Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #136

Status
Not open for further replies.
cause the couple in question might be witnesses ..I am presuming

How do you think that accounts for the two entirely different sketches and age ranges?

They can’t have been close enough to witness much because the girls were only presumed missing, no found play, that first day and night. If someone had been in the area at the right time I think the crime would’ve been solved almost immediately as I’d be surprised if it was a totally silent double homicide. JMO
 
It's very possible they have a good idea of who it is, but don't have the evidence to arrest him and make it stick. Very possible. They could also be wrong or they could have no idea. Like all of us who unfortunately have no idea what they know. But to think just because they know who did it means they can arrest him. Well, that's just not how it works. Even if that means that purp can kill again. As ****** as it is, you can't make an arrest without the evidence to get a conviction. I'm sure if they do believe they know who it is, they have their eyes on him all of the time

How can LE know for sure who it is without adequate evidence to convict?
 
Is anyone here following CrimeCon 2021? Becky Patty, Kelsi German and Tara German appeared on a panel discussion devoted to the case, according to the schedule: CrimeCon 2021 Schedule

I've heard a few interesting things about their discussion but wondering if anyone has seen a video or transcript yet to verify?

I was hoping HLN might post a video. On June 6th is a pic of the Delphi Q&A and I’m sure we can all guess at least one question focused on any updates regarding JBC.
https://twitter.com/NewsyBarbara
 
There also could be a self-preservation part also at play. If your husband is say violent then taking the risk of reporting him risks nothing happening after they've checked him out and now he's coming home angry/risk he logically deducts who it was. Paticularly if the information on its own without context is not a smoking gun, you have to make a leap of faith in the Police.

I'll be blunt, from how it has come across as someone from a different country who is not used to the style of some of the press conferences (Don't know if that is a US thing), I'd not have much in them. But I guess that's irrelevant as long as they do.
There is the dilemma of some tipsters. If you're right, LE might protect you. BUT if you're wrong, LE may go about their merry way and you're at the mercy of the person you called in. You roll the dice unless you have real solid info.
 
Regarding the dynamics of turning in a suspected killer the matter may not seem to the same to the person who has the knowledge as it does to some of us. The convicted spy, John Walker, had someone who knew. His wife at the time (for 8 years) and later his ex. For another 8 years after the divorce she spent most of it in denial and she didn't just suspect, she KNEW. For 2 or 3 years before Walker's arrest she then started calling the FBI while she was drunk and wasn't taken seriously. When she found out that Walker after his arrest recruited their son she stated she regretted calling a tip. She said if she knew her son was also involved she would not have made the call. And MANY lives were lost because of Walker's giving the Soviets classified documents.

$325K is out there for someone who can call in a tip. But for whatever reason maybe they value something more than the money. Of course, LE may have already received the TIP. Look at the Tara Grinstead case where a man called the GA Bureau of Investigation (GBI) five or six years before the GBI made an arrest from another tip and said the suspect had never been 'on their radar'. When asked about the tip called in years earlier, the GBI really had no good answer why they didn't act on it.

For some time, my belief is that a mother may be protecting her child. Even if it means breaking the law herself. It doesn't matter how old the perpetrator may be- the momma bear tends to come out when it comes to their child.

We have seen it in numerous cases here on WS:
Tristyn Bailey- the perpetrators mother, Crystal, washed his bloody clothes before they were taken by LE (destroying evidence).
Caylee Anthony- Defendant's mother, Cindy, claimed to have been the one who made incriminating searches on the home computer for chloroform (perjury).
Scott Peterson- Mother Jackie gave defendant money and a vehicle in attempt to help him leave the country (fleeing or attempting to elude a criminal case).
Stephen Lawrence- Theresa Norris, provided false alibi to her son David, who was accused of murder.

Unfortunately, there are many reasons why BG may be protected from detection. And I think it's possible a mother may be the one doing it.
 
Attached are my own images of the creek west of MHB, last October, looking towards the bridge. The creek was low, further along on that area I was walking on it ends, and does not continue towards the bridge. You have to walk through the water in order to get closer to the bridge. Also, technically, the lower trail splits towards the bottom, the vegetation is very dense in the warmer months and makes it virtually impassible, plus I was leery of ticks on a warm day.

Access to the underneath of the bridge on that side of the creek is impossible on dry land, from west of the bridge . There are sheer cliffs and dangerous steep slopes along there.

Edit: Hope I didn't confuse anyone with the 2nd image, they may not be in sequence. One was taken where I couldn't walk any further towards MHB.

JMO

Love all of your descriptions and photos, @Falling Down. It really helps those of us who have never been there visualize the area. Thank you!
 
How can LE know for sure who it is without adequate evidence to convict?

One theory I've had- perhaps DNA collected at the crime scene can be explained away? Maybe someone who had a legitimate reason to be in the area; Volunteer searcher, LE, emergency personnel, family member (whose DNA would be expected to be on clothing), etc.
 
How can LE know for sure who it is without adequate evidence to convict?
OJ, Casey Anthony, even with Drew Peterson, LE had to wait years and dig up his third wife to prove he was a killer. Guess they were as right as could be since he then got convicted of hiring someone to kill a county lawyer from behind prison bars.

I'm sure there are many other cases accross the country where investigators know who the killer is but can't acquire enough evidence prove it, can't convince a jury. Those cases I'm sure lead to prosecutors not bringing charges in other cases until they're confident they can convince a jury. Justice is very slow sometimes.
 
For some time, my belief is that a mother may be protecting her child. Even if it means breaking the law herself. It doesn't matter how old the perpetrator may be- the momma bear tends to come out when it comes to their child.

We have seen it in numerous cases here on WS:
Tristyn Bailey- the perpetrators mother, Crystal, washed his bloody clothes before they were taken by LE (destroying evidence).
Caylee Anthony- Defendant's mother, Cindy, claimed to have been the one who made incriminating searches on the home computer for chloroform (perjury).
Scott Peterson- Mother Jackie gave defendant money and a vehicle in attempt to help him leave the country (fleeing or attempting to elude a criminal case).
Stephen Lawrence- Theresa Norris, provided false alibi to her son David, who was accused of murder.

Unfortunately, there are many reasons why BG may be protected from detection. And I think it's possible a mother may be the one doing it.
Or a Father.
 
How do you think that accounts for the two entirely different sketches and age ranges?

They can’t have been close enough to witness much because the girls were only presumed missing, no found play, that first day and night. If someone had been in the area at the right time I think the crime would’ve been solved almost immediately as I’d be surprised if it was a totally silent double homicide. JMO
its very clear no one witnessed the crime itself
but BG might have been seen before and /or after ...not visible enough for future recognition most probably
the different sketches would be the result of two sightings of possible persons of interest .. and le not being able to decide which witness to trust..
in my opinion the video should be more of a defining factor
in other words.. bring all the experts you can find to try and come up with a more suitable description ..instead of the contradicting sketches
 
OJ, Casey Anthony, even with Drew Peterson, LE had to wait years and dig up his third wife to prove he was a killer. Guess they were as right as could be since he then got convicted of hiring someone to kill a county lawyer from behind prison bars.

I'm sure there are many other cases accross the country where investigators know who the killer is but can't acquire enough evidence prove it, can't convince a jury. Those cases I'm sure lead to prosecutors not bringing charges in other cases until they're confident they can convince a jury. Justice is very slow sometimes.

Kristin Smart comes to mind for sure.
 
OJ, Casey Anthony, even with Drew Peterson, LE had to wait years and dig up his third wife to prove he was a killer. Guess they were as right as could be since he then got convicted of hiring someone to kill a county lawyer from behind prison bars.

I'm sure there are many other cases accross the country where investigators know who the killer is but can't acquire enough evidence prove it, can't convince a jury. Those cases I'm sure lead to prosecutors not bringing charges in other cases until they're confident they can convince a jury. Justice is very slow sometimes.

Yes although your examples all refer to domestic homicides and immediate family members are always looked at closely in homicide investigations. But as this killer appears to have had no prior relationship with the victims, a crime of opportunity, it becomes impossible for LE to ‘know’ without strong evidence pointing toward him. LE have given us absolutely no indication they have their eyes on only one strong suspect, unfortunately, which IMO is the reason for the continuous request for tips from the public. The belief LE knows runs contrary to that, including the continuing work of the family in attempting to sustain focus by encouraging more tips.

JMO
 
One theory I've had- perhaps DNA collected at the crime scene can be explained away? Maybe someone who had a legitimate reason to be in the area; Volunteer searcher, LE, emergency personnel, family member (whose DNA would be expected to be on clothing), etc.

I think that’s highly possible especially if the killer was local and just blended in or if it’s true that area around the bridge or the creek was a known local hangout.

“Dennis Bridge said the local area was a place where 'kids play until sunset and then they come home' and that he believed the Monon High Bridge was a 'hangout'.”
Grandfather of one of murdered Indiana teens speaks out | Daily Mail Online

“An entrance to the Monon High Bridge Trail area in Carroll County has been barred to keep the public out, and people will now have to walk twice as far to explore the area….
….His concern was there was activity there day and night, even when you wouldn’t think there should be,” McCain said.
High Bridge access changes, parking will no longer be allowed off of 300 North
 
One theory I've had- perhaps DNA collected at the crime scene can be explained away? Maybe someone who had a legitimate reason to be in the area; Volunteer searcher, LE, emergency personnel, family member (whose DNA would be expected to be on clothing), etc.

I've thought about this too and it could be....but I have some reservations.

First of all, any LE, first responders, or volunteer searchers at the precise scene where the bodies were found would be interviewed as to exactly where they walked and exactly what they touched as part of crime scene investigation protocol, IMO. (I'm talking about anyone who stood right where the bodies were - not just anyone who happened to search anywhere on the trails that day.) If it was thought that their DNA could be on the victim (for example due to checking a pulse) they'd be asked to give a DNA elimination sample. If there's a discrepancy between what they said they did and where/what kind of DNA was found (LE expects to find touch DNA on the victim based on the person's interview but instead find blood, semen or saliva; or expect to find DNA on clothing but instead find it on an exposed body part) - then that's a red flag for the investigators that would be looked into.

If a person's defense is "my DNA was there because I searched that night and/or I used to party/camp/ fish near the bridge," then that could explain the person's DNA on a discarded cigarette, for instance, or on a discarded water bottle. It's not going to explain that person's DNA on an item of the victims' clothing, their bodies, or anything left at the very precise location where the bodies were lying.
 
Yes although your examples all refer to domestic homicides and immediate family members are always looked at closely in homicide investigations. But as this killer appears to have had no prior relationship with the victims, a crime of opportunity, it becomes impossible for LE to ‘know’ without strong evidence pointing toward him. LE have given us absolutely no indication they have their eyes on only one strong suspect, unfortunately, which IMO is the reason for the continuous request for tips from the public. The belief LE knows runs contrary to that, including the continuing work of the family in attempting to sustain focus by encouraging more tips.

JMO
I respect your opinion, it's one I've had myself. I think what changed it was the April 2019 press conference, the things said "directly to the killer" and the way in which they were said, like there was a betrayal...all just what I felt.

LE asking for a siting of a "vehicle" but giving absolutely no description, just time frame and area. That seemed almost counterproductive to me. It was a specific request without any even general "help" as to what it was.

Would witnesses even report seeing a vehicle they didn't know/recognize as even a make, model or color, not even one of those things? LE had to of known more info to share. That leads me to think they did know at least some if not all of those things and wanted confirmation. They never asked again about it either, after the news stories of that conference died down.

Sheriff Leazenby even mentioned having a small number of suspects not too long ago. I still think it may be that whatever DNA was tested at Quantico led to a family group. I think LE is stuck there because DNA can't be narrowed down and tied to the crime scene...but the investigators have strong beliefs about one or maybe even two.
AJMO
 
I respect your opinion, it's one I've had myself. I think what changed it was the April 2019 press conference, the things said "directly to the killer" and the way in which they were said, like there was a betrayal...all just what I felt.

LE asking for a siting of a "vehicle" but giving absolutely no description, just time frame and area. That seemed almost counterproductive to me. It was a specific request without any even general "help" as to what it was.

Would witnesses even report seeing a vehicle they didn't know/recognize as even a make, model or color, not even one of those things? LE had to of known more info to share. That leads me to think they did know at least some if not all of those things and wanted confirmation. They never asked again about it either, after the news stories of that conference died down.

Sheriff Leazenby even mentioned having a small number of suspects not too long ago. I still think it may be that whatever DNA was tested at Quantico led to a family group. I think LE is stuck there because DNA can't be narrowed down and tied to the crime scene...but the investigators have strong beliefs about one or maybe even two.
AJMO

Just MOO - I wrote a post about this awhile back - but with the exception of sharing the new sketch and extra audio snippet, the main purpose of the April 2019 press conference was actually not to provide information to the public about the case. All the previous press conferences were informational for the community/public at large, which is why this one seemed odd and confusing. But this press conference was not meant to update the public IMO, it was a performance for the killer and/or anyone who knew/strongly suspected they had insider information about this crime.

This is also why the information about the vehicle seemed counterproductive to you as an uninvolved person. IMO LE knew more about the vehicle than they revealed. So why bring it up with almost no details? To tell the killer or someone close to the killer: "you didn't think we were aware of this but we are."
 
Just MOO - I wrote a post about this awhile back - but with the exception of sharing the new sketch and extra audio snippet, the main purpose of the April 2019 press conference was actually not to provide information to the public about the case. All the previous press conferences were informational for the community/public at large, which is why this one seemed odd and confusing. But this press conference was not meant to update the public IMO, it was a performance for the killer and/or anyone who knew/strongly suspected they had insider information about this crime.

This is also why the information about the vehicle seemed counterproductive to you as an uninvolved person. IMO LE knew more about the vehicle than they revealed. So why bring it up with almost no details? To tell the killer or someone close to the killer: "you didn't think we were aware of this but we are."
I honestly don't believe ISP Carter's words were a performance per se. I think he had a script to follow as far as killer is local, hiding in plain sight. Very strong and sobering words to a community who was not wanting to hear LE definitively thought someone in their little communities murdered two of their own...two children.

The new sketch and the video, those were two huge updates, the sketch is something I'm still grappling with so I'm sure the locals must be also.

I believe LE knows the vehicle they asked about, the make, model and color. I think they were asking for a straight up confirmation from an uninfluenced witness. Poking the killer could have been a by-product, another way to taunt those they had their eye on. AJMO
 
I honestly don't believe ISP Carter's words were a performance per se. I think he had a script to follow as far as killer is local, hiding in plain sight. Very strong and sobering words to a community who was not wanting to hear LE definitively thought someone in their little communities murdered two of their own...two children.

The new sketch and the video, those were two huge updates, the sketch is something I'm still grappling with so I'm sure the locals must be also.

I believe LE knows the vehicle they asked about, the make, model and color. I think they were asking for a straight up confirmation from an uninfluenced witness. Poking the killer could have been a by-product, another way to taunt those they had their eye on. AJMO
Agree with both you and @Yemelyan .
QUESTION: Since LE know the make, model, and color of the car parked at the CPS building that day, can they not trace it back to the killer through the Department of Motor Vehicles and arrest him?
 
Agree with both you and @Yemelyan .
QUESTION: Since LE know the make, model, and color of the car parked at the CPS building that day, can they not trace it back to the killer through the Department of Motor Vehicles and arrest him?

Even if they can tie the car to a person, they (LE) would still have prove the person committed the murders. Just being at the trail may make him a suspect, but it wouldn't prove he killed Abby & Libby and it would not be enough to make an arrest. There were several people at the trail that day and probably several vehicles parked in the area. LE would have to have more to evidence to make a charge. MOO, while they may know who drove the car there that day, I don't believe they have much more. If they did, an arrest would have been made by now.
 
Even if they can tie the car to a person, they (LE) would still have prove the person committed the murders. Just being at the trail may make him a suspect, but it wouldn't prove he killed Abby & Libby and it would not be enough to make an arrest. There were several people at the trail that day and probably several vehicles parked in the area. LE would have to have more to evidence to make a charge. MOO, while they may know who drove the car there that day, I don't believe they have much more. If they did, an arrest would have been made by now.

So even if they interrogated everyone who owned that variety of vehicle, if all of them maintained composure and nobody cracked, flustered or blinked, they'd be no closer to solving it through that avenue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
1,595
Total visitors
1,779

Forum statistics

Threads
589,974
Messages
17,928,574
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top