Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #127

[stattlich1]

I taught middle school for 32 years. I do realize that Abby's mother said Abby did not have a cell phone. Having been in the company of young teenage girls for so many years, I just find it hard to believe that a girl in this time would not have access to the use of a cell phone. When we give the all-important (ugh) yearly state mandated tests, we take up the cell phones before the tests and give them back afterwards. Most students had a cell phone to turn in even if it was obvious that it did not work. They did not want to be seen as lacking something other teens had. Some would bring a family member's phone. We had a big to-do once because administration would not interrupt testing to get a mother's phone for her. I still wonder about the reported factory reset of Libby's phone the weekend before the murders. I do believe LE has gotten quite a bit of info from Libby's phone. She used it to arrange for her dad to pick them up, used it to take bridge picture of Abby, posted to Snapchat, recorded a video and audio of BG, and somehow managed to hide it so it was found by LE. This is just what we know about with the phone.

Spot on. I worked in public school for 20 years, add another 5 years prior to that in residential treatment.

Kids do Hamlet

Adults do Othello.

 

[stattlich1]

"creepy guy" phrase

In my rural American neck of the woods, having worked in public school for 20 years, and with the local youth for years before that I'll say this.

The word "creeper" was in common use with teens, probably still is. In particular, young female teens. It is used to describe nearly any man the young girls do not know, and happen to be in the presence, or near presence of.

To even glance at a teen girl, as a grown man, might elicit the "why are you creepin' on me?" response.

It would surely not be anything unusual for these girls to have used the word "creepy" in describing nearly any adult male.

Did they, or didn't they in this case? I have no idea.

MOO.

 

[Yemelyan]

Spot on. I worked in public school for 20 years, add another 5 years prior to that in residential treatment.

Kids do Hamlet

Adults do Othello.

I agree that kids have their ways and means of doing what they want, whether that's having a forbidden phone or whatever. Here's my issue. Parents can be oblivious to this. Are cops oblivious though?

I would think that LE, like teachers and others who deal with kids, are NOT blind to things like the fact that there may have been a phone Abby's mother didn't know about. After all, there was a Facebook account her mother didn't know about that LE discovered right away (per Abby's mom's interviews in multiple places, I heard it first in Scene of the Crime).

If Abby had a secret phone, either she only used it to communicate with one person who has not come forward, or @MistyWaters is correct and the existence of the phone was discovered by LE early on and family were told to keep quiet about it.

Otherwise, as soon as LE started questioning her teenage friends I believe knowledge about a secret device would have come right out because they would have seen it and communicated with her via it.

I also think that there are many social media apps and even websites that record whether you accessed their content on mobile or via web. I'm sure LE found any other secret accounts she may have had right away since they found her Facebook. So if she used a secret phone and ever used it to do anything like that LE would have a strong clue that there was a phone out there to be linked to her and might have even been able to get phone information from some of these providers directly.

 

[Peppery]

Even if Abby had a secret phone, how would she be paying for it? Without a data plan she had no way to use it when away from Wifi, ie on the bridge. So if it was used to arrange a meeting or communicate w someone she wouldn’t have that ability out there. The only possibility is if she connected to Libby’s hot spot and I’m sure LE would know that. Moo

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I agree that kids have their ways and means of doing what they want, whether that's having a forbidden phone or whatever. Here's my issue. Parents can be oblivious to this. Are cops oblivious though?

I would think that LE, like teachers and others who deal with kids, are NOT blind to things like the fact that there may have been a phone Abby's mother didn't know about. After all, there was a Facebook account her mother didn't know about that LE discovered right away (per Abby's mom's interviews in multiple places, I heard it first in Scene of the Crime).

If Abby had a secret phone, either she only used it to communicate with one person who has not come forward, or @MistyWaters is correct and the existence of the phone was discovered by LE early on and family were told to keep quiet about it.

Otherwise, as soon as LE started questioning her teenage friends I believe knowledge about a secret device would have come right out because they would have seen it and communicated with her via it.

I also think that there are many social media apps and even websites that record whether you accessed their content on mobile or via web. I'm sure LE found any other secret accounts she may have had right away since they found her Facebook. So if she used a secret phone and ever used it to do anything like that LE would have a strong clue that there was a phone out there to be linked to her and might have even been able to get phone information from some of these providers directly.

I agree with all of this.
I do not believe Abby had a phone. Setting up a secret Facebook page is a lot simpler than getting a secret phone.
Also, cell phones don’t exist in a vacuum. Some adult would have an account. Some adult would have to pay for it. LE would have found this out very quickly I think through talking with her friends and it would have quickly led to a strong suspect. Yes I do know burner phones exist but I just can’t see that as a real possibility.
For me, I’m trying not to read too much between the lines anymore and take this case at face value. I do think it’s a pretty straight forward case. Occam’s Razor kind of thing. It’s maybe not as exciting, but I think it’s closer to what actually happened.
Just my thoughts.

 

[MistyWaters]

Becky writes: "They (Libby & Abby) were talking about that creepy guy they'd seen earlier."

Becky is articulate and discerning. Contrary to what you seem to be implying, she undoubtedly knows how to gauge her own granddaughter's remarks well enough to repeat them with sufficient accuracy and without taking them out of context. (And I strongly doubt there's a reason why Becky would deliberately mischaracterize Libby's assessment of BG.) Becky's evaluation of Libby's words, tone of voice, etc. is certainly more enlightening to us than your repeated contentions that the "creepy guy" phrase is nothing more than an "urban myth".

I’m not implying anything. I was referring to what was written by Mod SillyBilly. Did you read Thread #126, Post #223 which you linked in your earlier reply?

 

[pearl]

Why on earth do you think that Abby's mother would lie about that? What would the point of that lie be?

I did not say that Abby's mother lied about a cell phone. I acknowledged that the mother said Abby did not have a phone. Abby could have had access to the use of a cell phone is all I meant.

 

[BNA]

Even if Abby had a secret phone, how would she be paying for it? Without a data plan she had no way to use it when away from Wifi, ie on the bridge. So if it was used to arrange a meeting or communicate w someone she wouldn’t have that ability out there. The only possibility is if she connected to Libby’s hot spot and I’m sure LE would know that. Moo

Burner phone?

 

[Justice101]

I hoped they checked every phone that pinged over the course of a few weeks. I believe he had scoped out the area previously..maybe he had his phone then.
mOO

That currently is illegal. Must have reason for certain individuals to get a search warrant... no mass checking is allowed.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Burner phone?

Some kids- even adults, have "wi-fi" phones.

 

[stattlich1]

I don't know if Abby had a phone with her on that bridge, or not. I want to believe that she did NOT have one. However, since the very beginning, I've always thought she had something rectangular in her right pocket.

Also, food for thought. I had LE in my office, in the public school system, on more than one occasion. Some times they'd want to know if I recognized faces, other times if I could read certain graffiti, or they might have been seeking information on associations, whereabouts, likelihoods, etc.

My point here is this. LE doesn't always know and/or do everything we would expect them to do in the course of an investigation. We can assume they do, but it's been my experience that there are times where they too are human, and might not consider alternative avenues of exploration. My speculation is that local LE in this case has learned a whole lot about teenage behavior in their town over the past few years.

Might I talk a bit about tips. I would caution folks who give tips to not assume that their tip held no weight, or was ignored. In many instances, in my experience, tips would lead to other pieces of a puzzle being solved, and though maybe not resulting in immediate action, often play a part in the whole of an investigation.

I'd like to also say, in the long run, it is my desire, and I think too the desire of most, if not all who post on this site, to find the killer of these two innocent girls.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

I did not say that Abby's mother lied about a cell phone. I acknowledged that the mother said Abby did not have a phone. Abby could have had access to the use of a cell phone is all I meant.

True, there’s plenty of diverging possibilities away from Abby not having a cellphone (in her own name).

The way I see it, the family’s primary objective has been and still is to sustain or create public awareness in this unsolved case. They’ve done an excellent job at doing so. I admire them all as it can’t be easy considering it’s now been almost 4 years.

So as they are confidently supportive of LE’s ongoing efforts to solve this crime, if they’re aware of ANY information which may tip off the unarrested killer or jeopardize the integrity of the investigation, we’re just not going to hear it. We can’t know what we don’t know - including the identity of the killer - and so it goes in virtually every unsolved murder case.

JMO

 

[Yemelyan]

True, there’s plenty of diverging possibilities away from Abby not having a cellphone (in her own name).

The way I see it, the family’s primary objective has been and still is to sustain or create public awareness in this unsolved case. They’ve done an excellent job at doing so. I admire them all as it can’t be easy considering it’s now been almost 4 years.

So as they are confidently supportive of LE’s ongoing efforts to solve this crime, if they’re aware of ANY information which may tip off the unarrested killer or jeopardize the integrity of the investigation, we’re just not going to hear it. We can’t know what we don’t know - including the identity of the killer - and so it goes in virtually every unsolved murder case.

JMO

This is a good point. Anyone who follows crime news has seen cases where the family disagrees with or doesn't trust LE. Delphi is decidedly not one of those. With one or two exceptions outside of the immediate family, everyone has been very "on message" with LE. I'm not judging whether their stance is right or wrong because each case is different but they have worked very hard to raise awareness and I sincerely hope they see results soon.

 

[Peppery]

Burner phone?

Still costs money and at 13, her mom probably knew where she was spending. It’s possible she had one but I don’t think its very likely.

 

[Skully]

That currently is illegal. Must have reason for certain individuals to get a search warrant... no mass checking is allowed.

cellular tracking software solved this case breaking today in FL from 2016
Sheriff: 16-year-old Amber Woods killed in 2006 because boyfriend wanted to end relationship

 

[MistyWaters]

cellular tracking software solved this case breaking today in FL from 2016
Sheriff: 16-year-old Amber Woods killed in 2006 because boyfriend wanted to end relationship

I think Justice’s point was LE do not have the power to simply blanket track every person’s cellphone that pinged off the cell towers within a few weeks of the murders. In your example the boyfriend likely was a POI and a search warrant would’ve been obtained regarding his cellphone data.

LE is required to follow legal procedure in obtaining evidence.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

That currently is illegal. Must have reason for certain individuals to get a search warrant... no mass checking is allowed.

I am confused about whether tower dumps are illegal. An article from 2018 concerning the Supreme Court ruling did say police need a warrant to obtain an individual’s cell phone records from their cell phone provider. But it also says this:

“The court stressed that the decision does not consider real-time tracking, or so-called "tower dumps," which police use to obtain information on all of the devices connected to a cell tower at during a particular period of time.

I haven’t found anything that indicates the Supreme Court has ruled on that aspect since then.
Am I missing something?

Supreme Court says police need a warrant for historical cell location records

 

[everlearning]

I taught middle school for 32 years. I do realize that Abby's mother said Abby did not have a cell phone. Having been in the company of young teenage girls for so many years, I just find it hard to believe that a girl in this time would not have access to the use of a cell phone. When we give the all-important (ugh) yearly state mandated tests, we take up the cell phones before the tests and give them back afterwards. Most students had a cell phone to turn in even if it was obvious that it did not work. They did not want to be seen as lacking something other teens had. Some would bring a family member's phone. We had a big to-do once because administration would not interrupt testing to get a mother's phone for her. I still wonder about the reported factory reset of Libby's phone the weekend before the murders. I do believe LE has gotten quite a bit of info from Libby's phone. She used it to arrange for her dad to pick them up, used it to take bridge picture of Abby, posted to Snapchat, recorded a video and audio of BG, and somehow managed to hide it so it was found by LE. This is just what we know about with the phone.

I agree. Never underestimate the cleverness of people. I have always thought that just because no one knows about a phone does not mean there wasn't one. Thanks for sharing your experience with teenagers. They are very resourceful!

 

[Yemelyan]

cellular tracking software solved this case breaking today in FL from 2016
Sheriff: 16-year-old Amber Woods killed in 2006 because boyfriend wanted to end relationship

This example is totally different than what was being proposed for Delphi. The example linked above is a scenario where a POI with a known identity claimed he was not in a particular area at the time a crime was committed/a body dumped but a warrant for his cell data showed that he in fact was right where the body was found at the time it would have been placed there. Courts have generally upheld that police can do a cell tower dump to look for a known POI's specific cellular information but the dump has to be limited in time. Six hours is what is usually allowed (not a couple of weeks, as was suggested for the Delphi case) and the warrant has to be very focused in scope as to the criminal activity taking place.

So I agree with @Justice101 that LE in the Delphi case are not going to be successful at getting legal clearance to do a tower dump that spans several weeks, when they don't have a known POI, and they only have the theory - no proof - that this unknown person MAY have visited in the past with his phone on.

Even if it were legal, there's also a question of how useful tower data would be from even a six hour long span as I don't know how much of the data would be hits from people's cell phones who were traveling on the Hoosier Heartland Highway nearby.

This article is a good overview of what is legal: Cell Tower Dumps

 

[MistyWaters]

I am confused about whether tower dumps are illegal. An article from 2018 concerning the Supreme Court ruling did say police need a warrant to obtain an individual’s cell phone records from their cell phone provider. But it also says this:

“The court stressed that the decision does not consider real-time tracking, or so-called "tower dumps," which police use to obtain information on all of the devices connected to a cell tower at during a particular period of time.

I haven’t found anything that indicates the Supreme Court has ruled on that aspect since then.
Am I missing something?

Supreme Court says police need a warrant for historical cell location records

My understanding is data recorded from cell tower only contains identifiers of the devices which ping off it, referred to as a tower dump. A tower dump wouldn’t be illegal because it doesn’t disclose confidential information, really no different than a motorist driving down a public highway with his licence plate revealed.

Then from the identifier, if LE has reason to they can apply for a search warrant to obtain the actual cellphone records from the specific company who’s the service provider for whoever signed up for an account involving that particular cellphone. It’s that sort of detailed information that’s not captured from cell towers.

JMO