Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #131

[Deleted member 102539]

What's considered "early on" in the Delphi case? 6 months? 9 months? At the one-year anniversary, Carter flatly denied having information about any (suspect) vehicle.

(thread #97)

My guess would be, "early on" meant February/March/April 2017 already ..... and then the waters got muddy.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

What's considered "early on" in the Delphi case? 6 months? 9 months? At the one-year anniversary, Carter flatly denied having information about any (suspect) vehicle.

(thread #97)

At the one year mark I think they knew about that car but didn't associate it with the killer. The vehicle seems to be a given. In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Via that assessment, Carter during that interview would have accurately portrayed their thought process as of February 2018. It was basically...oh sure, we know about that vehicle near the CPS building. But that's not the suspect.

The change of direction is when they got jarred by outside agencies reviewing the case, saying you dummies why did you devalue the best sighting and best lead you had? They were onto something early on but Leazenby doesn't want to add that they disregarded it almost as soon as they had it. Once they realized the car may indeed have belonged to the suspect, they dredged up further info and perhaps checked the collected videos from February 13, realizing that the vehicle did drive elsewhere in Delphi and seemed to know what he was doing. That aspect again boosted their belief that he was probably local.

Any or all of that could be off. But it's my best summation as of March 2021.

 

[MistyWaters]

What's considered "early on" in the Delphi case? 6 months? 9 months? At the one-year anniversary, Carter flatly denied having information about any (suspect) vehicle.

(thread #97)

Yes I’d sure hope given all the tips LE might’ve thought they were onto something more than a few time, the opposite would suggest the investigation has never had any potential leads whatsoever.

But IMO I’d guess he was referring to the obvious - LE thought they were onto something involving the first sketch of “the suspect” released July/17.

 

[sunshineray]

At the one year mark I think they knew about that car but didn't associate it with the killer. The vehicle seems to be a given. In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Via that assessment, Carter during that interview would have accurately portrayed their thought process as of February 2018. It was basically...oh sure, we know about that vehicle near the CPS building. But that's not the suspect.

The change of direction is when they got jarred by outside agencies reviewing the case, saying you dummies why did you devalue the best sighting and best lead you had? They were onto something early on but Leazenby doesn't want to add that they disregarded it almost as soon as they had it. Once they realized the car may indeed have belonged to the suspect, they dredged up further info and perhaps checked the collected videos from February 13, realizing that the vehicle did drive elsewhere in Delphi and seemed to know what he was doing. That aspect again boosted their belief that he was probably local.

Any or all of that could be off. But it's my best summation as of March 2021.

Snipped and BBM

In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Or perhaps the car was registered to someone LE believed wasn't guilty, say an older person, so that vehicle was disregarded early on as being relevant. After investigation it appeared that older person may have been covering for someone else, who really used the car that day?

 

[TL4S]

Snipped and BBM

In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Or perhaps the car was registered to someone LE believed wasn't guilty, say an older person, so that vehicle was disregarded early on as being relevant. After investigation it appeared that older person may have been covering for someone else, who really used the car that day?

I suppose the vehicle in question also could have been stolen, scrapped, borrowed and returned without the owner's knowledge, a company vehicle, etc. If LE has reason to suspect something like this, then not releasing the vehicle description protects the owner from unjust harassment. Just a thought.

 

[carbuff]

When a child, or in this case children, goes missing, it seems that for LE the initial canvass of the neighborhood or area is critical, as people may have seen something that only in retrospect was out of place. They could be witnesses to some part of the crime without even realizing what they had seen, or what they knew.

I am reminded of how, in the Evansdale murders, two separate witnesses reported a particular vehicle parked on a road adjacent to the place of abduction. Police knew about this early on but only after a third witness came forward a full year later with identical information did they start treating this vehicle sighting as something of significance.

I wonder if the "we were on to something early on" in the Delphi case is similar. LE might have had a bit of information in their canvass about a vehicle at the CPS building that they were trying to confirm. I firmly believe that they didn't release make and model because they already had some details about the vehicle in mind and were seeking confirmation.

Because we haven't heard anything about the vehicle at the CPS building since, I hope they got the information they were seeking.

I suppose this would also apply to vehicles parked at the cemetery or other locations. I seem to recall at least a couple of others that were initially unidentified, but then were found out to be members of the search party or journalists or whatnot.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Snipped and BBM

In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Or perhaps the car was registered to someone LE believed wasn't guilty, say an older person, so that vehicle was disregarded early on as being relevant. After investigation it appeared that older person may have been covering for someone else, who really used the car that day?

Bear with me on this-
Not certain this will come across the way I intend it to.
What if an individual known to LE claimed to have seen a car parked at this place during the hours in question.
Maybe this person participated in the search, or is someone residing in the area.
What if this person was trying to draw attention away from themselves, and embellished this story .
Could it be possible that this individual is the ONLY person to report having seen this vehicle , and LE is trying to verify the sighting by others- hence leaving the description of said vehicle, and driver, out .
Maybe there have been inconsistencies by this person, maybe their alibi is no longer holding up.
Perhaps they started to look back at this persons statements and started to find things that were used to throw them off the trail.

I know this is probably going to sound strange, but I am wondering if this could be a trusted person in the community that was trying to implicate someone else, and it just did not pan out the way the person had hoped.

MOO JMO AMOO

 

[sunshineray]

Bear with me on this-
Not certain this will come across the way I intend it to.
What if an individual known to LE claimed to have seen a car parked at this place during the hours in question.
Maybe this person participated in the search, or is someone residing in the area.
What if this person was trying to draw attention away from themselves, and embellished this story .
Could it be possible that this individual is the ONLY person to report having seen this vehicle , and LE is trying to verify the sighting by others- hence leaving the description of said vehicle, and driver, out .
Maybe there have been inconsistencies by this person, maybe their alibi is no longer holding up.
Perhaps they started to look back at this persons statements and started to find things that were used to throw them off the trail.

I know this is probably going to sound strange, but I am wondering if this could be a trusted person in the community that was trying to implicate someone else, and it just did not pan out the way the person had hoped.

MOO JMO AMOO

It's a very interesting theory about the car and I could certainly see something like that occurring. I do think there was a betrayal of some sort or what felt like a betrayal to certain LE.

 

[Yemelyan]

Bear with me on this-
Not certain this will come across the way I intend it to.
What if an individual known to LE claimed to have seen a car parked at this place during the hours in question.
Maybe this person participated in the search, or is someone residing in the area.
What if this person was trying to draw attention away from themselves, and embellished this story .
Could it be possible that this individual is the ONLY person to report having seen this vehicle , and LE is trying to verify the sighting by others- hence leaving the description of said vehicle, and driver, out .
Maybe there have been inconsistencies by this person, maybe their alibi is no longer holding up.
Perhaps they started to look back at this persons statements and started to find things that were used to throw them off the trail.

I know this is probably going to sound strange, but I am wondering if this could be a trusted person in the community that was trying to implicate someone else, and it just did not pan out the way the person had hoped.

MOO JMO AMOO

A lot of people were irritated by TL's response in the Carroll County Comet about how investigators will know the right tip when they see it but I can see how a situation like what you describe could give rise to that comment.

 

[Diddian]

At the one year mark I think they knew about that car but didn't associate it with the killer. The vehicle seems to be a given. In the April 2019 presser, Carter asked about the driver of the vehicle, not the vehicle itself. My interpretation is that somebody reported the car in the early days, in connection with a younger guy. But they disregarded that sighting -- and therefore the vehicle -- because a younger guy didn't match what they thought they were seeing in Libby's video.

Via that assessment, Carter during that interview would have accurately portrayed their thought process as of February 2018. It was basically...oh sure, we know about that vehicle near the CPS building. But that's not the suspect.

The change of direction is when they got jarred by outside agencies reviewing the case, saying you dummies why did you devalue the best sighting and best lead you had? They were onto something early on but Leazenby doesn't want to add that they disregarded it almost as soon as they had it. Once they realized the car may indeed have belonged to the suspect, they dredged up further info and perhaps checked the collected videos from February 13, realizing that the vehicle did drive elsewhere in Delphi and seemed to know what he was doing. That aspect again boosted their belief that he was probably local.

Any or all of that could be off. But it's my best summation as of March 2021.

I've been poring over minutes from the meetings of the Delphi's Board of Works and Common Council from 2014-2015. That is when the projects were underway to place the Freedom Bridge over the Hoosier Heartland Highway. I was looking for anything of potential interest about contractors doing land work and block retaining wall building for that bridge (since that work would likely bring subcontractors and workers from Carroll or nearby counties into the area close to the trails) as well as anything about the Family Services building.

The Family Services building at that time was owned by INDOT (Indiana Dept of Transportation), as were the plazas being constructed on either end of the planned Freedom Bridge and as were some adjacent land areas. At some point, those properties were going to be transferred to the City of Delphi, but I'm not yet sure if or when that took place.

I've found a few mentions of the Family Services building that I'm going to put out here in case they trigger any thoughts. I've also included one mention regarding need for replacements of dead plants in the new landscape at the then-in-place Freedom Bridge. Except for the mayor's, I've removed names of city or state employees or board or council members.

April 28, 2014, Board of Works - "The last tie in on water lines is set to be completed. There is an issue with construction on 300 and [a named construction company] for relocation of water lines and drainage ditch. To supply sewer lines to the building that was formerly Family Services could go gravity. Mayor Strasser noted INDOT might use part of this building as a field office and could be used as a welcome center with rest rooms."

July 20, 2015, Board of Works - "[A named board member] questions [a named city employee] about all the dead landscaping located around the Memorial Center of the Freedom Bridge. [Named city employee] stated this had been addressed with meetings and all of this landscape will be replaced by the company this fall."

April 7, 2014, Common Council - "A lot of interest has been shown from individuals for the building formerly used by Family Services. INDOT is interested in saving the building and seeing it utilized. INDOT could possibly use part of the building for an area office. This building was in the construction right of way and the state bought the building. [A council member] wanted to know about the extra land and if it could be used to tie in to trails? [A city employee] stated INDOT was aware but this was not a good time."

June 12, 2015, Common Council - Under Community Development: "Freedom Bridge needs some landscape replaced." Late in the meeting, when some members of public addressed the members: "[Named person], Commander of American Legion Post in Delphi, addressed the council and stated the Legion Post is very interested in the former Family Service building on the new highway. [Named person] had conversations with Rep. Don Lehy [sic, should be Lehe] and found this property had been turned over to Delphi. [Named person] was told if the city was not going to use the building, the state would put it up for bid. [Named person] would like to know what the city is going to do with this building. Mayor Strasser stated he had conversations with [a named person, presumably from INDOT] but we do not have any documentation the building is ours. Mayor Strasser will contact Indianapolis again and check on the status of the building. [A council member] stated we need to find out and to his knowledge, we had not heard anything since last fall. Mayor Strasser noted he is waiting on documents from the state.

July 6, 2015, Common Council - Late in the meeting, when some members of public addressed the members: "[Named person] questioned if Mayor Strasser has been in touch with INDOT concerning the building previously owned by Family Services. The Legion is interested in this building. Mayor Strasser stated he does not have any update to offer."

I've also been researching through newspaper articles relating to the Family Services building (2015 through 2018) and will post excerpts from those separately.

 

[chaz]

Sheriff Leazenby continues to answer double homicide questions | Carroll County Comet
Part two is now available without subscribtion.

 

[UnapologeticallyAspie]

And with BG being possibly anywhere, LE in Delphi, are 100% positive that he will not harm anyone else? Correct?

 

[Ozoner]

And with BG being possibly anywhere, LE in Delphi, are 100% positive that he will not harm anyone else? Correct?

The sarcasm is palpable.

 

[TL4S]

Sheriff Leazenby continues to answer double homicide questions | Carroll County Comet
Part two is now available without subscribtion.

I know everyone wants to see justice for these girls and their families, and nobody wants another murder to happen, but I have to admit I'm at a point where I'm asking myself why LE even accepts these interviews anymore.

It's basically just a bunch of curious cats out in the public forum wanting each and every detail so they can solve the crime based on rumors, anyway, because LE is incompetent, lying, and overlooking the obvious. It's completely distasteful, imo, and shows the level of ignorance we all, as outside observers, hold when it comes to what really happened that day. JMO

 

[sunshineray]

And with BG being possibly anywhere, LE in Delphi, are 100% positive that he will not harm anyone else? Correct?

In this interview, he says (paraphrasing), no ongoing threat, isolated to the victims...I've never understood why he'd say that with an unknown killer at large (at least at the beginning) .

Some people think he said that to try and keep the public calm and avoid widespread panic...that logic equally puzzles me personally.

 

[sunshineray]

I know everyone wants to see justice for these girls and their families, and nobody wants another murder to happen, but I have to admit I'm at a point where I'm asking myself why LE even accepts these interviews anymore.

It's basically just a bunch of curious cats out in the public forum wanting each and every detail so they can solve the crime based on rumors, anyway, because LE is incompetent, lying, and overlooking the obvious. It's completely distasteful, imo, and shows the level of ignorance we all, as outside observers, hold when it comes to what really happened that day. JMO

I disagree. LE accepts these interviews because they're obligated to serve the public. The Sheriff should always make himself available to any questions about anything really that a citizen or group of feels the need to ask him.

We the public don't always deserve a forthright answer from our law enforcing protectors, because of procedural rules for many good reasons, but we can always expect to initiate dialogue with our LE. AJMO

 

[Deleted member 102539]

In this interview, he says (paraphrasing), no ongoing threat, isolated to the victims...I've never understood why he'd say that with an unknown killer at large (at least at the beginning) .

Some people think he said that to try and keep the public calm and avoid widespread panic...that logic equally puzzles me personally.

Isolated to the victims + Abby/Libby not targeted

^^What's wrong with that?^^

(My logical thinking fails ....)

 

[Ozoner]

Some people think he said that to try and keep the public calm and avoid widespread panic...that logic equally puzzles me personally.
[/MEDIA]

That much comes straight from the horse's mouth:
-
"You know, I've, I've been with, uh, this agency, uh, in particular for thirty-two years, and so, uh, I had, uh, a lot of, lot of feeling and, and, uh, real faith that we were not dealing with, uh, an ongoing event as far as, uh, you know, someone, um, you know, going out there and, and committing this crime again. Uh, one thing I do want to speak to, though, is that I—more of a concern for me as a, a law enforcement leader was that we obviously did not want to, uh, create a, a large amount of paranoia and concern where individuals, or, or families, uh, would have to constantly, uh, if you will, uh be looking over their shoulder all the time wondering, you know, who's that behind me. Um, that's, that's no way for a community to live, in my opinion. And so, um, you know, we, um, wanted to convey that message that, um, this was solely related to, or isolated, if you will, to, um, these, um, individuals involved, and so, um, there was no factual information to believe that we were dealing with an ongoing situation with someone out there, um, in the community, so I felt assured that, and still feel that way honestly, that, uh, you know, this is, something that the, the community is safe, in uh, you know, what's taking place in, uh, in Carroll County."
-
It's something that LE in the US does all the time. "There's no threat to the community" is something that people want to hear, but at the same time, anyone over the age of five knows that it doesn't really mean anything.

 

[stattlich1]

There are two things that motivated me to post the following link. This woman was last seen near a rail trail parking lot, and State Police say there is no threat to the public.

So when I read this, I thought, if there's no threat to the public, then she either died of natural causes/accident, suicide, or there is evidence she was specifically targeted for murder. (edit to add, the killer may too have been found dead)

In the Delphi case, I think the general statement of there being no threat to the community was made to keep the local population calm, and perhaps to avoid a whole lot of finger pointing and possible further difficulties due to a swelling of anger that could lead to vigilante justice type behavior.

The other item in this article is the rail trail. It seems these trails keep popping up. Even though the article doesn't specify the trail, rather the parking lot, I surmise if one is to utilize remote wooded trails, one would be wise to have a heightened situational awareness, and not go alone.

Missing York County woman found dead, Pennsylvania State Police say

 

[TL4S]

Questions for anyone who has been to the bridge area: @Awsi Dooger, @Falling Down, any others?

1) Guessing on the creek's depth that day, would a person be able to walk east along the south edge of the creek under that steep bank without being in the water? I've put an arrow pointing to the area.

2) I've circled an area in the creek that, on this map, looks like a rock crossing. Have any of you seen it and think it would have been an easier spot to cross than the sandbar, if waters were up?

ETA: The upload gets a little fuzzy, but this map is a simple Google map, for reference.