Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #126

[Cryptic]

(Reason I ask is, I worked in public school for 20 years and KNOW such methods to be used by teens to avoid detection)

As a side note, teens are not alone in their ability to hamper tracing. For years, Al Queda relied on similar simple tricks that could greatly increase the difficulty in tracing communication.

Evidently one such trick was to give two people access to an email account. They then communicated by creating letters, saving them to 'draft' for the other to read- but never sending them.

 

[Yemelyan]

I agree LE, to a degree, knows these girls' online activity. But I have some questions regarding this. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to clear up some things for me.

Can LE generate a list of all persons who simply view a FB page?

Can screenshots, or photos, of messages be taken, and forwarded to others, thereby being untraceable? Say I'm going swimming, and I text a friend to let them know I'll be at the pool. That friend receives that text, and a person is looking over the recipients shoulder, snaps a photo, and then sends that photo to yet another? (Reason I ask is, I worked in public school for 20 years and KNOW such methods to be used by teens to avoid detection)

Could conversation be overheard, might the rumor mill pass a persons intentions unknown to that person? For example, I'm asking to go to swimming. Someone I've asked mentions at work that they have to pick me and a friend of mine up at the pool at 5pm.

And yet, simply, the killer(s) in this case may have had awareness of the use of this bridge, and it's surrounding trails, by teens, and on this day, may have known that the opportunity would present itself, due to the fine weather, and the fact that school was out that day.

These are all JMO.

According to the articles about privacy that I read, Facebook has traditionally been very cooperative with LE on sharing information. Due to how Facebook collects data for advertising and other purposes, IMO they do have data on who has viewed pages and how many times. I myself can view this information (both who has viewed, and how many times) for certain Facebook and Instagram accounts that I run. So if I can see it, Facebook certainly keeps this info.

Can someone take a screenshot of a message (text, Snapchat, or otherwise) and share with others? Yes, of course. SnapChat even has a feature that notifies the sender if the receiver has screenshot your message. However, I would dispute that these shared images/messages are 100% untraceable. If LE can trace a contact trail between two people, they can certainly employ in-person interviews, subpoenas and warrants to see if the receiver has shared information and with whom. Even if they didn't share it digitally.

Say Libby, for example, was sending SnapChat messages about her plans to go to the bridge with one or more of her contacts. LE can trace those contacts out one further step through investigative interviews to see who, in addition to intended receivers, may also have viewed these messages.

LE may not have proof that, say, a dad of one of Libby's friends happened to view a message over a shoulder. But if that dad ticked other boxes for inclusion in one or more suspect pools (matches physical description, off work on Monday, etc), it's insane to think that LE wouldn't look into this possible connection.

 

[Yemelyan]

I agree LE, to a degree, knows these girls' online activity. But I have some questions regarding this. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to clear up some things for me.

Can LE generate a list of all persons who simply view a FB page?

Can screenshots, or photos, of messages be taken, and forwarded to others, thereby being untraceable? Say I'm going swimming, and I text a friend to let them know I'll be at the pool. That friend receives that text, and a person is looking over the recipients shoulder, snaps a photo, and then sends that photo to yet another? (Reason I ask is, I worked in public school for 20 years and KNOW such methods to be used by teens to avoid detection)

Could conversation be overheard, might the rumor mill pass a persons intentions unknown to that person? For example, I'm asking to go to swimming. Someone I've asked mentions at work that they have to pick me and a friend of mine up at the pool at 5pm.

And yet, simply, the killer(s) in this case may have had awareness of the use of this bridge, and it's surrounding trails, by teens, and on this day, may have known that the opportunity would present itself, due to the fine weather, and the fact that school was out that day.

These are all JMO.

According to the articles about privacy that I read, Facebook has traditionally been very cooperative with LE on sharing information. Due to how Facebook collects data for advertising and other purposes, IMO they do have data on who has viewed pages and how many times. I myself can view this information (both who has viewed, and how many times) for certain Facebook and Instagram accounts that I run. So if I can see it, Facebook certainly keeps this info.

Can someone take a screenshot of a message (text, Snapchat, or otherwise) and share with others? Yes, of course. SnapChat even has a feature that notifies the sender if the receiver has screenshot your message. However, I would dispute that these shared images/messages are 100% untraceable. If LE can trace a contact trail between two people, they can certainly employ in-person interviews, subpoenas and warrants to see if the receiver has shared information and with whom. Even if they didn't share it digitally.

Say Libby, for example, was sending SnapChat messages about her plans to go to the bridge with one or more of her contacts. LE can trace those contacts out one further step through investigative interviews to see who, in addition to intended receivers, may also have viewed these messages.

LE may not have proof that, say, a dad of one of Libby's friends happened to view a message over a shoulder. But if that dad ticked other boxes for inclusion in one or more suspect pools (matches physical description, off work on Monday, etc), it's insane to think that LE wouldn't look into this possible connection.

 

[stattlich1]

As a side note, teens are not alone in their ability to hamper tracing. For years, Al Queda relied on similar simple tricks that could greatly increase the difficulty in tracing communication.

Evidently one such trick was to give two people access to an email account. They then communicated by creating letters, saving them to 'draft' for the other to read- but never sending them.

Yes, you see, it's always been my belief that likely no direct weblink through any platform was discovered between the killer and the girls, HOWEVER, it remains very possible that the killer was aware of the girl's hiking intentions that day. MOO

 

[stattlich1]

These are all JMO.
LE may not have proof that, say, a dad of one of Libby's friends happened to view a message over a shoulder. But if that dad ticked other boxes for inclusion in one or more suspect pools (matches physical description, off work on Monday, etc), it's insane to think that LE wouldn't look into this possible connection.

Interesting discussion.

I simply wanted to inform that there are methods of transmitting data and information, or gaining knowledge of a persons plans and/or intentions for the day, that may not be directly traceable through electronic means, and that teenagers are quite adept at understanding technology, and have devised methods to deter detection.

I didn't know Abby, or Libby. But I can say, from experience, that most teens I worked with over the years did very little in a vacuum. The vacuum was that the adults in their lives often had no idea of what they were doing.

 

[Yemelyan]

Interesting discussion.

I simply wanted to inform that there are methods of transmitting data and information, or gaining knowledge of a persons plans and/or intentions for the day, that may not be directly traceable through electronic means, and that teenagers are quite adept at understanding technology, and have devised methods to deter detection.

I didn't know Abby, or Libby. But I can say, from experience, that most teens I worked with over the years did very little in a vacuum. The vacuum was that the adults in their lives often had no idea of what they were doing.

Teens can be sneaky, we know this.

But let's go back to my scenario where a family member of a friend happens to see a text message about Libby heading to the bridge and uses this information about the location of the girls to go on to commit the crime. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the fact that this perpetrator saw this message surreptitiously (over a shoulder, let's say) is untraceable through electronic means.

Certainly it is, but that does not prevent LE from tracing the original message to Libby's friend, interviewing her about who had means and opportunity to know about communication on her device (including members of her household and peer group), and developing lines of inquiry and evidence in relation to all these individuals and possibly coming up with potential POIs.

So even if LE can never prove exactly HOW the perpetrator came to know the girls' location, but CAN prove (through cell phone data, car GPS data, DNA, witness testimony, etc) that the POI was at the Monon High Bridge during the time in question, IMO they can still make a case against this individual. They may even be able to get a confession with the information.

 

[stattlich1]

Teens can be sneaky, we know this.

But let's go back to my scenario where a family member of a friend happens to see a text message about Libby heading to the bridge and uses this information about the location of the girls to go on to commit the crime. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the fact that this perpetrator saw this message surreptitiously (over a shoulder, let's say) is untraceable through electronic means.

Certainly it is, but that does not prevent LE from tracing the original message to Libby's friend, interviewing her about who had means and opportunity to know about communication on her device (including members of her household and peer group), and developing lines of inquiry and evidence in relation to all these individuals and possibly coming up with potential POIs.

So even if LE can never prove exactly HOW the perpetrator came to know the girls' location, but CAN prove (through cell phone data, car GPS data, DNA, witness testimony, etc) that the POI was at the Monon High Bridge during the time in question, IMO they can still make a case against this individual. They may even be able to get a confession with the information.

I get it. And I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I will, for a bit.

A simple comment by a teenager, at school, maybe at the table in the cafeteria, heard by a dozen other students, that they are going swimming, say, in a dangerous part of a local stream. One of those students goes home and comments at the dinner table about the teenager, and how dangerous it is. Or a couple students are discussing it later in the day as the custodian walks by pushing a mop. There's no way LE could trace it. Unless they were VERY lucky.

Point being, for me, I don't think these girls were entrapped, and I don't think they had any traceable electronic data that would show they were communicating with the killer(s), however, I DO think it very plausible that a killer could have anonymously learned of their upcoming presence at the bridge that day.

 

[rosesfromangels]

I DO think it very plausible that a killer could have anonymously learned of their upcoming presence at the bridge that day.

Respectfully snipped for focus and commentary response.
If we following your line of thinking, it would seem the most likely candidate to overhear and act upon the knowledge would be someone who worked at the school.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Yemelyan]

I get it. And I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I will, for a bit.

A simple comment by a teenager, at school, maybe at the table in the cafeteria, heard by a dozen other students, that they are going swimming, say, in a dangerous part of a local stream. One of those students goes home and comments at the dinner table about the teenager, and how dangerous it is. Or a couple students are discussing it later in the day as the custodian walks by pushing a mop. There's no way LE could trace it. Unless they were VERY lucky.

Point being, for me, I don't think these girls were entrapped, and I don't think they had any traceable electronic data that would show they were communicating with the killer(s), however, I DO think it very plausible that a killer could have anonymously learned of their upcoming presence at the bridge that day.

If LE during the investigation uncovered any evidence that there were people who knew in advance of the girls' plans on that day, I would hope that they would continue to go back and re-interview and ask those questions - "now who else was around when you discussed this? Where were you at the time?"

Because while it might require some investigative luck to get people to recall the circumstances in the hope of developing potential POIs, respectfully, this is the police work they have to do. It's been three years. There's a chance that all that's left to investigate is minutiae like this.

 

[stattlich1]

Respectfully snipped for focus and commentary response.
If we following your line of thinking, it would seem the most likely candidate to overhear and act upon the knowledge would be someone who worked at the school.

Amateur opinion and speculation

I'm just thinking out loud here, you know, speculating. Nobody has solved this case, yet. And so, I think it important to explore other avenues of thinking.

It could be someone who worked at school. Teenagers spend (pre covid) a tremendous amount of time at school.

But that's not my point.

My point is, that any number of possible permutations could be the result of a simple comment made by a student in school.....and not traceable via known electronic means.

 

[cujenn81]

I used to share your view that nothing is every truly deleted. This was especially so if a national level police agency ala the FBI put their vast resources into it. But... then came the Apple verse FBI phone dispute.

Forcing the Apple lock would lead to the material being deleted. It was extremely, extremely difficult for the FBI to recreate the deleted material. So much so, that they went to Court rather than risk deleting the material. Eventually, another party taught the FBI how to recreate the material and they forced the lock.

Now, I am not so sure. In the end, "more combinations than grains of sand" type encryption software is becoming readily available. The Apple dispute implies that the software can also scramble deleted material to the extent that it is extremely difficult for even the FBI to recreate.

I suspect, but am not certain that some social media exchanges may be using similar scrambling.

I agree. I think it will become more and more difficult to obtain encrypted and/or deleted cell phone data over time. In regards to Snapchat, users have the ability to save every snap they send (to the memories or ‘my eyes only’ screen) until they choose to delete them via their account settings. This is only for outgoing snaps and doesn’t include chat messages or snaps received. By default, snaps are deleted (from Snapchat’s server — not just the user’s account) when the recipient views the snap. If the snap remains unopened after 30 days, it is also deleted. Snaps that are posted using the Story feature are automatically deleted after 24 hours. Butttt... even if a user chooses to auto save their snaps, they can also choose to encrypt them (at which point, the snaps can only be viewed if you know their 4-digit pin).

The most recent iOS update (iOS 14) — that was released last week — has a ton of new privacy features. Although, Apple has delayed the rollout of a few these features (until the start of 2021) after several app companies expressed their concern about the potential for a drastic cut in ad revenue. The delay is to give developers more time to adjust to the changes (or figure out a workaround, essentially).

ETA —
For the record, I personally don’t believe the girls were lured out there or told anyone they would be at the MHB (aside from their family, of course).

 

[rosesfromangels]

I'm just thinking out loud here, you know, speculating. Nobody has solved this case, yet. And so, I think it important to explore other avenues of thinking.

It could be someone who worked at school. Teenagers spend (pre covid) a tremendous amount of time at school.

But that's not my point.

My point is, that any number of possible permutations could be the result of a simple comment made by a student in school.....and not traceable via known electronic means.

Your point is an important one. I think we have been missing the obvious because our minds have sought to fill in the blanks. We've missed something. Something obvious I think. Thank you for this wake up call.

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[Yemelyan]

I agree. I think it will become more and more difficult to obtain encrypted and/or deleted cell phone data over time. In regards to Snapchat, users have the ability to save every snap they send (to the memories or ‘my eyes only’ screen) until they choose to delete them via their account settings. This is only for outgoing snaps and doesn’t include chat messages or snaps received. By default, snaps are deleted (from Snapchat’s server — not just the user’s account) when the recipient views the snap. If the snap remains unopened after 30 days, it is also deleted. Snaps that are posted using the Story feature are automatically deleted after 24 hours. Butttt... even if a user chooses to auto save their snaps, they can also choose to encrypt them (at which point, the snaps can only be viewed if you know their 4-digit pin).

The most recent iOS update (iOS 14) — that was released last week — has a ton of new privacy features. Although, Apple has delayed the rollout of a few these features (until the start of 2021) after several app companies expressed their concern about the potential for a drastic cut in ad revenue. The delay is to give developers more time to adjust to the changes (or figure out a workaround, essentially).

ETA —
For the record, I personally don’t believe the girls were lured out there or told anyone they would be at the MHB (aside from their family, of course).

I agree with this (that it could become more difficult to obtain deleted/encrypted material over time) and yet I also think that the FBI/government agencies have an enormous incentive to employ their technological expertise to keep pace with these changes given that so much of homeland security will depend upon their ability to investigate and prosecute cases where terrorists used electronic means to communicate.

Just in the San Bernardino case alone you can see that the FBI likely already knew that they had a solution (or a solution that was very close to being ready) but wanted to compel Apple to unlock so that they would have legal workarounds in future criminal and national security cases.

Having said all that, IMO I don't think the perpetrator knew in advance that those particular girls would be there at that specific time.

 

[girlfriday]

These are my opinions and observations only.

I just started following this case. I have formed some ideas about the Snapchat images, the BG video, and the audio clip(s).

The two images, the one of Abby that shows one direction, and the other showing the opposite direction of the bridge, do not show any evidence of BG behind or in front. BG looks to have issues with his right leg. He does not appear to be someone who is steady or confident on his feet. I would go so far as to say that I would doubt that he would be able to cross the bridge, end to end without having to be very slow and careful. So, I cannot imagine him being where he is said to have been at the time stated.

We don't know where LE got the video and audio from (whether they have the actual phone or if it was from cloud storage). The Snapchat photos were apparently (from what I recall) provided by someone else. I'd be interested in knowing more about that and what the countdown timer(s) in the top right corner mean. It would still be hard to make that information useful, however, without knowing if the two photos were screen grabbed at the same time (by who ever provided them).

In the short BG video, I see what looks like a reflection overtop of his left thigh, as if it is a video of a video (captured on one device, from another devices screen). If so, it calls to question if LE did that or if it is on the phone (or cloud storage) like that (which would fit a planned, lured, controlled scenario, and make BG more of a red herring).

The audio, to me, sounds like two different men. I hear an older man saying "Guys?", in a trailing manner, as if the end of a question. I hear younger man saying "down the hill", as if to be answering a question. I don't hear that as a command or instruction.

I think the LE know exactly who did this, but lack full evidence, and that the huge reward is an effort to get someone in the know to give them the details they are lacking to make a full conviction.

 

[Charlot123]

These are all JMO.

According to the articles about privacy that I read, Facebook has traditionally been very cooperative with LE on sharing information. Due to how Facebook collects data for advertising and other purposes, IMO they do have data on who has viewed pages and how many times. I myself can view this information (both who has viewed, and how many times) for certain Facebook and Instagram accounts that I run. So if I can see it, Facebook certainly keeps this info.

Can someone take a screenshot of a message (text, Snapchat, or otherwise) and share with others? Yes, of course. SnapChat even has a feature that notifies the sender if the receiver has screenshot your message. However, I would dispute that these shared images/messages are 100% untraceable. If LE can trace a contact trail between two people, they can certainly employ in-person interviews, subpoenas and warrants to see if the receiver has shared information and with whom. Even if they didn't share it digitally.

Say Libby, for example, was sending SnapChat messages about her plans to go to the bridge with one or more of her contacts. LE can trace those contacts out one further step through investigative interviews to see who, in addition to intended receivers, may also have viewed these messages.

LE may not have proof that, say, a dad of one of Libby's friends happened to view a message over a shoulder. But if that dad ticked other boxes for inclusion in one or more suspect pools (matches physical description, off work on Monday, etc), it's insane to think that LE wouldn't look into this possible connection.

I assume the girls had 400+friends. Too many dads, moms, and brothers?

 

[Charlot123]

JMO - I would also try to explore Libby's videos. This is where, I assume, she was ahead of Abby by virtue of having more electronic gadgets. Libby was a striking girl, her videos are talented, but one episode gave me a strange feeling. Call it intuition. I was never in the mind of a SK, but in my imagination, this is what would have attracted one, if we are still on this theory.

I think that logically, her SC and her IG and FB were studied...but if someone came across her randomly and then targeted, I would suspect the videos as the prime source. My opinion and intuition.

 

[Jax49]

These are my opinions and observations only.


We don't know where LE got the video and audio from (whether they have the actual phone or if it was from cloud storage).

Snipped for focus. Welcome to the case. Just a quick, fyi. We do know the phone was recovered.

Sgt. Holeman tells us investigators recovered more audio from Libby’s phone, which was found with the girls at the crime scene.

ISP: More audio recovered from slain Delphi teen's phone

 

[Charlot123]

These are my opinions and observations only.

I just started following this case. I have formed some ideas about the Snapchat images, the BG video, and the audio clip(s).

The two images, the one of Abby that shows one direction, and the other showing the opposite direction of the bridge, do not show any evidence of BG behind or in front. BG looks to have issues with his right leg. He does not appear to be someone who is steady or confident on his feet. I would go so far as to say that I would doubt that he would be able to cross the bridge, end to end without having to be very slow and careful. So, I cannot imagine him being where he is said to have been at the time stated.

We don't know where LE got the video and audio from (whether they have the actual phone or if it was from cloud storage). The Snapchat photos were apparently (from what I recall) provided by someone else. I'd be interested in knowing more about that and what the countdown timer(s) in the top right corner mean. It would still be hard to make that information useful, however, without knowing if the two photos were screen grabbed at the same time (by who ever provided them).

In the short BG video, I see what looks like a reflection overtop of his left thigh, as if it is a video of a video (captured on one device, from another devices screen). If so, it calls to question if LE did that or if it is on the phone (or cloud storage) like that (which would fit a planned, lured, controlled scenario, and make BG more of a red herring).

The audio, to me, sounds like two different men. I hear an older man saying "Guys?", in a trailing manner, as if the end of a question. I hear younger man saying "down the hill", as if to be answering a question. I don't hear that as a command or instruction.

I think the LE know exactly who did this, but lack full evidence, and that the huge reward is an effort to get someone in the know to give them the details they are lacking to make a full conviction.

That much money indicates there is a very valuable reason for whoever is in the know to keep his/her mouth shut. Either it is fear for own life (and then the sum might need to be at least doubled, and that, provided the witness is old and poor); or the witness is afraid of losing a provider - and then the provider’s worth is equal to at least the reward sum.

For example, in WA, by far more expensive state than IN, the usual reward is 1K. And in WA, the official poverty line for a family of 4 is 51K.

From this one could surmise a few things about Delphi: a) the perpetrator is wealthy, or comes from a wealthy family
Or, b) the perp is not wealthy, but commands respect and fear (either a criminal structure, or the legal one - both would be equally feared)
C) the perpetrator is simply very dear to the witness, or else, his loss would represent a tremendous social fall for the witness (usually meaning that the perpetrator is a married man and has kids). In the first case, the reward becomes symbolic, because no one can put a price tag on love. But the money could be used for the defense, etc. In the second, some additional perks (education, future job placement) might be offered to the kids of the perp, so that they would not suffer from association with him.

I think this sum is really symbolic, LE thinking that they can do without the witness. If they can not, all I can see from the sum is that the witness stands to lose a lot, and in this case, additional horses need to be traded. MOO.

 

[Charlot123]

I get it. And I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I will, for a bit.

A simple comment by a teenager, at school, maybe at the table in the cafeteria, heard by a dozen other students, that they are going swimming, say, in a dangerous part of a local stream. One of those students goes home and comments at the dinner table about the teenager, and how dangerous it is. Or a couple students are discussing it later in the day as the custodian walks by pushing a mop. There's no way LE could trace it. Unless they were VERY lucky.

Point being, for me, I don't think these girls were entrapped, and I don't think they had any traceable electronic data that would show they were communicating with the killer(s), however, I DO think it very plausible that a killer could have anonymously learned of their upcoming presence at the bridge that day.

Several things come to mind.

A school cafeteria, and a group of girls talking. One says something about someone, truth or gossip, doesn’t matter. Something that is very damaging to the person. And Libby says, loudly, “this is called this-and-this, and should be reported!” One of the girls comes home and tells the story, adding: “Libby even decided to...”

Or, a person mopping the floor at school overhears this.

Something tells me that the girls were followed through the previous week, that someone was just waiting for a good moment. It might be even reasonable to assume that he worked at school, or that a school worker provided the information to someone.

However, the rumor mill works in all directions.

Imagine that high schoolers/very young adults decided to kill Abby and Libby. Then, their communication could have been screenshot and resent by “a middleman, too”. Was reposting the photo of Abby a signal, for example?

 

[girlfriday]

In the short BG video, I see what looks like a reflection overtop of his left thigh, as if it is a video of a video (captured on one device, from another devices screen). If so, it calls to question if LE did that or if it is on the phone (or cloud storage) like that (which would fit a planned, lured, controlled scenario, and make BG more of a red herring).

I don't remember if there is a way to edit, so this will do.
EDITS:

The reflection I mention is in a still image of BG, from the video, that was previously released. I don't see it when playing the video. Just wanted to clear up any confusion. All information is JMO.