Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #125

[Rush4087]

Some have said that Carter was overly emotional and as a result didn’t communicate everything that he was supposed to. I don’t know if this is truly what happened.

This is an example of the Mandela effect for me because I swear I remember him saying it during the PC!

cujenn, thanks again for transcribing that for us. It’s interesting to me that these hosts with law enforcement experience don’t see Carter as overly emotional and out of control, as some who follow this case see him, but rather acting as expected based off the assumed direction/instruction from the BAU.

At the 2019 PC, I don't think Carter should have said (or intended to say): "we have a witness", when obliviously LE did not have a human witness (not to the actual crime anyway). I also don't think he should have said "we know you've been hiding in plain sight" (if I was the perp, I'd be thinking, "hah! well if that's true, why am I not in jail right now!"). Tbh, some of what Carter said during the PC just wasn't very smart.

When Carter said (or intended to say) "witness" I can only presume he meant Libby's phone audio and video, - or he was perhaps referring to the potential witnesses at the trails whose recollections later formed the basis of the two composite sketches. Maybe Carter thought it was a good bluff to say they had a witness: but wouldn't you think the perp himself would know if there'd been any actual witnesses to the actual crime? Again, the perp was probably thinking: "okay.. then why am I not in jail right now?"

Don't get me wrong, I think Carter is a fine man. I'm just not sure he was the right man to lead the investigation. We learned a lot about him at the PC. Imo (at minimum) he allowed himself to be more emotional than he should have. He also clearly put on a theatrical performance (at least to some extent). That's just who he was. Who he is. There was a great deal of bluster and bluff, mixed in with just enough brow beating and virtue signaling

Carter might have thought it was good strategy to express his extreme anguish over the crime, his extreme anger (and threats) toward the perp, and his extreme humility, resolve and boy-scout-like determination to his colleagues and the public, but the bottom line is that he was having to admit to everyone that his investigation thus far had failed.

Though I admit I don't know the details, I suspect that a good number of LE professionals around the country would have disagreed with some of Carter's decisions and tactics during the first two years of the investigation (the released sketches being perhaps the most obvious and controversial), as well as his strategy for the April 2019 press conference. All of which leaves me wondering whether they've had the right man (or men) leading the investigation since the very beginning.

Again, I think Carter thought that theatrics was his best strategy for accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish at the PC. I also think it was a strategy that he was comfortable executing. Either that, or the lead LE officer on the Delphi murder case was unable to control his own emotions during a key PC. Not good.

Either way, after the press conference I had less confidence that Libby and Abby's killer would ever be brought to justice (certainly not by a Carter-led LE investigation) than I had before the press conference started. JMO

 

[cujenn81]

I think Israel Keyes would fall into the category of killers who make their opportunity to kill happen. In the end though, he broke all of his own rules by choosing a victim in his own hometown. This seems to be what gets some of them caught too. Joseph Duncan was previously an opportunistic killer who stalked and planned the killing of the Groene family when he kidnapped young Samantha and Dylan. This last crime is what uncovered his kidnapping and murders of other children including two sisters Sammie Jo White (11) and Carmen Cubias (9). Duncan was also charged with the murder of Anthony Martinez.
I hope that it won't be another killing that connects the Delphi murderer to this crime.

I agree. Keyes even told the investigators -- "back when I was smart, I let them [his victims] come to me".

When he grew complacent and overly confident in his ability to evade law enforcement, he lost his grip on his impulse control and became reckless. He no longer waited for an opportunity to present itself and went after them instead.

 

[Yemelyan]

At the 2019 PC, I don't think Carter should have said (or intended to say): "we have a witness", when obliviously LE did not have a human witness (not to the actual crime anyway). I also don't think he should have said "we know you've been hiding in plain sight" (if I was the perp, I'd be thinking, "hah! well if that's true, why am I not in jail right now!"). Tbh, some of what Carter said during the PC just wasn't very smart.

When Carter said (or intended to say) "witness" I can only presume he meant Libby's phone audio and video, - or he was perhaps referring to the potential witnesses at the trails whose recollections later formed the basis of the two composite sketches. Maybe Carter thought it was a good bluff to say they had a witness: but wouldn't you think the perp himself would know if there'd been any actual witnesses to the actual crime? Again, the perp was probably thinking: "okay.. then why am I not in jail right now?"

Don't get me wrong, I think Carter is a fine man. I'm just not sure he was the right man to lead the investigation. We learned a lot about him at the PC. Imo (at minimum) he allowed himself to be more emotional than he should have. He also clearly put on a theatrical performance (at least to some extent). That's just who he was. Who he is. There was a great deal of bluster and bluff, mixed in with just enough brow beating and virtue signaling

Carter might have thought it was good strategy to express his extreme anguish over the crime, his extreme anger (and threats) toward the perp, and his extreme humility, resolve and boy-scout-like determination to his colleagues and the public, but the bottom line is that he was having to admit to everyone that his investigation thus far had failed.

Though I admit I don't know the details, I suspect that a good number of LE professionals around the country would have disagreed with some of Carter's decisions and tactics during the first two years of the investigation (the released sketches being perhaps the most obvious and controversial), as well as his strategy for the April 2019 press conference. All of which leaves me wondering whether they've had the right man (or men) leading the investigation since the very beginning.

Again, I think Carter thought that theatrics was his best strategy for accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish at the PC. I also think it was a strategy that he was comfortable executing. Either that, or the lead LE officer on the Delphi murder case was unable to control his own emotions during a key PC. Not good.

Either way, after the press conference I had less confidence that Libby and Abby's killer would ever be brought to justice (certainly not by a Carter-led LE investigation) than I had before the press conference started. JMO

You know Carter's not the lead on the case, though, right?

I doubt he has any kind of investigative role. As head of the ISP, he's a political appointee. I'd be very surprised if he is involved in any of the decision making process about release of sketches. You won't find him sitting down in interviews with subjects. He's not knocking on doors to check alibis. He's not coming up with new investigative tactics. In his entire career, even prior to his appointment by then-governor Mike Pence, he has never been a detective. And that's not his role now.

I think it was in the Down the Hill podcast when we heard from Sgt Riley, the public information officer, the reason why Doug Carter has delivered the press conferences. He says that he (Riley) could have delivered the information, but "they" decided it would be better for Carter to do it. It was a strategic decision, probably based on his communication style. If you've heard him in other press conferences for other cases, you'll see he has the same bombastic style. It's not unique to this one.

Having said all that, I do think he's a nice person and probably a good administrator. If BG is never caught, it's unfortunately going to be a black mark on his career. But he's not in charge of day to day decision making in the investigation.

The real lead officer on the case can usually be seen standing at the back of the room in press conferences these days. ISP detective Jerry Holeman is assisted by two detectives from the Carroll County Sheriff's Office with support from the Indianapolis field office of the FBI.

 

[stattlich1]

We know that a witness provided the description that led to the NBG sketch. LE likely believes that that witness could finger BG in a line up.

Indeed, I've read that in the past. Do we know where this witness saw this man in sketch 2, so as to provide a description for that sketch?

It may indeed be this witness to whom he refers. Thanks for you clarification. It is unlikely 'we have a witness' refers to a witness to the crime, rather, it refers to a person who saw a man resembling sketch 2, somewhere, on the day of the murders?

The other question I've had is, and posed it a few pages back, and think important, is, if LE says sketch two is the man on the bridge, is the man who matches the voice on the recordings we've heard, and is the killer, how do they make that definitive statement....if the actual murders are not on that video/audio recording? Or am I wrong in that LE never made those statements?

 

[LovelyB]

I remember Tobe being asked the question about the murders being on audio/video, and he said no. I get the feeling that he might not be telling the entire truth, in order to protect the investigation. That is my opinion only.

 

[Yemelyan]

The other question I've had is, and posed it a few pages back, and think important, is, if LE says sketch two is the man on the bridge, is the man who matches the voice on the recordings we've heard, and is the killer, how do they make that definitive statement....if the actual murders are not on that video/audio recording? Or am I wrong in that LE never made those statements?

Snipped by me.

How does LE make the definitive statements that the man on the bridge is the killer, if the murders are not actually recorded? It could be something as simple as the man saying "I'm going to kill you." If someone makes a threat like that, and an hour later the people being threatened are dead, the connection is pretty simple to make. It doesn't rule out accomplices in and of itself but it puts the man who is talking at a level of involvement in the crime where he needs to be concerned with very serious charges coming his way.

This is just MOO but I don't think the murders are recorded. I do think the preceding crime of kidnapping was. And I think the recording contains enough details of what he said and did that it can't be released without compromising a future prosecution.

 

[Yemelyan]

I wanted to comment on the recent thread of discussion concerning the factors that go into making a murderer. Just to make it clear, I'm not talking about people here who murder for profit or in a domestic violence situation. I'm talking about people who murder for the pleasure of it.

Causality, as it relates to this type of murderer, is a complex process of biological, social, and environmental factors. You're never going to be able to point to just one thing...whether that is a history of childhood abuse or neglect, or a high testosterone level...and say THIS is the primary reason a person became a murderer. Just like it's not possible to define all those factors that give rise to "normal" behavior, similarly it's not possible to define every influence that resulted in abnormal behavior.

There are NO specific combination of biological, social, or psychological characteristics that differentiate murderers, even serial ones, from other types of violent offenders or even from "normal" people.

Killers, especially ones who offend serially, are driven by their own unique motives and reasons. Outside of the few that are actually criminally mentally ill, they commit murder because they choose to. The biggest commonality that we know definitively is that the majority of sexually oriented offenders have entwined violence with the sexual response at some point during development. For these offenders, violence and gratification are linked. However, this linkage can arise through varied pathways in different individuals and, as mentioned above, is by itself not the only factor.

JMO.

 

[MingyMoo]

Here we are 3 1/2 years later, TBH I may have been swayed occasionally but have never really changed my mind. the girls were in the wrong place at the wrong time and saw something/someone they shouldn't have done. I respect everyone else's thoughts and ideas which occasionally sway me but I still keep coming back, rightly or wrongly to wrong place wrong time.

Sorry People after all these years all the research and all the clever people following and keeping this case alive.

Personally I hope today will be the day and the person or persons that can help the families of Libby and Abby, will pluck up the courage and do so.

MingyMoo

 

[Rhiannon Gray]

I found this topic that was brought up on another site to be quite interesting and would like to fly it here to see how others respond.
What types of advancement in technology could break the case?
As in... what technology do we NOT have now that could be introduced tomorrow, or 3 years from now.
There are so many smart people here, what do you think?

 

[Charlot123]

maybe....

they don't have a witness.

They might not have a witness, but they might have someone helping with the alibi, while not exactly knowing what for. This person might be beginning to guess.

MOO. Totally speculative.

 

[Charlot123]

At the 2019 PC, I don't think Carter should have said (or intended to say): "we have a witness", when obliviously LE did not have a human witness (not to the actual crime anyway). I also don't think he should have said "we know you've been hiding in plain sight" (if I was the perp, I'd be thinking, "hah! well if that's true, why am I not in jail right now!"). Tbh, some of what Carter said during the PC just wasn't very smart.

When Carter said (or intended to say) "witness" I can only presume he meant Libby's phone audio and video, - or he was perhaps referring to the potential witnesses at the trails whose recollections later formed the basis of the two composite sketches. Maybe Carter thought it was a good bluff to say they had a witness: but wouldn't you think the perp himself would know if there'd been any actual witnesses to the actual crime? Again, the perp was probably thinking: "okay.. then why am I not in jail right now?"

Don't get me wrong, I think Carter is a fine man. I'm just not sure he was the right man to lead the investigation. We learned a lot about him at the PC. Imo (at minimum) he allowed himself to be more emotional than he should have. He also clearly put on a theatrical performance (at least to some extent). That's just who he was. Who he is. There was a great deal of bluster and bluff, mixed in with just enough brow beating and virtue signaling

Carter might have thought it was good strategy to express his extreme anguish over the crime, his extreme anger (and threats) toward the perp, and his extreme humility, resolve and boy-scout-like determination to his colleagues and the public, but the bottom line is that he was having to admit to everyone that his investigation thus far had failed.

Though I admit I don't know the details, I suspect that a good number of LE professionals around the country would have disagreed with some of Carter's decisions and tactics during the first two years of the investigation (the released sketches being perhaps the most obvious and controversial), as well as his strategy for the April 2019 press conference. All of which leaves me wondering whether they've had the right man (or men) leading the investigation since the very beginning.

Again, I think Carter thought that theatrics was his best strategy for accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish at the PC. I also think it was a strategy that he was comfortable executing. Either that, or the lead LE officer on the Delphi murder case was unable to control his own emotions during a key PC. Not good.

Either way, after the press conference I had less confidence that Libby and Abby's killer would ever be brought to justice (certainly not by a Carter-led LE investigation) than I had before the press conference started. JMO

I must admit - I am now somewhat obsessed with the case (or rather, with the fact that it is not solved). But what made me return back to this thread was a post elsewhere about the possibility of LE with professional genetic genealogists. It was a private post, but seeing it, I made a beeline here. It was around March of 2019.

One month later, no DNA studies, and instead, the conference that sounded disconcerting. After that, silence. I mean, podcasts, articles, YouTubers, opinions, but from LE, silence.

I hope time, and fresh eyes, will help. The killer needs to be apprehended, and brought to justice. Whoever covers the perpetrator, the decision is wrong, morally, ethically, and on the human level. Nothing could rationalize it. It is unfair.

 

[somequestions]

I still think LE knowing and being confident about knowing the Delphi killer's identity and LE being able to arrest someone with the confidence of conviction (usually dependent on prosecuting lawyers) are two separate realities. JMO that this could be the case.

But if LE does not know the identity of the Delphi killer, then how can they arrest him? I think LE is just sitting in their offices waiting for a tip someday that will lead them to the person depicted in the second (NBG) sketch. They are also probably going through the thousands of tips they have already received to try and solve this case.

But do they have a POI or anyone they are looking at to try and arrest in the near future? I doubt it.

I think the second sketch(NBG) is not the description of the killer, who I think is an older man with much different facial features than the sketch. So LE could end up waiting for a very long time, if they continue to keep using the second sketch(NBG). The irony in this case is that LE may have led the public down the wrong path. This is all my opinion too.

The only hope for this case now is that either someone previously, before the second sketch was released, sent in a tip that contains information that leads to the identity of the suspect. Or someone in the future completely disregards everything LE has said about this case, sees Liberty German's video, and realizes they know the name of the person in the video.

 

[SMK777]

I think the second sketch(NBG) is not the description of the killer, who I think is an older man with much different facial features than the sketch. So LE could end up waiting for a very long time, if they continue to keep using the second sketch(NBG). The irony in this case is that LE may have led the public down the wrong path. This is all my opinion too.

My thinking as well.

The only hope for this case now is that either someone previously, before the second sketch was released, sent in a tip that contains information that leads to the identity of the suspect. Or someone in the future completely disregards everything LE has said about this case, sees Liberty German's video, and realizes they know the name of the person in the video.

I hope either of these happens SOON.

 

[Charlot123]

At the 2019 PC, I don't think Carter should have said (or intended to say): "we have a witness", when obliviously LE did not have a human witness (not to the actual crime anyway). I also don't think he should have said "we know you've been hiding in plain sight" (if I was the perp, I'd be thinking, "hah! well if that's true, why am I not in jail right now!"). Tbh, some of what Carter said during the PC just wasn't very smart.

When Carter said (or intended to say) "witness" I can only presume he meant Libby's phone audio and video, - or he was perhaps referring to the potential witnesses at the trails whose recollections later formed the basis of the two composite sketches. Maybe Carter thought it was a good bluff to say they had a witness: but wouldn't you think the perp himself would know if there'd been any actual witnesses to the actual crime? Again, the perp was probably thinking: "okay.. then why am I not in jail right now?"

Don't get me wrong, I think Carter is a fine man. I'm just not sure he was the right man to lead the investigation. We learned a lot about him at the PC. Imo (at minimum) he allowed himself to be more emotional than he should have. He also clearly put on a theatrical performance (at least to some extent). That's just who he was. Who he is. There was a great deal of bluster and bluff, mixed in with just enough brow beating and virtue signaling

Carter might have thought it was good strategy to express his extreme anguish over the crime, his extreme anger (and threats) toward the perp, and his extreme humility, resolve and boy-scout-like determination to his colleagues and the public, but the bottom line is that he was having to admit to everyone that his investigation thus far had failed.

Though I admit I don't know the details, I suspect that a good number of LE professionals around the country would have disagreed with some of Carter's decisions and tactics during the first two years of the investigation (the released sketches being perhaps the most obvious and controversial), as well as his strategy for the April 2019 press conference. All of which leaves me wondering whether they've had the right man (or men) leading the investigation since the very beginning.

Again, I think Carter thought that theatrics was his best strategy for accomplishing what he wanted to accomplish at the PC. I also think it was a strategy that he was comfortable executing. Either that, or the lead LE officer on the Delphi murder case was unable to control his own emotions during a key PC. Not good.

Either way, after the press conference I had less confidence that Libby and Abby's killer would ever be brought to justice (certainly not by a Carter-led LE investigation) than I had before the press conference started. JMO

I must admit - I am now somewhat obsessed with the case (or rather, with the fact that it is not solved). But what made me return back to this thread was a post elsewhere about the possibility of LE with professional genetic genealogists. It was a private post, but seeing it, I made a beeline here. It was around March of 2019.

One month later, no DNA studies, and instead, the conference that sounded disconcerting. After that, silence. I mean, podcasts, articles, YouTubers, opinions, but from LE, silence.

I hope time, and fresh eyes, will help. The killer needs to be apprehended, and brought to justice. Whoever covers the perpetrator, the decision is wrong, morally, ethically, and on the human level. Nothing could rationalize it. It is unfair.

 

[stattlich1]

I think the second sketch(NBG) is not the description of the killer, who I think is an older man with much different facial features than the sketch. .

Why then, would LE clearly state that the suspect is younger, and that the new sketch represents the man on the bridge?

Is it that we have difficulty rejecting the first sketch, which we think 'looks' like the man on the bridge Even though so many have argued the photo is so distorted it is difficult to determine any clarity whatsoever. Have we that first sketch ingrained in our minds such that the new sketch, that LE says is the man on the bridge, cannot be believed by us to be so?

What if we reject the first sketch in its entirety, is there no way to look at the new sketch and see a resemblance to the man on the bridge?

Does bridge guy have a hat on? A disguise?

Are we doing a disservice to the case by refusing to believe the new sketch is indeed more representative of the killer in this case, than the old sketch?

Is it a combination of the two sketches?

Trust me, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, it's simply the thoughts that run through my mind.

By the way, I've always thought bridge guy was younger, near baby faced. I've never bought in to the old guy thing.

opinion and speculation

 

[rosesfromangels]

They might not have a witness, but they might have someone helping with the alibi, while not exactly knowing what for. This person might be beginning to guess.

MOO. Totally speculative.

I think he has been interviewed and dismissed early on. I think it would be beneficial to review all those interviewed early on with perhaps a slightly different grid/rating system. He is likely in that pile, and sitting all cosy like; seemingly with not a care in the world.

I was thinking about what this Perp would be like, and a recollection came to mind. Several years ago I stopped by a co-workers house to drop something off. At that time, she was probably in her late 40's and had her brother living at her home. He was early/mid forties. I thought that was weird, and I got a weird feeling when I met him. (Thank you for instinct God). He had a flat affect, and seemed to be processing at a different/low frequency like a chronic alcoholic, drug user, or someone with mild-moderate brain damage.

He seemed like a bum, and a weird one at that. I chalked up his living at his sisters likely due to the appearance of being seemingly useless, and needing a place to live. Something kept bothering me about him, and it turned out that instinct was well placed. He was a RSO, and had done prison time for crime against a minor under 14.

This is how I imagine this Perp. Some seemingly unremarkable bum living at Mom's or a relatives. That guy you always wonder about....something not quite right. Thats the profile I would be looking for in that long, long list of people interviewed. Yah, that guy.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Sheila Terranova]

I think he has been interviewed and dismissed early on. I think it would be beneficial to review all those interviewed early on with perhaps a slightly different grid/rating system. He is likely in that pile, and sitting all cosy like; seemingly with not a care in the world.

I was thinking about what this Perp would be like, and a recollection came to mind. Several years ago I stopped by a co-workers house to drop something off. At that time, she was probably in her late 40's and had her brother living at her home. He was early/mid forties. I thought that was weird, and I got a weird feeling when I met him. (Thank you for instinct God). He had a flat affect, and seemed to be processing at a different/low frequency like a chronic alcoholic, drug user, or someone with mild-moderate brain damage.

He seemed like a bum, and a weird one at that. I chalked up his living at his sisters likely due to the appearance of being seemingly useless, and needing a place to live. Something kept bothering me about him, and it turned out that instinct was well placed. He was a RSO, and had done prison time for crime against a minor under 14.

This is how I imagine this Perp. Some seemingly unremarkable bum living at Mom's or a relatives. That guy you always wonder about....something not quite right. Thats the profile I would be looking for in that long, long list of people interviewed. Yah, that guy.

Amateur opinion and speculation

o\
Or one of his relatives.( Maybe the relative that made him that way....that they did not interview )

 

[dub]

Why then, would LE clearly state that the suspect is younger, and that the new sketch represents the man on the bridge?

Is it that we have difficulty rejecting the first sketch, which we think 'looks' like the man on the bridge Even though so many have argued the photo is so distorted it is difficult to determine any clarity whatsoever. Have we that first sketch ingrained in our minds such that the new sketch, that LE says is the man on the bridge, cannot be believed by us to be so?

What if we reject the first sketch in its entirety, is there no way to look at the new sketch and see a resemblance to the man on the bridge?

Does bridge guy have a hat on? A disguise?

Are we doing a disservice to the case by refusing to believe the new sketch is indeed more representative of the killer in this case, than the old sketch?

Is it a combination of the two sketches?

Trust me, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, it's simply the thoughts that run through my mind.

By the way, I've always thought bridge guy was younger, near baby faced. I've never bought in to the old guy thing.

opinion and speculation

BBM

I am one of maybe not that many who thinks the second sketch is more likely to look like the BG, and I think the issue with the first sketch is partially what you described, and also because the first sketch is wearing clothing similar to the video BG (and the second one is not), so I feel like it just like locks into the brain more easily as being "accurate".

Also I've never thought BG was an old guy either, I'm with you there. I don't think he's super young but like in the range of 28-35 at the time of the murders.

 

[somequestions]

Why then, would LE clearly state that the suspect is younger, and that the new sketch represents the man on the bridge?

Is it that we have difficulty rejecting the first sketch, which we think 'looks' like the man on the bridge Even though so many have argued the photo is so distorted it is difficult to determine any clarity whatsoever. Have we that first sketch ingrained in our minds such that the new sketch, that LE says is the man on the bridge, cannot be believed by us to be so?

What if we reject the first sketch in its entirety, is there no way to look at the new sketch and see a resemblance to the man on the bridge?

Does bridge guy have a hat on? A disguise?

Are we doing a disservice to the case by refusing to believe the new sketch is indeed more representative of the killer in this case, than the old sketch?

Is it a combination of the two sketches?

Trust me, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, it's simply the thoughts that run through my mind.

By the way, I've always thought bridge guy was younger, near baby faced. I've never bought in to the old guy thing.

opinion and speculation

Most of the time in cases similar to this, when the suspect is arrested they usually are in their 20's or 30's. As for why LE stated that the new sketch represents the man on the bridge, I do not know. NASA and Disney have not been able to make out the face so I have no idea how they came up with that conclusion.

I think it is just statistics. It is a cold case so they decided to try this last idea of making the killer believe they were on to him and that they have someone who saw him. But is the second sketch(NBG) actually the description of the killer or is it just an eyewitness statement from someone who thinks they saw the killer? That is my opinion.

Releasing that second sketch without being sure the person depicted is actually the man they are looking for could cause them to lose valuable time and effort in going after the real killer(if indeed you agree that the killer is an older person who looks very different from the sketch). If you think he is the young guy depicted by the second sketch, then it is just a matter of time in trying to find this person because the investigation is on the right path. It is your opinion.

 

[rosesfromangels]

Most of the time in cases similar to this, when the suspect is arrested they usually are in their 20's or 30's. As for why LE stated that the new sketch represents the man on the bridge, I do not know. NASA and Disney have not been able to make out the face so I have no idea how they came up with that conclusion.

I think it is just statistics. It is a cold case so they decided to try this last idea of making the killer believe they were on to him and that they have someone who saw him. But is the second sketch(NBG) actually the description of the killer or is it just an eyewitness statement from someone who thinks they saw the killer? That is my opinion.

Releasing that second sketch without being sure the person depicted is actually the man they are looking for could cause them to lose valuable time and effort in going after the real killer(if indeed you agree that the killer is an older person who looks very different from the sketch). If you think he is the young guy depicted by the second sketch, then it is just a matter of time in trying to find this person because the investigation is on the right path. It is your opinion.

LE has instructed us to refer to the 2nd sketch as the suspect. While certainly confusing and confounding, I'm following that instruction.

Amateur opinion and speculation