Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #92

[Angelcat13]

Ballpark yes. The hair is wrong.

Are you "local" to Delphi? You can decline to answer if you prefer.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Yeah, I never realized that the guy was that far away from the crime scene.
I wonder what he was doing that made him look suspicious?
I wouldn't think just walking down the highway would be enough. Imo

I called 911 a couple of months ago because a guy was walking alongside a state highway. Wobbling on and off the road. He was going to get himself killed or cause a wreck. An example that got my attention.

 

[FinePrint]

I believe the movie was shown on local t.v a few days before the news conference and the police superintendent watched the movie and thinks the killer may have too and is trying to bluff the killer into fearing they know more than they do. I think the whole news conference was directed by the FBI. They are trying to get the killer to do something stupid, or make an unusual move.

It was on Lifetime at least it was here locally on the Sunday evening before the press conference. 8pm
Lifetime TV Schedule | Lifetime

 

[MsBetsy]

Unless he had blood on him.

True, but then I would think more people would notice a guy walking down the road with blood on him. Imo

 

[SandyQLS]

Saw him NEAR Delphi, which is about 60 miles from Indy.

Thanks! I corrected my post so I don't add to the confusion.

I see people walking by the side of the road all the time in a semi-rural area here. It's not as rural as the Delphi area. My only goal as a driver is not to run them over. It just struck me that a state trooper would be trained to notice things about a person in a way an average driver like myself would not.

Like others have stated, I felt Supt. Carter seemed betrayed, like someone has misled them, someone they know and trusted.

 

[kkdj]

As I awoke this morning it occurred to me that BG is a father of a middle school Delphi child or someone that works at the school and knew the school day was going to be off and planned this. Not necessarily for it to be Abby and Libby, but a female. I also think this "father" knows the monon bridge is a hangout for teens and possibly even dropped his own teen(s) off there that day. I also suspect he grew up in Delphi and has hung out at monon bridge as a teen and sometimes after.
All of the clothes he was wearing (and hats) was to hide his true looks and weight. Now we know imo.

 

[MsBetsy]

Correct. Probably close, but the point I made was he wasn't 60 miles away. That came from someone misreading the statement.

moo

That must be why I had never heard it before.
Still I wish we knew exactly where he was seen.

 

[SandyQLS]

Oh, ok. So we don't really know exactly how close or far he was to the crime scene or any part of the trail. Imo

Sorry MsBetsy. I was reading too fast and made a bad post. I think you are correct above, they have not said.

 

[Stephenie]

My theory on the different sketches.
Let say there are two witnesses that day that saw two different people that day. Then two sketches were created. Then maybe someone said that they think the person in sketch number 2 sure looks like "ole joe" (Not an actual name). And then another says yeah your right that does look like "ole joe", but that cant be him cause he is a well respected person in town. They bring in "ole joe" anyway and ask him where and what he was doing that day. He provides them a loose alibi, they believe him because they never thought it would be him. Maybe he says he was there for a good reason or he has someone vouch for him. They decide that sketch 2 could be "ole joe", looks like him, but nothing else suggests its him, let alone proves it. So they focus on the other mystery person described in sketch 1. This could explain when Carter said in the presser..."we may have even interviewed you"
This is just a theory. Its not even a concrete theory. Just something I thought of.

 

[Moxiegrl]

The article won’t let me copy and paste from my phone for some reason, but I found this interesting. They have not eliminated more then one suspect?
Delphi murders: What we still don't know two years after the slayings of 2 teenagers

 

[masquerading]

Oddly, I’m feeling like this case might’ve come full circle. Because the suspect is now said to be much younger, IMO there’s a far greater likelihood that one or both of the girls knew him personally especially if he was as young as 16 in 2017. Many here have speculated the timing of the PC coincided with a college or university student home in Delphi for Easter. LE have already indicated the murders may have been targeted.

I can’t help but be reminded most of the first early theories involved a younger male who’s interests were maybe thwarted by either of the two. But upon the release of the first sketch of the older guy that quickly changed. But here we are again, age range of 18 or more (40), might look younger.

I agree with this 100%. I'm also thinking that if he appeared to be younger but was actually in his 20s or 30s...what if he had been talking to one or both of the girls, leading them to believe that he was younger than he actually was, and when they somehow found out about his actual age, they tried to cut it off? That probably could've made someone who was already troubled go off the rails. JMO. I've always thought that they must know this guy somehow, even if it was on a completely superficial level (like recognizing his face from around town or something like that).

I apologize if someone already presented this possibility, I wanted to reply to this post before I forgot so I haven't read through the entire thread yet.

 

[TTF14]

My theory on the different sketches.
Let say there are two witnesses that day that saw two different people that day. Then two sketches were created. Then maybe someone said that they think the person in sketch number 2 sure looks like "ole joe" (Not an actual name). And then another says yeah your right that does look like "ole joe", but that cant be him cause he is a well respected person in town. They bring in "ole joe" anyway and ask him where and what he was doing that day. He provides them a loose alibi, they believe him because they never thought it would be him. Maybe he says he was there for a good reason or he has someone vouch for him. They decide that sketch 2 could be "ole joe", looks like him, but nothing else suggests its him, let alone proves it. So they focus on the other mystery person described in sketch 1. This could explain when Carter said in the presser..."we may have even interviewed you"
This is just a theory. Its not even a concrete theory. Just something I thought of.

I think this is very close to being what happened. So, what NOW has come up that made them realize this terrible error?

 

[Peppery]

I once worked at an industrial plant in the midwest. A lot of midwest farmers, construction workers and industrial workers wear layered clothing. It was good to err on the side of extra layers when you left home as you could always take stuff off / put it on, but going home to get clothes was hard.

All that aside, I think you are right. BG is over dressed for that time of the day. Your observation might imply that he left his house at an earlier hour and habitually wore extra clothing. The layered clothing could also imply at farm, construction or industrial background.

Yes, or he may originally be from a colder area.

 

[NotSoGrumpy]

In regards to the "two weeks" time frame, I strongly suspect another press release is on the agenda.

 

[Murder Inc]

That's not the guy they were talking about.

Yes I know it's just an example of why anytime children are murdered the first place I'd look is the church

 

[FinePrint]

Fresh thoughts this morning.

I wish I knew what caused LE to say that sketch #2 is definitely the face of the man on the bridge, and that he for certain is the killer. I just can't get away from the fact that they pivoted from "suspect" to "murderer."

I know I'm harping on it a lot, but that's a big difference in legal terminology that does change the approach. I don't know how else to explain it. There are procedures for dealing with suspects who have not been formally charged, even if circumstantial evidence makes them likely perpetrators.

To have police name someone a murderer after two years of ducking indicates to me that they have something that sealed the deal.

Same exact thoughts on this...."murderer" is definitive!

 

[apples12]

IF the perp is such a religious and accepted member of society, he CAN'T do that: turning himself in. IMO

He could if he knew he was caught and believed that God had a plan.

 

[MsBetsy]

Sorry MsBetsy. I was reading too fast and made a bad post. I think you are correct above, they have not said.

That's Ok! I guess what's important is either he had the wrong guy or he was a witness who was intentionally vague and misleading. Imo

 

[Inthedetails]

IMO if this murder was committed by someone who snapped or lost control on impulse, we would have seen far more concrete evidence or mistakes made by the killer by now.

The terrain and bridge are treacherous. People who commit unplanned acts of violence are far more prone to leaving evidence behind, simply because they're not prepared to deal with a clean-up. Perps get sloppy, they leave fingerprints or DNA behind, they lack the resources to deal with hiding blood or signs of a struggle.

The only reason we have what we DO have on this guy is that Libby was suspicious and started recording. (I don't know what LE has, they may have more, but I'm just working off of what we know.)

We're talking about broad daylight in the middle of a weekday when the trail was populated and school was out of session. I know this seems like a risk to a lot of people and that's valid, but consider that despite the circumstances, we have almost nothing to go on.

That doesn't sound like an unplanned loss of control. BG had to have planned at least some part of what he was going to do, and targeted where he was going to do it. Regardless of how he decided upon Abby and Libby or found them at that location at that time, he was already prepared to commit violence.

Ugh. I just got the feeling when I read your insightful post that someone in LE would know how to commit the crime quickly, efficiently, and without leaving evidence.

Never seriously considered that before, and I don't like considering it now....but....

jmo

 

[apples12]

I agree and why would he now?
He’s facing the death penalty so that’s good insentive not to. Even if he has a pinch of conscience he won’t turn himself in. The cops will have to find him.

I respectfully disagree. If he knows the jig is up and has convinced himself it’s in God’s hands then I see this guy turning himself in.