Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #108

[Krwiley60]

I try to think of what kind of evidence LE could actually have.

There was a cigarette found, but that was found in the water. I'm not sure which way the current is moving or where it was found but unless it was caught up in some brush against the embankment near the crime scene I would guess it could have come from anyone, could be from a searcher who flicked it into the water while on the bridge. Possibly under garments found tangled up in some brush on the water edge...

What else could the suspect have left behind? Shoe prints, a piece of his clothing, a weapon??

Fingerprints

 

[crazychris]

I would have to guess yes but MOO. Your point is a good one. Could it have been seen by someone who then committed the crime? It's not improbable.

Have just seen the screenshot today. Bit shocking. Doubt there's any connection but that's just my opinion.

 

[MistyWaters]

Plaid shirt = flannel shirt IMO

According to the GH video, it was a man wearing a plaid coat, no mention of a shirt whatsoever. That was my only point.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Can someone of interest really be ruled out just from an interview or alibi?

Guilty people lie all the time in interviews. A rock solid alibi can definitely rule someone out, but there have many instances of people giving false alibis too. There was a case where a man murdered his wife, and as he was the husband, he was one of the first people interviewed by LE. He said he was in another state at the time and produced his airline ticket as proof. LE initially ruled him out, but when there didn't seem to be any other likely suspect, they started reviewing his alibi in much greater depth. It turned out that he did fly to his destination but when he arrived, he immediately bought a ticket with another airline under a false name and returned home and killed her.

There was also a case where a son murdered his mother. He was at college at the time and drove home, killed her and then returned to college. He had many witnesses who had seen him that day at college but there were a few hours unaccounted for where he had time to do this.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm curious why you think the bodies were moved?

Because the searchers didn't find them until the next day?

It's been noted through MSM, family members, searchers etc that the primary focus of the initial search was the trails and the area immidiately connected to the bridge.

They simply had not moved east at that point and searched that area where they were ultimately found. Its not as if Searchers simply walked over that area and they wern't there

The bodies were located in an area 1/2 mile away around a sharp bend of Deer creek and was not likely able to be seen from where early searches were conducted.

There were also early reports that the cell phones were pinging all around town and now based on what many have said, LE, The family members etc that almost certainly was not the case either.

Why are we so certain that the bodies must have been moved?

Everything about this crime points to a perp that committed a terrible crime and got out of there as quickly as possible

It was in a public place, he likely knew he didn't have much time and trying to sneak back in to place the bodies where people would likely be searching would have been extremely risky, He already couldn't be certain that he was in the clear as far as somebody seeing or hearing something from the initial attack. But he was going to risk taking bodies back to that same area rather than dumping them somewhere where nobody would even think to look?

The scenario is just not plausible and as @MassGuy has noted before, it would be extremely unlikely for any killer to bring bodies back to the initial scene of the crime after they already had left.

As well forensic examiners would immediately be able to determine whether or not the victims died at the same location they were found through medical evidence which naturally occurs to a body after death.

The location where death occurred is most critical to gathering evidence to determine who committed the murder. If death had occurred somewhere else, that would’ve become the primary crime scene, not the location where the bodies were later found.

It seems to me the most logical reason there was no other crime scene actively sought or preserved is because it was known from the onset of discovery the bodies were not relocated.

 

[JudgeJudi]

The official search was called off, but believe you me there were still many, Many people out there searching overnight.

Yes. Hundreds of people with flashlights, walking the trails in groups.

 

[neesaki]

Any memory of what publication? I literally can find nothing about CE except the Heavy article.

I have a hard time keeping up with all the initials, so could someone please remind me who CE is ? TIA

 

[TL4S]

I have never heard before that FSG saw BG. I don’t think that is fact.

IMO, FSG was likely at the bridge around or after the time the murders took place. I don't think he saw BG, as I think it was over by 3pm and BG was gone. Unless the "couple underneath the bridge" was a couple of girls, and those girls were A and L. Then I'd pay closer attention. That would warrant a new line of thinking.

 

[MistyWaters]

I have a hard time keeping up with all the initials, so could someone please remind me who CE is ? TIA

The only reference to CE I’ve ever noticed originated from here -
Abigail Williams & Liberty German: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Heavy’s source was a FB post.

 

[JudgeJudi]

DBM

 

[Krwiley60]

IMO, FSG was likely at the bridge around or after the time the murders took place. I don't think he saw BG, as I think it was over by 3pm and BG was gone. Unless the "couple underneath the bridge" was a couple of girls, and those girls were A and L. Then I'd pay closer attention. That would warrant a new line of thinking.

I agree with you. I think DG asked FSG, since he was coming off the bridge, if he saw 2 girls on it anywhere. FSG answered no but he saw a couple under the bridge which leads me to believe he was talking about 2 girls/women. I think if it was a man and woman, he would have stated that and not just assume DG would know what he was talking about.

 

[susiQ]

It sure would be nice to know if FSG saw a "couple of girls" under the bridge or a "couple", girl/guy combo. It really does make a difference.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree with you. I think DG asked FSG, since he was coming off the bridge, if he saw 2 girls on it anywhere. FSG answered no but he saw a couple under the bridge which leads me to believe he was talking about 2 girls/women. I think if it was a man and woman, he would have stated that and not just assume DG would know what he was talking about.

That’s assuming the entire interaction went like this -
Q Did you see two girls on the bridge?
A No, only a couple under the bridge.
DG walks away.

But in reality this seems the above is only a summary of an interaction of the encounter repeated by BP to explain why DG didn’t immediately walk to the bridge. Instead her response was for the purpose of explaining why he went the other direction, toward the trail head.

BP wasn’t asked if this was the entire context of the conversation as told to her. It’s be very unusual if DG didn’t ask the man a couple more questions such as - did he cross the bridge, did he recognize the couple (thinking it was someone Libby knew), how long was he near the bridge etc. Even if he did and repeated additional details to BP, she had no need to expand on the interaction because she was only outlining the reason DG didn’t head directly to the bridge.

Neither do we know if DG personally knew this man. BP may’ve been protecting his identity from the public realm as would be prudent. If DG knew him, he may’ve known Libby by sight as well. Not enough information is known to draw any conclusions one way or another IMO.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

Just adding that if BG owns a pet such as a cat or dog it is possible that pet hairs transfered from his clothing to the girls' clothing/bodies.

Yes!! Thank you for mentioning this!

Forgive me if this has been mentioned (I am sure it has).....

I am going step outside a line for a minute and mention that I am sure LE also looked into people who adopted out pets right afterwards....if any pet DNA was found at the scene.

JMO

 

[neesaki]

The only reference to CE I’ve ever noticed originated from here -
Abigail Williams & Liberty German: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Heavy’s source was a FB post.

Thank you, MistyW !

 

[tresir2012]

I'm curious why you think the bodies were moved?

Because the searchers didn't find them until the next day?

It's been noted through MSM, family members, searchers etc that the primary focus of the initial search was the trails and the area immidiately connected to the bridge.

They simply had not moved east at that point and searched that area where they were ultimately found. Its not as if Searchers simply walked over that area and they wern't there

The bodies were located in an area 1/2 mile away around a sharp bend of Deer creek and was not likely able to be seen from where early searches were conducted.

There were also early reports that the cell phones were pinging all around town and now based on what many have said, LE, The family members etc that almost certainly was not the case either.

Why are we so certain that the bodies must have been moved?

Everything about this crime points to a perp that committed a terrible crime and got out of there as quickly as possible

It was in a public place, he likely knew he didn't have much time and trying to sneak back in to place the bodies where people would likely be searching would have been extremely risky, He already couldn't be certain that he was in the clear as far as somebody seeing or hearing something from the initial attack. But he was going to risk taking bodies back to that same area rather than dumping them somewhere where nobody would even think to look?

The scenario is just not plausible and as @MassGuy has noted before, it would be extremely unlikely for any killer to bring bodies back to the initial scene of the crime after they already had left.

Why do I think they were moved?
It's possible because -
Primarily, I am motivated by recent hiding in plain sight and the reenactments got it wrong comments.

I believe searchers did not search the north bank or RL's land at all the first day. So the girls could have been elsewhere or in perps car boot and taken there/put there somewhere between the time they went missing and were found the next day.
Whether one or hundreds of searchers doesn't matter if they only searched the south bank that night.
The girls were only about 800 feet from the bridge where they were last known to be. I do find it strange if both sides were not searched that first day/night. If both banks were indeed searched, why weren't they found that evening/night? Maybe because they weren't there and/or it wasn't searched at all north of the creek?
Yes I'm criticising the search. But I'm certainly not criticising the good intentions of the searchers in the limited areas they had to go on, especially once LE had withdrawn. However, if the perp was among those searchers, what an ideal situation it was for him.
AJMO

 

[Boxer]

It sure would be nice to know if FSG saw a "couple of girls" under the bridge or a "couple", girl/guy combo. It really does make a difference.

MOO if FSG said that he saw a couple of girls, DG would have gone to the bridge.

 

[susiQ]

It sure would be nice to know if FSG saw a "couple of girls" under the bridge or a "couple", girl/guy combo. It really does make a difference.

Quoting my own post
After reading the Heavy.com article it appears from CE's comments that she only saw another "guy" and a "couple". That clears it up for me, as in that context she was clearly referring to a guy/gal couple. This is likely what FSG saw too. MOO

 

[ab01]

Why do I think they were moved?
It's possible because -
Searchers did not search the north bank or RL's land at all the first day. So the girls could have been elsewhere and taken there/put there somewhere between the time they went missing and were found the next day.
Whether one or hundreds of searchers doesn't matter if they only searched the south bank that night.
The girls were only about 800 feet from the bridge where they were last known to be. I do find it strange if both sides were not searched that first day/night. If both banks were indeed searched, why weren't they found that evening/night? Maybe because they weren't there and/or it wasn't searched at all north of the creek?
Yes I'm criticising the search. But I'm certainly not criticising the good intentions of the searchers in the limited areas they had to go on, especially once LE had withdrawn. However, if the perp was among those searchers, what an ideal situation it was for him.
AJMO

I'm not sure it would have been ideal to try to move not one but two bodies in the pitch black darkness in rugged terrain all the while knowing there were people all around looking for any kind of suspicious movements etc.

It would have been an "Ideal" situation to be caught and he almost certainly would have been

 

[crazychris]

Another thought from London, England. Does anyone else think they should release a lot more audio without compromising the investigation or including the girls' voices? Someone may then identify him but 4 words to me just isn't enough. They must be able to release more, even a full sentence, whilst still being very careful. Would it be the ISP who decides what to release and how much info to give out or the FBI?

BTW I don't think the bodies were moved. Far far too risky for him to move them and return them there. Remember this is probably a death penalty crime and he'll know that and isn't going to take unnecessary risks.