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

[Boxer]

dbm duplicate

 

[tresir2012]

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.

Possible narrative -

Did you see a couple of girls?
No only a couple under the bridge.
Ok you saw a couple of girls? Which end?
No a man and women/No a couple of boys/men/ Yes at the north/south end.

So also I think BP said she didn't know if DG saw the couple also. Well did he or didn't he? Did he speak to them too if he did?

Lots of unknowns there. I agree.

 

[NameUser]

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

Was it reported by MSM that there were hundreds of people out looking?

I have seen dozens reported, but not hundreds, especially on that night.

Delphi Murders: The investigation two years later

 

[Justice101]

I tend to agree. I really don't see much reason to believe that this was any kind of "targeted" crime. I tend to think that the only way it may have been "targeted" is if they had somehow made him mad earlier in their walk, even inadvertently. Even that is a bit of a stretch, but I can see it. Otherwise, it seems more like a crime of opportunity. I just don't see a lot of credibility in the suggestions given that indicate how BG could have known they would be at the bridge that day, that time. To me, this crime screams of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
JMO, of course.

To me, I agree... it looks like the sort of thing he did because they made him mad. Kind of like a trigger when we kick the dog because we are highly irritated at everything and now at a poor defenseless animal. Apples and oranges, I know. But the same in a sort of way.

But my imagination is he walks around with a gun (probably has a concealed carry permit and is legally allowed to carry due to no previous felonies). He perceives their giggles are directed at him. He decides to "teach them a lesson" then it escalates as they look at him with shear terror in their eyes. Now, he's gone too far and if they live they will identify him for abducting them down the hill.

Anyway, just my guess based on what he looks like and the circumstances. However, if this was not planned, he sure did luck into the best possible location not to be detected. But... he WILL be caught!

 

[susiQ]

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

Very true! My brain is turning to mush

 

[TL4S]

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

I thought he said he saw a couple underneath the bridge, so DG took a trail that led to that location instead.

 

[Krwiley60]

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.

I am also assuming there was more conversation between the two.

 

[tresir2012]

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.

Not at the time but they went back to the scene up to two weeks after and also did a pretty big search of the whole of RL's property at a later date IIRC.

 

[Krwiley60]

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

That makes more sense to me now. I wish someone would definitively clarify it though.

 

[Boxer]

I thought he said he saw a couple underneath the bridge, so DG took a trail that led to that location instead.

There is little actual information reported in MSM on this case.
The Mary Gerard trail doesn't really go under the bridge.
But MOO part of under the bridge can be from there.

 

[tresir2012]

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

No biggy. I guess it would be weird calling him PC guy.
Wonder how the initials FSG guy came about? Does anyone know?
(We need a glossary)

 

[tresir2012]

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

We really don't know though do we as we haven't seen the autopsy? And noone apparently was searching on that side of the creek. That's the whole point. If he did indeed kill them immediately and leave, how did he do it without being seen by many people, if the reenactments are incorrect.

 

[Jamie737]

Not a guy known for his risk-aversion to be fair. A high risk murder may well be followed by other high risk behaviours and I would think this is an adrenalin (and other) junkie in his usual life too.

 

[Justice101]

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.

Was that second case the one where they photographed his unique jeep paying at a toll booth? I think I remember that one.

 

[TL4S]

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

This is totally my own opinion, but I think the more complicated the scenario, the less likely it is to have occurred. I know virtually nothing about BG, but based on what little I do currently know, I'm not comfortable saying that he's an elaborate or extraordinarily deviant killer. I don't see anything that sells me on complex details like moving or posing bodies, personal links to the CS location, taunting LE, wearing disguises, etc. That is JMO, and I could be completely wrong. But for now, I'm not giving this guy any credit other than he's an *advertiser censored**hole with good timing.

 

[FinePrint]

This is totally my own opinion, but I think the more complicated the scenario, the less likely it is to have occurred. I know virtually nothing about BG, but based on what little I do currently know, I'm not comfortable saying that he's an elaborate or extraordinarily deviant killer. I don't see anything that sells me on complex details like moving or posing bodies, taunting LE, wearing disguises, etc. That is JMO, and I could be completely wrong. But for now, I'm not giving this guy any credit other than he's an *advertiser censored**hole with good timing.

100 likes!!!

 

[HotDog]

In an interview published 9/15/18 on YT, BP says as follows (my own transcription, FYI) when recounting the events of 2/13/17:

"...so he [DG] got out and he was walking around, and he didn't see her; he actually passed a guy and said, "Hey did- have- did you see a couple of girls, you know?" and he said "No, but there's a couple under the bridge." So he started -instead of- cause the guy was coming from the bridge - since he said there was nobody there, he went down- down the hill and to look - and see if maybe they were down - and uh, but he didn't see anybody, so he called me at about 3:30 and said, "Libby's not answering her phone and I don't see her."

It's around 9 minutes into the video. There are probably other interviews as well in which the timeline is recounted, this just happens to be I watched recently.

 

[tresir2012]

I thought he said he saw a couple underneath the bridge, so DG took a trail that led to that location instead.

Who saw the couple arguing under the bridge and was it the same couple?

 

[TL4S]

Who saw the couple arguing under the bridge and was it the same couple?

I'm a bit confused on how many people saw the "couple," too.

 

[IQuestion]

I had posted some basic information from that video after someone else asked if anyone had watched it but my post got deleted for violating TOS due to sleuthing family and I guess linking to a non-approved video. My apologies - an honest mistake!

MY BAD, I genuinely found the video to be informational only - just to understand who's who in the family and what the relationship is and who was living where at the time of the murders. To help make sense when reading articles etc to know who is the source of a quote, for example.

IMO I found it simply to be a factual video with no speculation or innuendo, etc. Just FYI.

Hey HOTDOG We all (me for sure) get things deleted, even if we didn't intend any harm. I just found out I got a post deleted because I included another poster quote that was deemed TOS/deleted. We all get caught in the net of "mass deletes" from time to time. The MODS are great, and they have guidelines for a reason...can you imagine the "free-for-all" if we didn't have them? (Insert icon of a bunch of sleuths throwing snowballs at each other, Lol.)

 

[ab01]

This is totally my own opinion, but I think the more complicated the scenario, the less likely it is to have occurred. I know virtually nothing about BG, but based on what little I do currently know, I'm not comfortable saying that he's an elaborate or extraordinarily deviant killer. I don't see anything that sells me on complex details like moving or posing bodies, taunting LE, wearing disguises, etc. That is JMO, and I could be completely wrong. But for now, I'm not giving this guy any credit other than he's an *advertiser censored**hole with good timing.

Yah a movie script most of these cases ain't

Normally the ones that don't get caught right away always have a few key elements

The crime is seemingly random with no obvious/easily traceable connection to the victims

The crimes happen very quickly

And they are extremely lucky

The more complicated the crime is the more likely it is solved within days of the crime taking place (more complicated more mistakes and more evidence)

And generally just more chances of being seen

Its one thing to not be seen in the act of committing the crime.

It's another to actually go back to the same location and to try to place bodies without being caught again, especially when there are more suspicious eyes focused on the general area

The odds would be astronomical

Nobody is that lucky no matter how clever or smart they think they are

 

[tresir2012]

So how many/which witnesses have seen BG that we know of?

 

[MistyWaters]

Possible narrative -

Did you see a couple of girls?
No only a couple under the bridge.
Ok you saw a couple of girls? Which end?
No a man and women/No a couple of boys/men/ Yes at the north/south end.

So also I think BP said she didn't know if DG saw the couple also. Well did he or didn't he? Did he speak to them too if he did?

Lots of unknowns there. I agree.

As DG was the first on the scene to know something was wrong since Libby wasn’t answering her phone, I would expect LE would’ve spoken to him at the time the missing persons report was filed, along with others. DG was local, most of the people who regularly walked the trails were local and word of the girls disappearance reportedly spread around town very quickly. So I presume LE would’ve had the opportunity to speak with others also on the trail that day very quickly, even that same night.

I keep thinking back to that first night and no one, neither LE nor the families, apparently had reason to believe foul play occurred. IMO that suggests nobody reported noticing anything or anyone appearing to be overly suspicious.

On the topic of the initial search that evening and night, I think looking for two live teenagers is much different than looking for bodies which nobody expected to find. JMO