Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #90

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkstar105 said:
But speaking of the car being parked at that abandoned building, I think I noticed a discrepancy. The press conference stated that it was parked there on the 14th. The newspaper stated that it was parked there "on the day the girls went missing." That was the 13th wasn't it? I would be more inclined to believe the police at the press conference. What am I missing?
If the car was parked there on the 14th instead of the 13th (I suppose it could have been parked there both days) I am thinking the time on the 14th that the policeman mentioned at the press conference would have been during the search right?
What am I missing?
Click to expand...
They corrected the date later in the press conference.

The car was there on the day the girls went missing.

jmo
 
ab01 said:
I think he probably just uses guys in his everyday normal conversations.... hey guys let’s go, see you guys later......moo

I read more into the tone rather than the actual words he said....jmo
Click to expand...

I have noticed that people have many words available (especially because we all watch TV and movies) and they instinctively choose to use different ones in different contexts. Abducting two people isn't the same as asking them if they want pizza.

For example, it's interesting that on this forum we don't call Abby and Libby 'guys', but we do use the word to describe the perp.

A police officer who is about to arrest you and your accomplice won't say "Guys, put your hands up." Someone might say to police "Guys, I'm innocent", but smarter ones will say "Officers".

As the detective said, this crime was about power. The word 'guys' is used in an everyday context, because it avoids expressing power. When you want to express your power, or acknowledge someone else's, you don't normally use that word.
 
Mountain Misst said:
Thanks. Did you use the term 'guys' to include females prior to 1980?
I probably would have been better served to refer to adult males using the term 'guys' for young females - rather than us enlightened modern chickidees,
Click to expand...
It is very common to use 'you guys' even if referring to young females, and has been since the 70's as far as I know.
 
Was the vehicle ever refered to by LE as specifically “a car”? I don’t recall it being called anything except a vehicle. So maybe a truck. Semi truck. A motorcycle. Church van. Tow truck. School bus. Ambulance. Golf cart. Something else?

ETA the new video is just creepy as hell...​
 
Last edited:
They may have DNA but are unsure as to how it plays into the crime or if it's even related to the crime (ie. they found a cigarette butt or soda can near the girls). Maybe it hasn't been matched to anyone yet. I've also considered the idea that they have a really good idea of who did it, but for whatever reason their alibi is a REALLY good one so they feel stuck.
 
Hobgoblinmarket said:
Why the press conference if they have dna linking to someone? Seems like they'd trail and get evidence to match if so. This made it seem like they have nothing via dna and need a confession or someone linking the person to the crime.
Click to expand...

If they’re working with familial DNA—that can take a long time, with no guarantee of success. They need to work every angle they have.
 
A certain non MSM reporter? Someone who always hangs around, wants to know what they know. Someone who went missing right after the murders? A local to delphi, or someone who spends a lot of time there? Maybe someone who makes videos about the subject? He might be in the room...


MJPeony said:
I’ve been heavily leaning towards a religious angle since the presser, but could the perp be part of the media? Wants to know what we know, could be in this room, never thought we’d go in this direction....

I’m just throwing thoughts out there. Might somehow be related to the 2 weeks of no media thing- maybe they want to give him some leash for some reason (?)
Click to expand...
 
possibly way too out there thoughts:

LE have an idea of who BG is.
They still need conformation or that missing puzzle piece.

The "witness" may have gone to LE themselves.
The "witness" may have been approached by LE first.
Working in conjunction with LE, they provide LE with something no one else would know or are asked to provide something, like:
"He just told me he read/saw The Shack"
What if it were a family member who is the "witness"?
"We watched it together right after Feb 13th" or "we just watched it last night"
Maybe they were only told about this "new direction" (new approach?) right before the presser.
Maybe they were only asked to help persue or frighten BG with this "new direction" minutes before the presser.
Anyway, why were they only filled in this morning and so close to the presser?
Why did they leave abruptly and so visibly distraught? For effect? Just to send a message? For protection?
Was BG in the room?
What if they only gave that info right before they left?

So many hints.
So many questions.

MOO.
 
kc1023 said:
Yeah... so odd. The impression was that it was something new, right?

So this makes me think, IMO, that today was really and truly a set up for LE to communicate directly with BG. It sure doesn't seem as if it was to release "new" info anyway. Seemed like mostly an opportunity for Doug Carter to talk to BG with some fluff thrown in to satisfy the rest of us. I mean, I'm ok with that if it works...

But why now? So confusing. I trust they know what they are doing but I'm sure baffled. Why now?
Click to expand...
Who is 'BG' that I keep seeing referred to?
 
wary said:
If they’re working with familial DNA—that can take a long time, with no guarantee of success. They need to work every angle they have.
Click to expand...
True, but I now question if they have DNA in the first place.

If they do, I fear it’s of low quality; enough to exclude, but not much good for anything else.

I was hopeful of a Parabon “Snapshot” today, a detailed description of this guy’s physical appearance.

The turnaround time for that seems to be fairly quick, and it is generally followed by genealogical research, which as you say, can take a long time.

The lack of the first, makes me question the viability of the second.

Strongly.
 
MassGuy said:
True, but I now question if they have DNA in the first place.

If they do, I fear it’s of low quality; enough to exclude, but not much good for anything else.

I was hopeful of a Parabon “Snapshot” today, a detailed description of this guy’s physical appearance.

The turnaround time for that seems to be fairly quick, and it is generally followed by genealogical research, which as you say, can take a long time.

The lack of the first, makes me question the viability of the second.

Strongly.
Click to expand...

Very good point. Also—I’ve worried that whatever DNA they have comes from a source that isn’t necessarily connected with the crime. So—are they going to do a Parabon Snapshot, to track down someone who smoked a cigarette or chewed a wad of gum in the park, the day before the murders?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 182 more.
Total: 4,451 (members: 183, guests: 4,268)

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
4,268
Total visitors
4,451
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,821
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top