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

[Charlot123]

I don't think so. But possibly we learn of some new details, which will help the investigation? I'm expecting it.

Yesterday I read about the case that once happened probably 60-70 miles from me, and it vividly illustrated of how a serial killer could get off on technicalities. After that, I suddenly got an idea of what R. Ives might have meant when he said that all the material collected from the scene might not be enough, and the rest of his phrase...

 

[JnRyan]

Yes, but when the case goes cold you have to think outside the box. Don't think for one second that investigators don't troll message boards for angles when they're out of ideas.

Yes, and I also believe those responsible for murders and missing persons lurk on message boards as well. I believe the cowardly wimp responsible for Abigail's and Liberty's deaths lurks here as well. Probably too gutless to respond, but here nonetheless.

 

[somequestions]

No, I understand your point. I just disagree with it, which is okay. To use your example, Joseph DeAngelo was caught because he left biological evidence at the scenes of his crimes. The methods used to catch him were new investigative tools but weren't out of the box...they derived specifically from crime scene evidence.


An out of the box method would have an investigator reading about Luka Magnotta's obsession with American Psycho and then saying, wow, can we link the GSK crimes to any movies? Let's look and see if we can fit any of the evidence we have to that theory.

To tie this back to Delphi, we the public don't know much about the crime scene itself (not should we), but information from that scene is what is ultimately going to solve the case - if it ever is.

When investigators work murder cases, they move from known evidence to so-called "pools" of suspects. For Delphi, pools might have been "local sex offenders," "people familiar with the Monon High Bridge/RL's property," "people with access to a car on 2/13/17." I'm just speculating here because I don't know what was at the scene. The goal is to see if any names that come up in the investigation belong to multiple pools. Those that do, are your short list of POIs that you look at more closely.

IMO at no time would investigators add a suspect pool like "movie buffs" just in order to think outside the box. They don't start with theories like that, even if the case is cold. They move from known facts about the crime scene, outwards.

I agree that most investigators tend to be facts and evidence type of people. I know this from some of the theories I have submitted over the years. One time I remember a detective writing me back that they do not pay attention to message boards or crime forums because "most of that stuff is full of b.s. and speculation."

They do not mind speculation though as long as you can support it with facts. And in my opinion, they do have opinions about the cases they work: who they think may have done it, what is the most likely scenario, or how the crime was committed. They are human beings.

Movies are often much different than real life. For example, the movie "Silence of the Lambs" seems based on a fictional investigative premise: the idea that the FBI would use a Quantico field trainee who has not even graduated to help solve a serial murder investigation because, she got good grades and wants to work in the behavioral science unit when she graduates. Maybe the FBI actually has used a field trainee to work a high profile serial murder case, but it seems very fictional.

So what do FBI agents do after they become special agents? On a daily basis what is their main job when they go into work each day?

I think they generally spend their day writing reports. And then they write some more reports. Maybe they get some coffee before going into the field office or do an occasional interview or some other field work during the day. But their day is spent doing paperwork. Everything has a report that has to be filed.

I do no think they have groups of people they put suspects into because generally they follow up on any tip that they might find promising. And this all requires more paperwork.

And I certainly do not think that when a case is 20 or 30 years old a detective sits around working it every single day until it gets solved. Cases that had forensic DNA evidence from the 1980's would have been solved just like the ones today if that had been widely available to the detectives at the time. I guarantee you if LE thought they could solve this case using those methods they would have already done so. Why? It would save them years of paperwork.

 

[Charlot123]

No, I understand your point. I just disagree with it, which is okay. To use your example, Joseph DeAngelo was caught because he left biological evidence at the scenes of his crimes. The methods used to catch him were new investigative tools but weren't out of the box...they derived specifically from crime scene evidence.


An out of the box method would have an investigator reading about Luka Magnotta's obsession with American Psycho and then saying, wow, can we link the GSK crimes to any movies? Let's look and see if we can fit any of the evidence we have to that theory.

To tie this back to Delphi, we the public don't know much about the crime scene itself (not should we), but information from that scene is what is ultimately going to solve the case - if it ever is.

When investigators work murder cases, they move from known evidence to so-called "pools" of suspects. For Delphi, pools might have been "local sex offenders," "people familiar with the Monon High Bridge/RL's property," "people with access to a car on 2/13/17." I'm just speculating here because I don't know what was at the scene. The goal is to see if any names that come up in the investigation belong to multiple pools. Those that do, are your short list of POIs that you look at more closely.

IMO at no time would investigators add a suspect pool like "movie buffs" just in order to think outside the box. They don't start with theories like that, even if the case is cold. They move from known facts about the crime scene, outwards.

It really works if all information is ironclad true. But one incorrect fact (i.e. someone in another case was missed as he was presumed to be in jail, while IRL he was out and on parole), and the perp falls through all pools and is missed. And here is where we come to alibis and facts and reliability of the witnesses.

Also, what you say makes total sense if LE know that the perp belongs to a certain pool (i.e., certain family). Then yes, they work with this pool and it is all.

But what if they don't know the person? Then they start looking at similar cases, parallels, right. The same MO, the same instrument, similar victims, etc.

This is where something very random, the map, with certain cases, and the similarities between them, could be very useful.

It could be also useful if the person, for whatever reason, can not be nailed down for this case. If he involved in another similar crime, then, at least, there is a chance to put him behind bars.

 

[Yemelyan]

I do no think they have groups of people they put suspects into because generally they follow up on any tip that they might find promising. And this all requires more paperwork.

Snipped by me.

The use of suspect pools, or as you put it "putting people into groups," is absolutely an established criminal investigative procedure for homicides and it would have been used in the Delphi investigation as well. You may not have known it by that name, but it's the reason one of the first things LE did was knock on the door of every Carroll County sex offender. They were taking that deep pool of offenders and narrowing their list against the other "pools" they had determined from facts and evidence at the scene.

I used to work in a LE adjacent field so I know this to be a fact but you definitely don't have to take my word for it. Simply google "suspect pools" and "criminal investigation" and you will find many articles, investigative manuals, and excerpts from criminal justice textbooks that talk about how the concept of suspect pools is used.

Here's just one citation: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0Rrm30QXHUkTHVyV6IUZQs

 

[stattlich1]

Just an observation, and one of the reasons I chime in from time to time is this. All the discussion serves to keep the thread alive, and thus, the case of these two beautiful girls is not forgotten.

I'm a grandfather of 6. I'd be devastated, to say the least, not to mention enraged beyond measure, were I in the shoes of the families involved here. But that's just me.

As far as LE investigative strategy, assuming they have a POI, they obviously don't have enough to bring charges. Or they simply may not even have a clue who the killer is.

We just don't know.

I can see the potential that some part of the discussion here, whether speculation, or absolute fact, could some day jar the memory, shock the core, of someone who stumbles upon it, and leads that person to have an 'aha' moment. Wouldn't that be nice!

 

[St. Anthony2017]

In isolation....interesting "coincidence". Add this "coincidence" to the profile and looks of the teens, the outdoor circumstances, and whatever else we can connect....and YES. I'd say this is quite relevant. Quite.

Amateur opinion and speculation

I’ve heard FBI Agents many times say that in law enforcement there are no coincidences when it comes to murder.

 

[SMK777]

In isolation....interesting "coincidence". Add this "coincidence" to the profile and looks of the teens, the outdoor circumstances, and whatever else we can connect....and YES. I'd say this is quite relevant. Quite.

Amateur opinion and speculation

There are so many similarities and eerie parallels; taken together, and adding the date aspect, it seems too many to be mere chance.

 

[minazoe]

the interesting thing to me on this SOTL angle would be if it tied into something at the crime scene.

still it doesn't tell anything on it's face. I think sometimes stuff like this does happen, but it only has significance to the killer and won't help solve it, unless it's a direct clue to who he is. Which I doubt. mOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

But, those two dates are NOT mirrors of each other. Bit of a stretch to see a "2" as a "12" imo

21317 vs 71312
It’s the numbers themselves (not the dates) that when grouped together are the same forwards and backwards.

It has been noted before, along with other similarities between Libby and Abby’s case and the murders of Lyric and Elizabeth.

Just like the SOTL theory -

1. Coincidences may be turn out one day to have been relevant.

2. And they may not have been at all helpful in solving the case.

Both statements can be true. We just don’t know much of anything.

jmo

 

[somequestions]

Snipped by me.

The use of suspect pools, or as you put it "putting people into groups," is absolutely an established criminal investigative procedure for homicides and it would have been used in the Delphi investigation as well. You may not have known it by that name, but it's the reason one of the first things LE did was knock on the door of every Carroll County sex offender. They were taking that deep pool of offenders and narrowing their list against the other "pools" they had determined from facts and evidence at the scene.

I used to work in a LE adjacent field so I know this to be a fact but you definitely don't have to take my word for it. Simply google "suspect pools" and "criminal investigation" and you will find many articles, investigative manuals, and excerpts from criminal justice textbooks that talk about how the concept of suspect pools is used.

Here's just one citation: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAMegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0Rrm30QXHUkTHVyV6IUZQs

I do not doubt you are correct. I am not in a LE field so I do not know. I only meant that I thought investigations get so large with "people" that it becomes difficult to categorize them. My information comes from email and phone communications with some people in LE. I used to send theories about a case up in Victoria, British Columbia. I saw a Dateline episode called "Dream House Mystery", and was surprised the detective in that case(the murder of Lindsey Buziak) was willing to discuss some of my theories although he mostly criticized them, but that is ok. I look back and realize how foolish my theories were too.

The other information comes from a short discussion with a special agent although I am not going to reveal the agency. He was very straightforward. He said, "Stop watching t.v.… Stop watching t.v.". He said most all those crime shows that are on television are fiction when it comes to how a real investigation is done. He did not communicate with me any more than once. Since then I have realized that one of the ways you can tell you are talking with someone in LE is that they usually make some remark about watching too much television. I would not advise ever sending a theory regarding a movie or tv show.

So my opinion became that what a lot of what LE does is research and writing. They review case files, re-interview witnesses, and revisit old suspects on the off chance that something like a name comes up. But all of this requires paperwork and much of what is stored about a particular case is not so much evidence as it is just thousands and thousands of sheets of old paperwork documenting everything that has been done over the years for a particular case. The conclusion I came to after speaking with the special agent is that their job requires a lot of legwork and documenting all of it is a major part of all that work.

But I am not in the FBI. Someone who knows more about LE investigation might be more knowledgeable on this matter.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I do not doubt you are correct. I am not in a LE field so I do not know. I only meant that I thought investigations get so large with "people" that it becomes difficult to categorize them. My information comes from email and phone communications with some people in LE. I used to send theories about a case up in Victoria, British Columbia. I saw a Dateline episode called "Dream House Mystery", and was surprised the detective in that case(the murder of Lindsey Buziak) was willing to discuss some of my theories although he mostly criticized them, but that is ok. I look back and realize how foolish my theories were too.

The other information comes from a short discussion with a special agent although I am not going to reveal the agency. He was very straightforward. He said, "Stop watching t.v.… Stop watching t.v.". He said most all those crime shows that are on television are fiction when it comes to how a real investigation is done. He did not communicate with me any more than once. Since then I have realized that one of the ways you can tell you are talking with someone in LE is that they usually make some remark about watching too much television. I would not advise ever sending a theory regarding a movie or tv show.

So my opinion became that what a lot of what LE does is research and writing. They review case files, re-interview witnesses, and revisit old suspects on the off chance that something like a name comes up. But all of this requires paperwork and much of what is stored about a particular case is not so much evidence as it is just thousands and thousands of sheets of old paperwork documenting everything that has been done over the years for a particular case. The conclusion I came to after speaking with the special agent is that their job requires a lot of legwork and documenting all of it is a major part of all that work.

But I am not in the FBI. Someone who knows more about LE investigation might be more knowledgeable on this matter.

My father-in-law was an FBI special agent, but we spent zero amount of time discussing investigative techniques.(although he did have some pretty funny stories...). What I do know is they work very hard and take their jobs seriously and they talk to tons of people.
I think what you hinted at is true. We watch TV and think all cases are solved by clever gadgets or DNA or other scientific woohoo. In this case we want to think, “why can’t they clear up that image”, “why can’t they match that audio”, “why can’t they match that DNA, or do familial DNA or make a Parabon sketch” etc. The hard answer may be...because they can’t. And if they can, maybe that doesn’t give them the answers they need. So then they are back to good old fashion investigative work. That is what will solve this case I believe. DNA is not going to solve this case. It might confirm LE’s suspicions about some guy, but it won’t solve it.

 

[Justice101]

We the public may start thinking "outside the box" to occupy ourselves because we probably have less than 1% of an idea of the evidence LE has in this case.

As for the real investigators, they always go back to the "box." They may look for a new seam, a hair, a fiber, a false bottom...but the box itself holds the answer.

^^^^This!!!^^^^ Even brand new detectives assigned to help solve old cold cases, primarily look thru all the physical evidence, interviews and facts first and see where that leads them. They only construct the theory and course of events before going to trial just so they have a story to tell. JMO

 

[Justice101]

No, I understand your point. I just disagree with it, which is okay. To use your example, Joseph DeAngelo was caught because he left biological evidence at the scenes of his crimes. The methods used to catch him were new investigative tools but weren't out of the box...they derived specifically from crime scene evidence.


An out of the box method would have an investigator reading about Luka Magnotta's obsession with American Psycho and then saying, wow, can we link the GSK crimes to any movies? Let's look and see if we can fit any of the evidence we have to that theory.

To tie this back to Delphi, we the public don't know much about the crime scene itself (not should we), but information from that scene is what is ultimately going to solve the case - if it ever is.

When investigators work murder cases, they move from known evidence to so-called "pools" of suspects. For Delphi, pools might have been "local sex offenders," "people familiar with the Monon High Bridge/RL's property," "people with access to a car on 2/13/17." I'm just speculating here because I don't know what was at the scene. The goal is to see if any names that come up in the investigation belong to multiple pools. Those that do, are your short list of POIs that you look at more closely.

IMO at no time would investigators add a suspect pool like "movie buffs" just in order to think outside the box. They don't start with theories like that, even if the case is cold. They move from known facts about the crime scene, outwards.

I think most of us deep down are on the same page with what you say above.

We are all just racking our brains trying to think if we can help solve this. It is very understandable for people to try to construct scenarios where they connect the dots. The reality is we cannot really help with the investigation... unless we suspect someone personally that we know that might be involved or we were a true witness.

The only reason I personally follow this particular case is because of how horrible it was and that it in unbelievable that there is no arrest yet. I mean we have video and voice and a sketch or two.

This one is a true MYSTERY.... and deep down, just to be totally honest, that is probably the main reason why I am interested. Plus, when there is an arrest, I want to know the facts that led them to the perpetrator.

 

[JnRyan]

I've never worked in LE, however I have done assists in criminal investigations. No murders, though, all white collar crime.

That said, I do believe there are some LE that probably do scan the social media. Not so much for our theories, but who knows, the killer may slip up and reveal something not made public by LE. I also wonder if a person close to a killer or abductor may read something here and have that "A HA" or "Oh S#&@!!" moment and it leads to a tip. I can't see it happening often but for a family of a deceased victim it may be all they need.

 

[rosesfromangels]

Everything can't be relevant. It just can't.

As opposed to people like us on a message board knowing very little about the evidence gathered, real detectives and real investigators take the facts and evidence and use that to lead them towards the perpetrator. Facts come first and constructing new theories out of coincidences are more suitable for murder mystery novels.

Using the scientific method has worked the best at solving such crimes ever since the creation of the scientific/logical/systematic crime investigation method was developed in England in the mid 1800s.

IMO, based on history, they'll solve a lot more crimes and waste a lot less time of investigators following the facts and not following up on wild goose chases.

I agree with your post. The vast majority of cases are solved with sound investigative methods and data/DNA science. I typically don't consider or subscribe to fringe theories, as they are generally a waste of time and focus.

Yet, in this case, there are enough flags (for me), to look at other cases that have seemingly similar characteristics and press the boundaries of possibility. Maybe, given the time and heart wrenching nature of the crime, it's a natural instinct. And of course, this is an amateur sleuth board, so you can expect amateur ideas from me. : ) Many of which, should likely be instantly discarded....maybe a couple good points to ponder from time to time as well.

I was doing a little study last night of murderers, and specifically SKs. Of course, Ted Bundy came up in that study. The thing that jumped to the surface with Bundy (and was his ultimate undoing), was his *arrogance* and feeling of invincibility. (Crimes committed in daylight with high possibility of detection, etc.) That arrogance, got him captured.

I wonder if our Perp has a a similar personality profile; that of being supremely grandiose and arrogant?

Amateur opinion and speculation

 

[JimmyWells]

Yes, and I also believe those responsible for murders and missing persons lurk on message boards as well. I believe the cowardly wimp responsible for Abigail's and Liberty's deaths lurks here as well. Probably too gutless to respond, but here nonetheless.

Oh, there's no doubt he reads these if it's the same type of offender as Christensen.

 

[JimmyWells]

My father-in-law was an FBI special agent, but we spent zero amount of time discussing investigative techniques.(although he did have some pretty funny stories...). What I do know is they work very hard and take their jobs seriously and they talk to tons of people.
I think what you hinted at is true. We watch TV and think all cases are solved by clever gadgets or DNA or other scientific woohoo. In this case we want to think, “why can’t they clear up that image”, “why can’t they match that audio”, “why can’t they match that DNA, or do familial DNA or make a Parabon sketch” etc. The hard answer may be...because they can’t. And if they can, maybe that doesn’t give them the answers they need. So then they are back to good old fashion investigative work. That is what will solve this case I believe. DNA is not going to solve this case. It might confirm LE’s suspicions about some guy, but it won’t solve it.

I investigate similar, not quite identical, matters in my professional life but I have experience with murder cases in my past. What I can tell you is I think the message board info is good—to a point. The catches on crime scene photos, in interrogation transcripts, that helps. Frankly, I think posters are better than investigators in some contexts in that they have a passion. Michelle McNamara really brought some credibility to determined posters. I don't think she played nearly the part in Deangelo's capture that HBO is promoting, but she was an asset nonetheless.

the interesting thing to me on this SOTL angle would be if it tied into something at the crime scene.

still it doesn't tell anything on it's face. I think sometimes stuff like this does happen, but it only has significance to the killer and won't help solve it, unless it's a direct clue to who he is. Which I doubt. mOO

 

[JimmyWells]

the interesting thing to me on this SOTL angle would be if it tied into something at the crime scene.

still it doesn't tell anything on it's face. I think sometimes stuff like this does happen, but it only has significance to the killer and won't help solve it, unless it's a direct clue to who he is. Which I doubt. mOO

Boom, exactly! The crime scene info is what we need.

 

[girlfriday]

I haven't been able to find any photos of LG taken on Feb 12 or Feb 13, 2017. Are there any in the public domain?