Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #134

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
If JBC isn’t BG he still needs to be in prison for the rest of his life. He is a true psychopath. He is a good suspect for Delphi. Many serial killers start out with other crimes and they graduate to murder. If LE doesn’t have DNA, I hope they find some kind of trophy. This guy is not smart and neither was BG. BG may have gotten away with the crime but Who doesn’t check a teen for a phone? I may be wrong but I truly think that JBC could be BG.
 
OverTheRhine said:
Some information from Grey Hughes new video. He has an unverifiable source that claims a few things we didn't know. Grey only mentions them because this person had previously known other aspects of the crime that weren't released. He claims this source knew about the young guy sketch before it was released, and knew that it was done days after the crime. Apparently he shared this information with Grey well before the 2019 press conference.

He says Libby was dragged and had bruising on her wrists.
DG was seen on camera searching for the girls and another cyclist was in the area. He says BG had still been in the area for at least 20 minutes while DG was seen on camera.
He claims the first sketch was almost all done by looking at the video with maybe a little witness input.
The only DNA they have is possible weak partial touch DNA from one of the girls clothing.

Click to expand...
I can’t listen to the video right now but
1. What cameras captured DG searching? Haven’t we been told there are no cameras on the trail?
2. How do they know BG was at the scene for 20 minutes while DG was searching?
3. If there’s only one partial possible fingerprint, it makes me think BG has on gloves
4. If he drug the body with his hands, would that leave bruising or more likely that he wrapped something around her wrists, like a rope (maybe white thing sticking out of his coat?)

imo, I always struggle with the validity of GH’s video info
 
SBops said:
The dragging and bruises on the wrists was claimed in a Reddit thread, years ago.
Click to expand...

And the 3:30pm (20 minutes beyond 3:10pm) was stated during a PC and Q&A. I’m very disappointed GH wouldn’t ask “what cameras?” was DG sighted by, looking for his daughter. IMO that’s a real good clue the integrity of his source is questionable.

County Sheriff answers double homicide questions from readers | Carroll County Comet
Q. It has been stated in a press conference that “it was all over by 3:30 on Feb 13.” This statement was based on what information?

A. Evidence. I do not recall a specific time though but rather a time line.
 
Last edited:
Yemelyan said:
I don't want to miss your point that LE has better investigative tools than they did 60 years ago, and can make decisions about the likely involvement of a POI with greater accuracy so I'll just center that and say yes - absolutely true.

However, two points I'd make for understanding crime (this is long-winded, but in case you want to know):

As @Ozoner said, DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Even really, really strong DNA evidence is still circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony that the witness saw the material facts of the crime with his or her own eyes. But witnesses can be unreliable/lie. So the direct vs. circumstantial qualification of evidence doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the evidence.

Second point: in forensic DNA testing, there is never a match that is 100% precise to one single individual. The idea that a suspect exactly matched a sample from a crime, and no one else on earth could have matched, is a fallacy. Even "slamdunk" DNA evidence that convicts people and puts them away for life, is NOT an exact match to their DNA. That's because at no point in forensic testing is the ENTIRE genetic profile of the suspect compared.

Instead, about 13-20 locations in the genome are compared to the sample from the crime. These locations were chosen because they are highly variable among human populations, so if you can sample all 20 of them, with each subsequent location where the genetic information is found to be a match, the probability that the suspect is, in fact, the contributor increases. Nowadays 20 locations are used, making the probabilities (if the DNA sample is complete) even more accurate...though still not exact.

However, even if there are matches at all 20 locations LE still can't say that there is NO ONE else in the world who might also have the same information at these 20 locations. After all, there are several billion of us on earth, and only 20 locations. Did you ever wonder why prosecutors use the term "there is a 1 out of 5 million chance" (for example)? They are reporting the chance that another, innocent person would ALSO share the EXACT same genetic information at all locations that forensic testing looks at. They are saying "this genetic information is a match to our suspect, but you could expect, if you looked at the DNA of several million people, that 1 out of every 5 million people would also match, or have this SAME genetic information encoded at these specific sites."

Now, is a 1 out of 5 million chance that another, innocent person contributed the DNA at a particular crime "good" evidence? Of course - taking into account other evidentiary aspects of the crime, this can clearly convict a person. However, is it an "exact match to a one single individual?" No. LE can never say accurately that DNA evidence, by itself, shows that no one else could have contributed the sample. LE might be able to say there is a very small probability that someone other than the suspect did.

Now, let's just say, for example, that in the Delphi case LE only have a partial DNA sample to work with. Remember, they don't test and compare a full genetic profile, gene by gene - they are looking for their 13-20 specific locations. If they only have 9 of the 20 locations, let's say - what does this do to their probabilities? Likely, it will go way, way down - now LE may only be able to say that the DNA profile shared by the suspect and the sample from the crime is expected to appear in 1 out of 400 random people. The exact probability will depend on how common the genes are in the population at large. Suddenly the DNA evidence is much weaker. In any sports stadium in a large city, you might find several people who "match" the profile from the crime. So then in prosecuting this type of partial DNA case, authorities have to rely much more on the other evidence that points to their suspect because "1 out of 400 chance" is not nearly as impactful. Is partial DNA what LE has in the Delphi case? Only LE knows.

All MOO but for an accessible overview of why a DNA match can't determine guilt all by itself, see this article: If Police Find a DNA “Match,” That Doesn’t Mean They Have the Right Suspect
Click to expand...




I could have been his father or brother due to stats and DNA geneology.

Yet.. slam dunk .. for those of us who understand *SQUIRREL!!!! SQUIRREL!!!!


NOPE.

I will not be misled by squirrels.

Myself, this is a *SQUIRREL* MOO
 
OverTheRhine said:
Some information from Grey Hughes new video. He has an unverifiable source that claims a few things we didn't know. Grey only mentions them because this person had previously known other aspects of the crime that weren't released. He claims this source knew about the young guy sketch before it was released, and knew that it was done days after the crime. Apparently he shared this information with Grey well before the 2019 press conference.

He says Libby was dragged and had bruising on her wrists.
DG was seen on camera searching for the girls and another cyclist was in the area. He says BG had still been in the area for at least 20 minutes while DG was seen on camera.
He claims the first sketch was almost all done by looking at the video with maybe a little witness input.
The only DNA they have is possible weak partial touch DNA from one of the girls clothing.

Click to expand...
That sounds like the guy I've referenced a few times in this video talking about BG being in the area a longer time and when Libby's dad was looking for her. He also said only touch DNA from one of the girl's sweatshirts.

At 2:04:20 (DG searching, BG there)
At 1:59:30 (Touch DNA)

 
OverTheRhine said:
Some information from Grey Hughes new video. He has an unverifiable source that claims a few things we didn't know. Grey only mentions them because this person had previously known other aspects of the crime that weren't released. He claims this source knew about the young guy sketch before it was released, and knew that it was done days after the crime. Apparently he shared this information with Grey well before the 2019 press conference.

He says Libby was dragged and had bruising on her wrists.
DG was seen on camera searching for the girls and another cyclist was in the area. He says BG had still been in the area for at least 20 minutes while DG was seen on camera.
He claims the first sketch was almost all done by looking at the video with maybe a little witness input.
The only DNA they have is possible weak partial touch DNA from one of the girls clothing.

Click to expand...


Hmm, interesting! The sketch was done from video ... I don’t see a resemblance at all to the BG video
 
taylorss said:
Hmm, interesting! The sketch was done from video ... I don’t see a resemblance at all to the BG video
Click to expand...

Although, the Jerry Holeman interview at CrimeCon has him going into some details about the sketch and how witnesses were involved. But they never agreed on the hat. I can definitely see the sketch being produced by a combined effort of the video and the witnesses. Specifically the hat in the video resembling the sketch. I can absolutely see how it could have been a welders hat though, but most people wouldn't know what that is so they go with something that is more common and similar in style.
 
OverTheRhine said:
The only DNA they have is possible weak partial touch DNA from one of the girls clothing.
Click to expand...

A few random thoughts based on the first few pages of this thread and the last few of the prior.

In the Ives interview (someone posted transcript here) there's mention of contact DNA. Ives is very careful not to reveal details in the case that have been withheld, however he does give quite a detailed example in the below snippet. It's my opinion there is touch or contact DNA, probably lots of it. It can be used to prove someone came in contact with one of the girls, but can't prove they committed the murder. Not helpful if the killer had a valid reason to be around the girls, very helpful for someone who has zero reason to come in contact with them prior to the murder. Please note in the below snippet Ives is not confirming what was found on the girls, he's using vague examples. This also aligns with the post I quoted above about GH's informant saying they apparently have weak partial touch DNA.

But when you’re just thinking “Oh, there’s contact DNA, somebody brushed somebody, somebody touched somebody”, I mean all that’s really…there’s really a lot of stuff there to sort it out, to find out, particularly if it’s unknown and then to match an unknown. And even if it isn’t an unknown person, that doesn’t mean they committed the crime. And you’d look at these two I mean these are two girls that are at school all day. I mean there’s no telling how many people’s DNA might be on their clothing.

It's also my opinion that someone who was camped out in the woods would cut possible interaction with bystanders in half. Already there for days (possibly) and only needs to make an exit not an entrance. This also fits with a "lair" or set-up as well as an abundance of physical evidence (which Ives states several times as fact in above linked interview). If this person needed to break camp it could also explain staying past the crime to attempt to clean up.

Just a few random thoughts I wanted to get out there while they were fresh in my mind.
 
OverTheRhine said:
Although, the Jerry Holeman interview at CrimeCon has him going into some details about the sketch and how witnesses were involved. But they never agreed on the hat. I can definitely see the sketch being produced by a combined effort of the video and the witnesses. Specifically the hat in the video resembling the sketch. I can absolutely see how it could have been a welders hat though, but most people wouldn't know what that is so they go with something that is more common and similar in style.
Click to expand...

oh wait, I’m confused on the sketches - I thought “young BG” sketch is one that was done right away from video but then not released for a year or two ?? .. but that has no hat. The hat sketch “old BG” does IMO have a good resemblance to BJC.

“Young BG” is so generic that it could be or could not be about 1/2 the male population of the US MOO including BJC !
 
Could you clarify what you mean here?
IMO the OP was giving an example with the 1 in 400, not saying this was what is happening with the possible DNA of BG.
I know what "squirrel" in this context means, but what do you mean by "squirrel" here?
TIA for clarifying!

dixiegirl1035 said:
I could have been his father or brother due to stats and DNA geneology.

Yet.. slam dunk .. for those of us who understand *SQUIRREL!!!! SQUIRREL!!!!


NOPE.

I will not be misled by squirrels.

Myself, this is a *SQUIRREL* MOO
Click to expand...
 
ShamelessObserver said:
Oh and also the fact that (referring to Grey Hughes video) because BG was able to drag Libby, he must be fairly strong and not some old man.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If the wrists are bound together, the trailing rope can be looped around a tree/other object to increase a person's pulling power. If it's true that wrist bruising was found, I could image such a maneuver would be more likely to cause it than simply grasping her wrists by his own hands. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 107 more.
Total: 3,632 (members: 108, guests: 3,524)

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
3,524
Total visitors
3,632
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,880
Messages
17,960,296
Members
228,625
Latest member
julandken
Back
Top