Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #130

[Yemelyan]

Suppose LE have 10 facts that only the killer would know. Why wouldn't they release 8 and keep back 2? That should be enough.

Unless they're hoping someone trips up during an interrogation and says a fact only known to the killer and LE.

"I can assure you it's not what they're experiencing today" quote makes me think the killer posed the girls as if they're...in hell somehow? That would indeed be bizarre

I'll just say this. Do not underestimate the importance of religion, specifically evangelical Christian theology and its concept of salvation, in the lives of both these particular investigators and the Delphi community. You have to look at what they say through a lens of understanding because they are actively using an evangelical model of faith in God/the afterlife to cope with the murders of Libby and Abby.

We have heard from Abby's mom that one of her first thoughts on learning of Abby's death was regret that she didn't have Abby baptized immediately upon her profession of faith a few months prior (source: podcast Scene of the Crime). We have heard from the FBI special agent in charge Jay Abbott that the investigators started each day of work with prayer. Tobe Leazenby has explained that he is a man of faith and that this particular belief leads him to think the crime will be solved because evil cannot triumph over good in his theological worldview. And most prominently, Carter has spoken openly in the press conferences about his ideas of coping with tragedy through faith. Unfortunately, his attempt to analogize the situation in Delphi with the fictional portrayal of a Christian take on forgiveness and redemption, was clumsy and was then seized upon and twisted by listeners into other meanings IMO.

When Carter spoke with anger about "how you left them...is NOT what they are experiencing today" he is not referencing anything specific about the crime scene other than the killing of two young children is always senseless and that these two particular girls - in his opinion - are in heaven now. His concept of what heaven is like would have been shared by most everyone in attendance at that press conference IMO and would have been understood to mean that the girls were now "saved," "with Jesus," and "no longer in pain or fear."

All MOO

 

[Imvp2]

I can definitely make out a scream. One of the girls screamed “oh my God” between “Guys” and “down the hill”. It is garbled but I can still hear it.

Yes, I hear the same thing. It's a shrieking "oh my God".

 

[stattlich1]

Yes, I hear the same thing. It's a shrieking "oh my God".

I hear what has been suggested here. One must ignore the bubbling, and pay attention to the cadence of sound. It has a starting "OH", then a lower "my", then a louder than the first "GOD"

OH my GOD. Think cadence. ONE two Threeeee.

I'm going to explain it, MOO, as Auditory Pareidolia. The reason is this. I would think that if indeed there was something real to be heard in between the words 'guys', and 'down the hill', LE would have simply cut that portion completely out. I guess my analysis could be wrong, but it would be surprising to me if indeed they left any evidence of one of the girls screaming to be even remotely heard in the released audio files.

But yes, I do hear it.

"auditory pareidolia. Concise definitions of the phenomenon remain elusive, but in clinical circles it’s usually defined relative to the more common visual form—the perception of patterns in randomness where none exist, but via an auditory mode."

Why We Hear Voices in Random Noise - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

 

[TL4S]

I hear what has been suggested here. One must ignore the bubbling, and pay attention to the cadence of sound. It has a starting "OH", then a lower "my", then a louder than the first "GOD"

OH my GOD. Think cadence. ONE two Threeeee.

I'm going to explain it, MOO, as Auditory Pareidolia. The reason is this. I would think that if indeed there was something real to be heard in between the words 'guys', and 'down the hill', LE would have simply cut that portion completely out. I guess my analysis could be wrong, but it would be surprising to me if indeed they left any evidence of one of the girls screaming to be even remotely heard in the released audio files.

But yes, I do hear it.

"auditory pareidolia. Concise definitions of the phenomenon remain elusive, but in clinical circles it’s usually defined relative to the more common visual form—the perception of patterns in randomness where none exist, but via an auditory mode."

Why We Hear Voices in Random Noise - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

I agree. As you said, if there was something there between his words, LE would have likely cut it out. I actually think it sounds like water flowing over rocks (the creek) and have sometimes convinced myself the words were spoken closer to the water. But LE has said it probably was right off the south end of the bridge, so unless the sound of the creek was captured from that distance, I have to imagine the sound might just be from moving inside her pocket. JMO

 

[Pyschsandi]

You'll find posters in this thread use the word "staging" very arbitrarily. Some are using staging as it is commonly defined by LE - the deliberate alteration of the scene to mis-direct the investigation. Other posters are calling the offender behavior criminologists would refer to as "posing" or "undoing" staging instead. Still others are referring to the crime scene being "staged" and apparently they mean something like, the offender brought a kill kit to the location where he ultimately led the girls. Only the first definition is considered primary staging.

Signature behaviors such as posing the victim, especially if meant to degrade the victim or shock the public/LE, are rarely done by offenders who know their victims. They are using their victims as objects and may undergo other behaviors aimed at depersonalizing - beating or mutilating the face of the victim or eliminating secondary sexual characteristics. This type of "undoing" is not associated with a victim/offender relationship outside of the crime IMO.

Primary staging, on the other hand, is highly associated with a victim/offender relationship that pre-dates the crime. It's commonly done to direct LE away from likely motive and the discernable association between victim and offender. An example of primary staging (that Mary Ellen O'Toole was talking about) would be, a husband kills his wife in a domestic violence incident but after the fact stages the scene to make it look like she walked in on a robbery in progress.

I posted a week or so ago about the different types of primary staging. The most common one is staging a homicide to look like an accident, followed by staging a homicide to look like a missing person, followed by staging a burglary/robbery. Less common is staging a homicide to appear as if it was a suicide. Staging a scene to look like a sexual homicide is the rarest of all according to FBI studies of homicide.

You make a lot of good points, but this guy is not your average killer. I think anything is possible with a monster that has no empathy.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I hear what has been suggested here. One must ignore the bubbling, and pay attention to the cadence of sound. It has a starting "OH", then a lower "my", then a louder than the first "GOD"

OH my GOD. Think cadence. ONE two Threeeee.

I'm going to explain it, MOO, as Auditory Pareidolia. The reason is this. I would think that if indeed there was something real to be heard in between the words 'guys', and 'down the hill', LE would have simply cut that portion completely out. I guess my analysis could be wrong, but it would be surprising to me if indeed they left any evidence of one of the girls screaming to be even remotely heard in the released audio files.

But yes, I do hear it.

"auditory pareidolia. Concise definitions of the phenomenon remain elusive, but in clinical circles it’s usually defined relative to the more common visual form—the perception of patterns in randomness where none exist, but via an auditory mode."

Why We Hear Voices in Random Noise - Facts So Romantic - Nautilus

I agree with this. I have never thought there was anything between “guys” and “down the hill” because, like you said, I couldn’t imagine LE would leave it in there. That being said, if I WANT to hear something like “Oh my God”, I can hear it.
Also, and this is probably just weird me, but I have a hard time imaging 14 and 13 year old girls saying “Oh my God” in any scenario much less a terrifying one like this.

 

[Charlot123]

Wiki:
One researcher notes that enuresis is an "unconscious, involuntary, and nonviolent act and therefore linking it to violent crime is more problematic than doing so with animal cruelty or firesetting".[16]

In addition I like to say, that mothers of suspects probably wouldn't reveal the truth, when so far they weren't willing to help the investigation with a tip, IMO.

I think it is only one type of SK that have the “triad”, and it rather points to some problems in brain development than anything else. In itself, bed wetting is not a huge predictive factor. I used to blame the bed wetting on the “diaper culture”, coming from the old country and knowing how diaper-less times motivated the mothers to start potty-training early. However, in most serious bedwetters, if we are to believe their parents, bed wetting stopped, and then, restarted again, at night. So maybe, some type of sleep-related factor is at play?

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree. As you said, if there was something there between his words, LE would have likely cut it out. I actually think it sounds like water flowing over rocks (the creek) and have sometimes convinced myself the words were spoken closer to the water. But LE has said it probably was right off the south end of the bridge, so unless the sound of the creek was captured from that distance, I have to imagine the sound might just be from moving inside her pocket. JMO

I agree and we do know it’s Libby’s phone, LE have the original audio. If the girls voices were captured, screaming in fact, the volume level wouldn’t be faintly in background to “guys...down the hill”. I’d expect it’d be as loud or louder.

I’m imagining a group of investigators with their ears close to a speaker carefully listening to the audio. But in today’s world that’s not so - audio is analyzed digitally by professionally trained experts who focus on the sound waves. By that analysis LE surely know what caused the crackling and I agree, it’s probably the friction from the cellphone’s microphone against her pocket. LE has no reason to tell us as their stated purpose in releasing the audio is to receive tips regarding recognition of the male voice.

I’m very confident LE would not publicly release any audio containing sounds of the girls in distress - what a horrifying heartbreak that would be for the families to hear over and over.

JMO

 

[flashy09]

I hear that oh my God cadence now and the water bubbling sound now that I am listening for it. So interesting because before I just heard a phone in pocket sound. I wonder if LE used an noise enhancement system to louden and clean up the voices and that is why the unusual gurgling sound is there. It was just a rustling in the pocket sound that has been made a bit "weird" by the enhancement.

 

[Shamrock1]

I'll just say this. Do not underestimate the importance of religion, specifically evangelical Christian theology and its concept of salvation, in the lives of both these particular investigators and the Delphi community. You have to look at what they say through a lens of understanding because they are actively using an evangelical model of faith in God/the afterlife to cope with the murders of Libby and Abby.

We have heard from Abby's mom that one of her first thoughts on learning of Abby's death was regret that she didn't have Abby baptized immediately upon her profession of faith a few months prior (source: podcast Scene of the Crime). We have heard from the FBI special agent in charge Jay Abbott that the investigators started each day of work with prayer. Tobe Leazenby has explained that he is a man of faith and that this particular belief leads him to think the crime will be solved because evil cannot triumph over good in his theological worldview. And most prominently, Carter has spoken openly in the press conferences about his ideas of coping with tragedy through faith. Unfortunately, his attempt to analogize the situation in Delphi with the fictional portrayal of a Christian take on forgiveness and redemption, was clumsy and was then seized upon and twisted by listeners into other meanings IMO.

When Carter spoke with anger about "how you left them...is NOT what they are experiencing today" he is not referencing anything specific about the crime scene other than the killing of two young children is always senseless and that these two particular girls - in his opinion - are in heaven now. His concept of what heaven is like would have been shared by most everyone in attendance at that press conference IMO and would have been understood to mean that the girls were now "saved," "with Jesus," and "no longer in pain or fear."

All MOO

I was raised in a place where you were either Catholic or Jewish and spent a few years in an evangelical Protestant area. Agree 100%. Definitely a lot of new vocabulary for me to learn!

 

[Pyschsandi]

I think it is only one type of SK that have the “triad”, and it rather points to some problems in brain development than anything else. In itself, bed wetting is not a huge predictive factor. I used to blame the bed wetting on the “diaper culture”, coming from the old country and knowing how diaper-less times motivated the mothers to start potty-training early. However, in most serious bedwetters, if we are to believe their parents, bed wetting stopped, and then, restarted again, at night. So maybe, some type of sleep-related factor is at play?

The Macdonald triad is a theory from the 1960s that has not been proven to be a predictor of a young serial killer. Psychology calls young people with problems with authority and callous/unemotional traits conduct disorder.

 

[photographer4]

I hear that oh my God cadence now and the water bubbling sound now that I am listening for it. So interesting because before I just heard a phone in pocket sound. I wonder if LE used an noise enhancement system to louden and clean up the voices and that is why the unusual gurgling sound is there. It was just a rustling in the pocket sound that has been made a bit "weird" by the enhancement.

I'm sure they've used just about everything they can on that audio. My understanding is it was cleaned up quite a bit - to be able to isolate and make sense of the man's voice - of what he was saying. I think its phenomenal they have this evidence!! I imagine they have continued to revisit that recording as well to listen again, to try new methods to make sense of whatever the sounds are in the recording. They have a hard job! I hope they find the guy!

 

[Charlot123]

You make a lot of good points, but this guy is not your average killer. I think anything is possible with a monster that has no empathy.

Given the fact that my own psychological portrait of the killer includes:

- rather high intellect
- odd gait - either there is steppage or such unbelievable clumsiness that creates one, what with the bridge and the stuff (some weapon?) that he hides
- I always felt that he had OCD (posted it already), or maybe, tics/Tourette’s, another form of OCD - looking at his gait and leg movements, it is almost like he tries to hit one leg with another?
- not sure that he had enuresis as a child, but some form of tics is possible, JMO
- probably, a perfectionist
- about the rash that I see on the video, or rather, strange face color - I do think he has some autoimmune component, maybe even cold-related one. Whether diagnosed or not, I don’t know.
- I would doubt cruelty to animals in childhood
The main thing is the motive.
And here is where I wonder if he has either some medical condition that flares up, or even, with OCD, infection-related arthritis and tic disorder? Then some things that happen he may neither explain nor even control. And they are highly cyclical. The danger lies in the fact that with another episode, he may experience obsessive tendencies again.

His religiosity fits obsessive pattern, to me, it is more about “routines and rituals” than true call.

 

[stattlich1]

From the Robert Ives interview:

"there was a lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene."

I'm just going back and re-reading this transcript. This comment jumped out at me. Where do you suppose, and he says a 'lot' more evidence, just where would that evidence be if not at that crime scene?

Indeed, some have speculated maybe he was referring to the immediate CS where the girls were found, so the surrounding area, the woods, the bridge, the trail, right?

But what about in town? Or at a place that was searched early on?

Any way, what could this evidence possibly be, seeing how it was a 'lot' of it?

And he goes immediately in to this "And it’s probably not what you would imagine, or what people think that I’m talking about, it’s probably not. And so because of unique circumstances, which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort-of ‘signature’"

Was there something set up in the woods prior to the murders?
Was there something left behind, or planted, somewhere along the trail, or along the creek?

I admit, I'm baffled by the comment.

 

[Ravenmoon]

From the Robert Ives interview:

"there was a lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene."

I'm just going back and re-reading this transcript. This comment jumped out at me. Where do you suppose, and he says a 'lot' more evidence, just where would that evidence be if not at that crime scene?

Indeed, some have speculated maybe he was referring to the immediate CS where the girls were found, so the surrounding area, the woods, the bridge, the trail, right?

But what about in town? Or at a place that was searched early on?

Any way, what could this evidence possibly be, seeing how it was a 'lot' of it?

And he goes immediately in to this "And it’s probably not what you would imagine, or what people think that I’m talking about, it’s probably not. And so because of unique circumstances, which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort-of ‘signature’"

Was there something set up in the woods prior to the murders?
Was there something left behind, or planted, somewhere along the trail, or along the creek?

I admit, I'm baffled by the comment.

My thoughts-
The creek.
Evidence gathered during search warrants.
The witness.

I am still not fully awake. There is probably more to add , but these are my initial thoughts.

 

[MistyWaters]

From the Robert Ives interview:

"there was a lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene."

I'm just going back and re-reading this transcript. This comment jumped out at me. Where do you suppose, and he says a 'lot' more evidence, just where would that evidence be if not at that crime scene?

Indeed, some have speculated maybe he was referring to the immediate CS where the girls were found, so the surrounding area, the woods, the bridge, the trail, right?

But what about in town? Or at a place that was searched early on?

Any way, what could this evidence possibly be, seeing how it was a 'lot' of it?

And he goes immediately in to this "And it’s probably not what you would imagine, or what people think that I’m talking about, it’s probably not. And so because of unique circumstances, which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort-of ‘signature’"

Was there something set up in the woods prior to the murders?
Was there something left behind, or planted, somewhere along the trail, or along the creek?

I admit, I'm baffled by the comment.

It’s hard to know other than the reason for every person speaking out is to increase or sustain interest in this case, hoping it will lead to an arrest. This comment meets that criteria.

Just my own opinion, what’s considered the crime scene isn’t just the immediate area where the bodies were found. LE stated something about Libby videoing the suspect just before the criminal act was about to occur and from that we began to realize, yeah this wasn’t just a double homicide - an abduction occurred when those words “guys...down the hill” were spoken by the suspect. So I think when anyone connected to the investigation refers to the crime scene it’s from the end of the bridge, crossing the creek, then to where the bodies were discovered.

An outdoor crime scene as well, if indeed LE “turned over every leaf” as I vaguely recall, I think the amount of physical evidence collected would be significant as it includes all discarded items found near the bridge, anything found in the creek or along the banks, including what was blown in the wind or washed downstream. Since that entire area including the bridge wasn’t an official part of the Delphi Trail, it probably hadn’t been de-littered for ages as I can’t quite picture RL handpicking discarded pieces of this and that on his entire 40 acres.

So when investigators began scouring the site, which they did for something like two or three days (?) they’d consider everything they found to be possible evidence. As in any unsolved crime, it still would remain as such until an arrest and conviction occurs, when it can be identified as to the significance. JMO

 

[Peppery]

From the Robert Ives interview:

"there was a lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene."

I'm just going back and re-reading this transcript. This comment jumped out at me. Where do you suppose, and he says a 'lot' more evidence, just where would that evidence be if not at that crime scene?

Indeed, some have speculated maybe he was referring to the immediate CS where the girls were found, so the surrounding area, the woods, the bridge, the trail, right?

But what about in town? Or at a place that was searched early on?

Any way, what could this evidence possibly be, seeing how it was a 'lot' of it?

And he goes immediately in to this "And it’s probably not what you would imagine, or what people think that I’m talking about, it’s probably not. And so because of unique circumstances, which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort-of ‘signature’"

Was there something set up in the woods prior to the murders?
Was there something left behind, or planted, somewhere along the trail, or along the creek?

I admit, I'm baffled by the comment.

“A lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene” is said in comparison to a different crime scene he was discussing. I don’t remember exactly what the other scene was but it was not in any way related. The issue is that the whole quote is never posted so it appears he’s only talking about this crime.

 

[Yemelyan]

From the Robert Ives interview:

"there was a lot more physical evidence than at that crime scene."

I'm just going back and re-reading this transcript. This comment jumped out at me. Where do you suppose, and he says a 'lot' more evidence, just where would that evidence be if not at that crime scene?

Indeed, some have speculated maybe he was referring to the immediate CS where the girls were found, so the surrounding area, the woods, the bridge, the trail, right?

But what about in town? Or at a place that was searched early on?

Any way, what could this evidence possibly be, seeing how it was a 'lot' of it?

And he goes immediately in to this "And it’s probably not what you would imagine, or what people think that I’m talking about, it’s probably not. And so because of unique circumstances, which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort-of ‘signature’"

Was there something set up in the woods prior to the murders?
Was there something left behind, or planted, somewhere along the trail, or along the creek?

I admit, I'm baffled by the comment.

I'm not sure which interview of his this particular transcript that you're reading came from, but in JMO there could be a word missing in that sentence. I think he said this comment in the context of how the Delphi crime scene is different from those he is typically familiar with, and that the sentence should be: "there was a lot more physical evidence than THAT at that crime scene."

In almost every interview he has done, he contrasts the Delphi crime scene with a typical Carroll County crime scene. They have had murders before in Carroll County, but he says usually a highly emotional motive is immediately apparent and, perhaps more importantly, the suspect is immediately apparent. Ives has given this example more than once as what he has commonly dealt with: a husband and wife have a fight. The husband shoots his wife in the head in a fit of anger and then when she falls shoots her twice more in the back. When detectives arrive at the scene, it was an uncomplicated one. There is one motive that's logical above all others (domestic violence), one easily identifiable suspect (a husband who possibly is still on the scene), and a single readily identified weapon that left incontrovertible evidence that it was used in the crime (the gun). There are no signatures. No need to do a rape kit, no need to look for hair or fiber evidence, no need to test for DNA, no need to do tire track or footprint analysis at the scene, no need to look for fingerprints.

Compared to that example, he's saying the Delphi crime scene is different. He implies it's only one of two times in his career that a random encounter led to a murder. He says it's one of the only outdoor scenes they've ever had (according to Riley it included the bridge up to the trailhead and we also know from helicopter footage that there were searchers in the creek itself). Ives also says it's the largest crime scene they've ever had. Thus, there is a lot more physical evidence at this scene than what they normally see or have to collect. It is, in fact, one of the only times that a murder happened where they didn't know within a day who was responsible for it.

 

[Pyschsandi]

Causality, as it relates to the type of person who commits a murder like the ones in Delphi, is a complex process involving biological, social, and environmental factors. And the same confluence of factors or circumstances could give rise to a murderer in one instance and a "normal" person in another. You're never going to be able to point to just one thing...whether that is a history of childhood abuse or neglect, conduct disorder diagnosis, or a high testosterone level...and say THIS is the sole or even 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 single specific traits or even combinations 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.

All MOO.

This person probably has a criminal history such as exposing himself, rape, burglary etc... he has evolved into a murderer. MOO.

 

[Nancy1954]

breaking glass?

That is what it sounds like to me.. breaking glass. Whatever it is.. it is awful. Like I said.. if there were no words said between "guys" and "down the hill.." why the need then for WHATEVER that sound was? MOO