New to the case so I apologize in advance for any redundant terrain vis a vis my inquiries. Thx.
Would anybody happen to know how Abby got to Libby and the Patty's house on the 12th for the sleep over? Did Ana drop her off, or Derek, or was she picked up by either Becky or Mike or Kelsi? Or somehow otherwise?
I'm thinking that BG could have spotted either Abby, Libby or both some days/weeks before and if so then perhaps he was surveilling (voyeuristic stalking would probably be closer to what I'm implying) them, and then either followed them as they left Mike and Becky's that afternoon or catfished (I know this has supposedly been dismissed as a possibility) them to the bridge while he lay in wait
Have any of the families mentioned any odd occurrences that now really stand out in the days/weeks leading up to the bridge ambush?
What I would be most interested in, however, is an answer to my first question...how did Abby get to Libby's on the 12th?
Thanks.
This is a spectacular example of excellent local journalism, and that is something I think is sorely missing in the Delphi case.
http://californiaregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Issue-2-Volume-3.pdf
This is about the Kristen Smart case and I realize the two cases are very different.
Where is the passion though in anything written or reported about Libby and Abby’s case by local journalists? They do nothing but parrot back what LE tells them. They never question anything, they never ever ask a follow-up question.
Just read a few paragraphs of this article and you’ll see the difference. The media does have a roll. Here, they are careful to not reveal information LE doesn’t want revealed, so they are not interfering but the newspaper does investigate on its own. Finds witnesses on its own. Questions and criticizes LE’s actions or inactions as it deems necessary. The media is pushing the case forward. They are pushing LE to do their best. They are true advocates for justice in this case. Where are the advocates in Indiana media for Abby and Libby?
Everybody in this case seems to be sitting and waiting. I wish the California Register would move to Indiana for a year or two.
Just my thoughts.
For a while, the Fox station had Alexis McAdams. I don't know if I can really say she was a strong advocate, but we got some good interviews with LE when she was there. She did the August 2017 interview with ISP 1st Sgt Holeman. She is with ABC7 in Chicago now.This is a spectacular example of excellent local journalism, and that is something I think is sorely missing in the Delphi case.
http://californiaregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Issue-2-Volume-3.pdf
This is about the Kristen Smart case and I realize the two cases are very different.
Where is the passion though in anything written or reported about Libby and Abby’s case by local journalists? They do nothing but parrot back what LE tells them. They never question anything, they never ever ask a follow-up question.
Just read a few paragraphs of this article and you’ll see the difference. The media does have a roll. Here, they are careful to not reveal information LE doesn’t want revealed, so they are not interfering but the newspaper does investigate on its own. Finds witnesses on its own. Questions and criticizes LE’s actions or inactions as it deems necessary. The media is pushing the case forward. They are pushing LE to do their best. They are true advocates for justice in this case. Where are the advocates in Indiana media for Abby and Libby?
Everybody in this case seems to be sitting and waiting. I wish the California Register would move to Indiana for a year or two.
Just my thoughts.
I strongly believe, it could have been him, the BG! MOO It would be a good thing to get Anna looking at photos of secret pois by LE/FBI, if there are any ........Anna Williams said that there was some guy at the store, or the parking lot of a store where she was at with her daughter sometime before the abduction and the man creeped Abby out. Anna said that while discussing that with her daughter, she pointed out that she should trust that instinct. I don't know how long before the girls this happened, or any other info about the incident at all. Here is the video wherein she said it for those interested (22:23).
I confess I'm not one of those who understand the crime scene contamination angle.
It's an offshoot of the optimistic belief that law enforcement knows who did it. That theme has been extremely simple to follow: Since the bridge is not well known it had to be a local. Since the bridge is very close to Delphi then local means Delphi. Since we're not solving this as soon as I expected then it has to be a false alibi. That false alibi should be easy to break via DNA but obviously we can't do that since the search party trampled all over the crime scene. Get with the program.
The catfishing angle is easily shot down by the great degree of detail and agreement regarding that morning, that Libby asked at the last minute and Kelsi originally said no. If not for those inconvenient anecdotes, then the catfishing angle would be relentlessly pushed and we wouldn't hear nearly as much about the search party and crime scene contamination. But just as the ones who do push the catfishing angle are content to ignore the description of that morning, the ones who devote to the contamination angle are more than willing to ignore the fact that the bodies were in an isolated area and we know exactly when they were discovered, and by members of the search party who were carefully selected to be in that high profile area. This wasn't Louie from Logansport skidding down the hill like a luger and crashing into the bodies while on his 6th beer of the day.
By all accounts two search parties came upon the bodies at almost the same time. One was the family member party who had discovered Libby's shoe, and the other group was following the set of footprints. Given who they were and the shocking aspect of what they encountered, I can almost guarantee this crime scene was handled far better than most. Yes, somebody might have touched the girls to see if there was any chance they were still alive. The odds of that wiping out best evidence is next to nothing.
Stranger crimes are hellish to solve. It baffles the heck out of me why that big picture truism doesn't dominate this case, as opposed to the constantly evolving rationalizations toward why they know who did it but aren't allowed to tell us.
I strongly believe, it could have been him, the BG! MOO It would be a good thing to get Anna looking at photos of secret pois by LE/FBI, if there are any ........
Anna Williams said that there was some guy at the store, or the parking lot of a store where she was at with her daughter sometime before the abduction and the man creeped Abby out. Anna said that while discussing that with her daughter, she pointed out that she should trust that instinct. I don't know how long before the girls this happened, or any other info about the incident at all. Here is the video wherein she said it for those interested (22:23).
It's an offshoot of the optimistic belief that law enforcement knows who did it. That theme has been extremely simple to follow: Since the bridge is not well known it had to be a local. Since the bridge is very close to Delphi then local means Delphi. Since we're not solving this as soon as I expected then it has to be a false alibi. That false alibi should be easy to break via DNA but obviously we can't do that since the search party trampled all over the crime scene. Get with the program.
The catfishing angle is easily shot down by the great degree of detail and agreement regarding that morning, that Libby asked at the last minute and Kelsi originally said no. If not for those inconvenient anecdotes, then the catfishing angle would be relentlessly pushed and we wouldn't hear nearly as much about the search party and crime scene contamination. But just as the ones who do push the catfishing angle are content to ignore the description of that morning, the ones who devote to the contamination angle are more than willing to ignore the fact that the bodies were in an isolated area and we know exactly when they were discovered, and by members of the search party who were carefully selected to be in that high profile area. This wasn't Louie from Logansport skidding down the hill like a luger and crashing into the bodies while on his 6th beer of the day.
By all accounts two search parties came upon the bodies at almost the same time. One was the family member party who had discovered Libby's shoe, and the other group was following the set of footprints. Given who they were and the shocking aspect of what they encountered, I can almost guarantee this crime scene was handled far better than most. Yes, somebody might have touched the girls to see if there was any chance they were still alive. The odds of that wiping out best evidence is next to nothing.
Stranger crimes are hellish to solve. It baffles the heck out of me why that big picture truism doesn't dominate this case, as opposed to the constantly evolving rationalizations toward why they know who did it but aren't allowed to tell us.
It's an offshoot of the optimistic belief that law enforcement knows who did it. That theme has been extremely simple to follow: Since the bridge is not well known it had to be a local. Since the bridge is very close to Delphi then local means Delphi. Since we're not solving this as soon as I expected then it has to be a false alibi. That false alibi should be easy to break via DNA but obviously we can't do that since the search party trampled all over the crime scene. Get with the program.
The catfishing angle is easily shot down by the great degree of detail and agreement regarding that morning, that Libby asked at the last minute and Kelsi originally said no. If not for those inconvenient anecdotes, then the catfishing angle would be relentlessly pushed and we wouldn't hear nearly as much about the search party and crime scene contamination. But just as the ones who do push the catfishing angle are content to ignore the description of that morning, the ones who devote to the contamination angle are more than willing to ignore the fact that the bodies were in an isolated area and we know exactly when they were discovered, and by members of the search party who were carefully selected to be in that high profile area. This wasn't Louie from Logansport skidding down the hill like a luger and crashing into the bodies while on his 6th beer of the day.
By all accounts two search parties came upon the bodies at almost the same time. One was the family member party who had discovered Libby's shoe, and the other group was following the set of footprints. Given who they were and the shocking aspect of what they encountered, I can almost guarantee this crime scene was handled far better than most. Yes, somebody might have touched the girls to see if there was any chance they were still alive. The odds of that wiping out best evidence is next to nothing.
Stranger crimes are hellish to solve. It baffles the heck out of me why that big picture truism doesn't dominate this case, as opposed to the constantly evolving rationalizations toward why they know who did it but aren't allowed to tell us.
For a while, the Fox station had Alexis McAdams. I don't know if I can really say she was a strong advocate, but we got some good interviews with LE when she was there. She did the August 2017 interview with ISP 1st Sgt Holeman. She is with ABC7 in Chicago now.
Login • Instagram
Or store surveillance video if it is still available. Anna any Abby would be easy to recognize but LE may know the stranger.I strongly believe, it could have been him, the BG! MOO It would be a good thing to get Anna looking at photos of secret pois by LE/FBI, if there are any ........
There have been roughly 15 abductions of juveniles by a stranger or strangers in the U.S. since 1974, so the rarity should give people pause. Throw in the other factors in this case, and the variables the killer had to juggle and try to make work in his favor, and I believe we have a one-of-one set of crimes committed that day. Which is why I believe LE were spooked early on, there simply is nothing to compare it to when all the facts are put together, it certainly took a lot of planning.
Good post AD.
I'm undecided as to whether or not this is a serial killer. One reason is the unique nature of the crime - only 15 such crimes since '74 - that you point out. (I assume you meant abductions of 'multiple' juveniles at once.) If this guy has killed before but only a single victim at a time, perhaps he had to alter his MO to accomplish this murder. If he has killed or contemplates killing in the future he may decide multiple victims is too challenging and, again, alters his MO. LE searching in ViCAP - which is already known to be incomplete with regard to violent crimes - may not be able to relate these murders to any other. IOW, the lack of a connection to another murder or murders doesn't necessarily mean there aren't other murders. Add to that the fact that this is likely a stranger makes it harder still.There have been roughly 15 abductions of juveniles by a stranger or strangers in the U.S. since 1974, so the rarity should give people pause. Throw in the other factors in this case, and the variables the killer had to juggle and try to make work in his favor, and I believe we have a one-of-one set of crimes committed that day. Which is why I believe LE were spooked early on, there simply is nothing to compare it to when all the facts are put together, it certainly took a lot of planning.
Good post AD.
I keep seeing this and I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW this can be accurate! .. after all how many missing juveniles cases do
we have that are considered missing and unsolved ? how many went missing without even being documented ..and what about sex trafficking ??