showing that for a particular pool of suspects there is a greater likelihood than not that the suspect comes from that group. Maybe that's "people we were already suspicious of who also look exactly like the Parabon sketch." Maybe that's "these are all the male employees at a nursing home where a victim was raped." But it's not so broad as "all the males in a particular town or county."

 

[EndlessEnigma]

Exactly. It was called voluntary, but in fact was a coercive pressure tactic, similar to how lie detector tests are used. This is why it has been challenged as unconstitutional.[/that’s the only reason they called it a voluntary search. They are protecting themselves. I get what you are saying about personal rights. A good DA can work around them in the interest of solving a crime.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

The link I posted shows that when they went to collect his DNA, they had a court ordered warrant.

Officials have said the endgame began when a state trooper went to Schara’s West Springfield apartment in September 2017 with a court order for him to provide a DNA sample. But Schara wasn’t home, and he left the area after learning about the trooper’s visit. He was arrested on Sept. 16 at Johnson Memorial Medical Center in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, where he sought treatment after he tried to kill himself.

Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder

With a court order, LE would have been able to procure the sample. It was not voluntary and it was not a sweep in the way that you and others are recommending for all the males in the town of Delphi.

You've actually hit on something very important. There has to be some type of other evidence showing that for a particular pool of suspects there is a greater likelihood than not that the suspect comes from that group. Maybe that's "people we were already suspicious of who also look exactly like the Parabon sketch." Maybe that's "these are all the male employees at a nursing home where a victim was raped." But it's not so broad as "all the males in a particular town or county."

I’m not recommending a sweep in the Delphi case. It wouldn’t work here. They don’t know whose dna they have, whether it’s the killer’s, a searcher’s or law enforcement. I’m just saying that in some cases the sweep does work. It can be a valuable tool.

 

[EndlessEnigma]

The link I posted shows that when they went to collect his DNA, they had a court ordered warrant.

Officials have said the endgame began when a state trooper went to Schara’s West Springfield apartment in September 2017 with a court order for him to provide a DNA sample. But Schara wasn’t home, and he left the area after learning about the trooper’s visit. He was arrested on Sept. 16 at Johnson Memorial Medical Center in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, where he sought treatment after he tried to kill himself.

Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder

With a court order, LE would have been able to procure the sample. It was not voluntary and it was not a sweep in the way that you and others are recommending for all the males in the town of Delphi.

You've actually hit on something very important. There has to be some type of other evidence showing that for a particular pool of suspects there is a greater likelihood than not that the suspect comes from that group. Maybe that's "people we were already suspicious of who also look exactly like the Parabon sketch." Maybe that's "these are all the male employees at a nursing home where a victim was raped." But it's not so broad as "all the males in a particular town or county."

Just want to say Gary was not the only suspect.

 

[Yemelyan]

I’m not recommending a sweep in the Delphi case. It wouldn’t work here. They don’t know whose dna they have, whether it’s the killer’s, a searcher’s or law enforcement. I’m just saying that in some cases the sweep does work. It can be a valuable tool.

No, it wouldn't work here. If attempted, it would be coercive. We agree on that.

I disagree that it works a great deal of the time in situations like the Truro one (which is similar to Delphi) for reasons and statistics I cited.

It may work in cases like the nursing home rape example I gave, though I still maintain that the constitutionality of how LE focus on POIs if they don't get a match, is disputed.

 

[Nancy1954]

That's a very good point about primping, but also not sure they were the primping type of girls.

The reason I really lean toward a planned meeting is that they encountered BG on the bridge - that seems like a great place to tell victims to meet him because it puts them in such a vulnerable and specific place.

Also, it seems like they knew right away he was creepy and meant trouble. Why? He's not creepy looking on his own - just a nondescript man who looks like so many other men in the area. It's not creepy simply to be walking on a bridge.

I think they knew he was creepy because they were expecting to meet someone up there, and realized when he was coming toward them that they had been tricked. So, they started taking photos and recording him.

That's just a theory I came up with a long while ago and I haven't shaken it since it fits well, imo, though I could be persuaded to change my mind.

jmo

I in no way meant to infer that I thought the girls were the "primping" type, I don't think that at all actually. I only meant that I thought if they had gone there to meet a boy that they would have wanted to make a good impression. You know.. their attire and their hair. I can't speak to Libby's attire or hair, but Abby's own mom said that Abby was wearing an old top of hers. And if you have seen prior pictures of Abby's hair up on her head you can see that in that photo on the bridge her hair was hastily fixed. Teen girls (and everyone else in my opinion), want to make a good first impression when meeting a new person. From everything that I have seen/read, Abby and Libby were the sports types, "primping" wasn't on their list of important things. I hope that helps explain better what I meant.

How do we know that BG isn't creepy on his own when we can't even see his face clearly? Perhaps it was his mannerisms toward them? Something he might have possibly said to them if they had met up with him on the trail before they even got to the bridge? Or perhaps just a 'gut feeling' that we sometimes get about someone/something.

None of us know what actually happened out there that afternoon except for the monster and two deceased young teenagers. LE knows more than us and tells us that it was not a planned meeting that these girls had with the monster. That it was "opportunity." I have no reason not to believe them. Even my prior thought of them(or one of them) possibly being stalked goes right out the window with LE's latest words to the public.

Like someone else has said on here.. and I totally agree.. in the end, we are all just doing our best to try to help.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

I in no way meant to infer that I thought the girls were the "primping" type, I don't think that at all actually. I only meant that I thought if they had gone there to meet a boy that they would have wanted to make a good impression. You know.. their attire and their hair. I can't speak to Libby's attire or hair, but Abby's own mom said that Abby was wearing an old top of hers. And if you have seen prior pictures of Abby's hair up on her head you can see that in that photo on the bridge her hair was hastily fixed. Teen girls (and everyone else in my opinion), want to make a good first impression when meeting a new person. From everything that I have seen/read, Abby and Libby were the sports types, "primping" wasn't on their list of important things. I hope that helps explain better what I meant.

How do we know that BG isn't creepy on his own when we can't even see his face clearly? Perhaps it was his mannerisms toward them? Something he might have possibly said to them if they had met up with him on the trail before they even got to the bridge? Or perhaps just a 'gut feeling' that we sometimes get about someone/something.

None of us know what actually happened out there that afternoon except for the monster and two deceased young teenagers. LE knows more than us and tells us that it was not a planned meeting that these girls had with the monster. That it was "opportunity." I have no reason not to believe them. Even my prior thought of them(or one of them) possibly being stalked goes right out the window with LE's latest words to the public.

Like someone else has said on here.. and I totally agree.. in the end, we are all just doing our best to try to help.

JMO

I think the idea of one or both of them being stalked is possible in the very short-term, as in he saw them driving on the road to the trail, or on the trail itself, and something about one girl, or both, triggered him to follow. They became his target at that point. It was still opportunistic in that he got the opening to isolate and gain control them. JMO

I, personally, see this scenario over him lurking the trail for hours, days, or longer, just waiting for the right victim and timing.

 

[Charlot123]

If you are talking about the murderer Gary Schara (Agawam), he was a suspect right after the murder occurred and was caught through advances in DNA technology, including the use of Parabon snapshot. LE had a court ordered warrant for the collection of his specific DNA, it was not a voluntary sweep. (source: Lisa Ziegert case: Gary Schara pleads guilty in 1992 Agawam murder)

Also I want to point out that though a DNA sweep was done in Truro, it did not solve that murder either. The suspect, the man eventually convicted of the crime, had already submitted a DNA sample when questioned by police prior to the sweep. Due to crime lab backlogs, they just hadn't matched his sample to the one at the crime scene yet.

Here is data on how well DNA dragnet work solving cases:

And contrary to the claims of law enforcement, DNA dragnets do not have an impressive success rate in catching criminals. The Baltimore Sun recently reported on a study by researchers at the University of Nebraska that focused on eighteen DNA dragnet cases. “Only one — which focused on just 25 nursing home employees — successfully identified the suspect,” the paper reported. A recent ACLU report, according to USA Today, found similarly low levels of success. “More than 7,000 people have been tested in DNA dragnets nationwide since 1995,” the paper noted, but “only one has identified a suspect.”

Source: DNA Dragnets

Finally, a major reason LE should be reluctant to use "voluntary" sweeps is because what they do with the DNA samples from non-suspects is a serious legal question. Some LE departments were promising to destroy DNA samples from non-suspects but were instead entering them into databases for comparisons to other unsolved crimes.

Plenty of investigative and legal strategies that were once considered okay are now restricted in use to last resort situations because of their tenuous constitutional status. In my opinion, if you read the comments of both LE and prosecution in the Delphi case, they don't believe they are in that last resort area at this time. For the evolving legal status of dragnets, read more here:

DNA Dragnet

In answer to your phrase that DNA dragnet is not too successful in catching criminals. I don’t know the statistics. But the article that I did not link, from Masslive, says, the police had success when, years later, they looked at a short list of people who refused to give DNA.

Schara was arrested and charged in September 2017 after state and local police took a fresh run at a short list of 11 suspects who had refused to volunteer DNA samples over the years.

Again, maybe the refusal to give DNA per se is not symptomatic, as the other 10 people refused to give it for some reasons unrelated to this murder. But 1:11 is not a bad number.

If you are one of the possible suspects in the murder, and you know you did not commit it, DNA is also the best way to exonerate you, at any point of the trial.

I don’t know if Masslive is an approved source, or not, hence I did not link it. It is very accessible.

My take from the article: just the fact that the killer lived for 25 years in the community, is scary.

 

[Charlot123]

Deleted

 

[photographer4]

Hmmm, interesting. But they would have found him creepy had he been futher along the bridge, then turned and walked past them then turn and walk towards them again. That would be creepy! If they'd been planning on meeting someone there, don't you think that person would have shown up, or at least let the cops know they were supposed to meet up but didn't? Just playing devils advocate here Unless, the murderer catfished them, posing as a male friend or interest. Something definitely made them uneasy to a point they found him "creepy".
The thing that baffles me, is if BG was planning on just killing them, why didn't he just push one of them over the bridge? Why stalk them the length of the bridge, then down the hill, through the creek and to their final locations where he brutally killed them. It would have been much easier for him to control 1 of the girls, than both I pray every day this guy is caught.
<modsnip>

For some killers, part of the enjoyment comes from stalking the prey. Hunting them. Seeing how far they can go, knowing what is coming while the victim remains unaware.

 

[minazoe]

the only thing is "opportunity"....covers things like snapchat..he could have seen his opportunity on snapchat or when he overheard something or right before he followed them from a number of possible locations.

it doesn't really say how this opportunity appeared to the killer...it doesn't even really imply they did not know him somehow maybe indirectly..

just not specific. I don't know regarding primping , because unprimped can be a thing too..and primped at the bridge may not be cool girl.. so I'm not too phased by that..it doesn't convince me..but let me add this...

a little while ago we discussed this and it came to my attention that there is a basic rule about passing people on that bridge, and that the may have looked like they were waiting there to meet someone, when in fact they were waiting for BG to finish crossing.

I hope this helps..it didn't 100 percent rule out cat fishing for me but it somewhat made sense that they would not want to pass him.

mOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

It is amazing to me that even though we complain and beg for more information from LE, that when they actually give us information...the girls were killed where they were found, the girls were victims of opportunity, we have thoroughly searched social media and found nothing, etc...we choose to not believe it.

 

[Yemelyan]

In answer to your phrase that DNA dragnet is not too successful in catching criminals. I don’t know the statistics. But the article that I did not link, from Masslive, says, the police had success when, years later, they looked at a short list of people who refused to give DNA.

Schara was arrested and charged in September 2017 after state and local police took a fresh run at a short list of 11 suspects who had refused to volunteer DNA samples over the years.

Again, maybe the refusal to give DNA per se is not symptomatic, as the other 10 people refused to give it for some reasons unrelated to this murder. But 1:11 is not a bad number.

If you are one of the possible suspects in the murder, and you know you did not commit it, DNA is also the best way to exonerate you, at any point of the trial.

I don’t know if Masslive is an approved source, or not, hence I did not link it. It is very accessible.

My take from the article: just the fact that the killer lived for 25 years in the community, is scary.

Masslive is a Massachusetts news source, it's MSM.

Taking samples from 11 people who were POI anyway, for various reasons, (as in the Gary Schara case) is not a DNA sweep/dragnet. It's just investigating known POIs. Sweeps take place when large numbers of people are asked to give DNA, such as all the residents of a particular town, or if you asked everyone (hundreds of people) employed at the Packers Corp to give DNA, for example, with NO other evidence or suspicion of involvement. It's a pressure tactic and it is coercive. How many people at Packers, for example, might refuse on the grounds that they were previous offenders (though uninvolved in the Delphi murders) or undocumented workers?

As I cited and quoted in my post above, the study looked at 7000 people who gave DNA in dragnets since 1995 and only 1 suspect was identified in all those investigations. One.

 

[Boxer]

I know what snap chat was used for, generally, especially around the time of the murders. It had one MAJOR use. Frankly, it seems odd to me that a parent would be using snap chat. I do not see that as normal.

MOO Snapchat was a popular app and talking to a teen in their app is something I would see a parent doing.
The fact that a screen shot would preserve the images that were supposed to disappear wasn't widely known yet. Also IIRC the company server retained the images for a while so a subpeona could retrieve them.

 

[Yemelyan]

MOO Snapchat was a popular app and talking to a teen in their app is something I would see a parent doing.
The fact that a screen shot would preserve the images that were supposed to disappear wasn't widely known yet. Also IIRC the company server retained the images for a while so a subpeona could retrieve them.

I agree with this and, did anyone consider that as Libby's mom she might have downloaded and used the app partly in order to keep tabs on what her children were posting to Snap? To make sure she understood the app and how kids were using it? I find her actions totally normal IMO.

 

[Boxer]

App I think would be most dangerous to them was Libby's Kik app.

 

[Yemelyan]

App I think would be most dangerous to them was Libby's Kik app.

I agree with this as well, though even with Kik there are things LE can do to recover data. Investigators recovered incriminating info in Kik that led to the resolution of the Nicole Lovell murder case.