Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #143

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JnRyan said:
I heard that, too. But then I wonder why is there no hat on the second sketch?
Click to expand...
Right? Which brings me back to KR clarifying that the sketches were not of the same person.

I totally understand that witnesses are not always accurate, and LE can be vague and confusing, and that sketches are not photographs. But in this case, LE has been pretty adamant that the sketches are not different perspectives of one person. We know the basic origins of both sketches, and that the killer likely will have commonalities of both. Even the hair color.

I mean, maybe LE somehow knows that two similar-looking men (related?) were there that day, one of whom is the killer. The second one....maybe waiting in the car at the CPS lot? Idk. I'm pulling crap out of the air to make it all make sense...
 
JnRyan said:
I heard that, too. But then I wonder why is there no hat on the second sketch?
Click to expand...
Maybe two people were involved? Not necessarily in the actual murders, but kind of like an accessory? Maybe he had on some kind of disguise?
Whatever the reason(s) is I don’t think we will find out until an arrest is made, or maybe not even until the trial. (if we see it in our lifetime)
M()()
 
stattlich1 said:
“Sources tell Call 6 Investigates that a set of footprints are what led volunteers to the area the bodies were found.”
https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-new...-bodies-found-as-missing-carroll-county-teens

This comment in and of itself is interesting. One killer, two victims, and "a set of footprints". One set?

Anyway, I stated early on, and believe it to be so even to this day.....the crime scene was contaminated. I suppose the argument could be made that the immediate area surrounding the girls' bodies was 'less' contaminated, however, we just don't know that. Early reports indicated hundreds of searchers out and about. Throughout the night. For 20 hours more or less.

I also believed early on, and still do, that there was a distinct possibility of two persons being involved in the murders, maybe more. Maybe one killer, but more persons involved.

I also believe the killer(s), or someone else involved, specifically contaminated the crime scene so as to destroy evidence, or possibly planted evidence, so as to confound investigators. At minimum, the killer was well versed in methods to avoid leaving traces of evidence at the crime scene.
Click to expand...

I pondered that for awhile too - a set of footprints, one killer, two victims and wondered how this could be. Interestingly, we weren't told anything about the footprints. Were they shoe prints? Bare foot prints? No indication of size or freshness even. We're not told which direction the prints were facing either - so they could be leading toward or away from the area. We're not even told how deep the impressions were.

Each of those things will be significant because they may tell investigators whether:
-> the girls split up and were captured one by one (these could be prints from killer)
-> freshness would indicate things like perhaps (?) time since they were left
-> Depth might indicate one's rough weight
-> Might indicate as well one's pace (run, jog, walk) (depending on depth?). I'm not positive on this one, just a guess here
-> Might indicate if someone had been there before (maybe not the killer, could be anyone), and may indicate familiarity with the general area depending on where they led to / away from etc....
-> They might even know if LG left those prints if say one print was a shoe and the other was bare or socked... so they may know whether she lost her shoe down by the creek or they may think it was placed there later on by someone...

ETA: found an interesting link that supports what I said above for those interested. https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ar.b.20025
 
Last edited:
From the link I just poste above: https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ar.b.20025

They talk about gait in the article! This hadn't occurred to me, but this might be part of why LE have said to watch BG's walk along the bridge - they may know definitely that he has an odd walk / gait based on footprints at the scene:
"The gait of each individual is differ-ent and the unique features of eachperson’s gait sculpt their footwear inindividual and repeatable patterns."

Other things to consider: they'd know if the prints were made by new footwear / older / more worn footwear and even possibly the type of footwear (boot, shoes, slippers, barefeet, socks)....

And one more thing to consider, we're assuming these were HUMAN footprints. I couldn't help but point out here, we're not told what kind of prints were found. A single set of footprints. Might it be part of the oddness of the scene? Some animal prints? Dog? Horse? Who knows... Just throwing it out there... If these things have to live rent free in my brain they should take up space in yours as well, it is only fair!
 
cuecard said:
Agreed 100%. The sketches have also been a complete disaster. We get the first sketch for nearly 18 months which is then made redundant, or so we are told. Sketch two then becomes the primary sketch. Then last week in an interview Carter says BG will probably be a blend of both sketches. It just doesn't help anyone and contributes more confusion imo.
Click to expand...

Carter and the family have stated this before, the blending of the two sketches. Other LE are firmly saying focus on the new sketch. I believe there may be some internal disagreement within the task force and that could account for the bizarre confusion that still remains about the sketches.

photographer4 said:
This is my theory as to why its unlikely he just happened to enter the frame: LE have told us that LG was a hero and it was amazing she had the presence of mind to begin filming. If this was happenstance, she wouldn't be hailed a hero. THat is 43 seconds of video. That's not a coincidence in my view. That's her being clever, and possibly making it *look* like she was only capturing Abby whilst collecting the suspect at the same time.
Click to expand...

I used to think that. Now the HLN endless notation of "we don't know if there's more than video" has me wondering if there was a second attempt at recording and that's where the heroics have come in. Or even if the heroics is LG being able to dispose of the phone without BG noticing.
 
AC4RD said:
Aspie, if you mean my message about how "they" doesn't necessarily indicate a plural number of subjects (as opposed to "he/she"), I apologize. I only wanted to note that the use of "them" by the person being interviewed wasn't a clue that there were more than one subject. Absolutely no offense or "correction" was intended, I promise!
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. I'm sorry if anybody thought I was correcting them.
 
TL4S said:
Right? Which brings me back to KR clarifying that the sketches were not of the same person.

I totally understand that witnesses are not always accurate, and LE can be vague and confusing, and that sketches are not photographs. But in this case, LE has been pretty adamant that the sketches are not different perspectives of one person. We know the basic origins of both sketches, and that the killer likely will have commonalities of both. Even the hair color.

I mean, maybe LE somehow knows that two similar-looking men (related?) were there that day, one of whom is the killer. The second one....maybe waiting in the car at the CPS lot? Idk. I'm pulling crap out of the air to make it all make sense...
Click to expand...
With multiple witnesses maybe we are talking about two similar looking men is another aspect that is possible. LE may still not be certain that all of the witnesses on the first sketch are all actually describing the same man. The other man may just be an unidentified innocent man that is unaccounted for that day. Maybe that is the reason for the shift to the second sketch. I still try to make sense of it all especially after Superintendent Carter keeps saying the killer could look like a combination of the two.
 
UnapologeticallyAspie said:
Maybe two people were involved? Not necessarily in the actual murders, but kind of like an accessory? Maybe he had on some kind of disguise?
Whatever the reason(s) is I don’t think we will find out until an arrest is made, or maybe not even until the trial. (if we see it in our lifetime)
M()()
Click to expand...

I thought in the News Nation special he made it clear it was ONE person the sketches were based on. It will become clear in the future why.
 
TL4S said:
Right? Which brings me back to KR clarifying that the sketches were not of the same person.

I totally understand that witnesses are not always accurate, and LE can be vague and confusing, and that sketches are not photographs. But in this case, LE has been pretty adamant that the sketches are not different perspectives of one person. We know the basic origins of both sketches, and that the killer likely will have commonalities of both. Even the hair color.

I mean, maybe LE somehow knows that two similar-looking men (related?) were there that day, one of whom is the killer. The second one....maybe waiting in the car at the CPS lot? Idk. I'm pulling crap out of the air to make it all make sense...
Click to expand...

maybe for the initial sketch, they tried to make a composite from all the witness's descriptions- and maybe they now know that the descriptions were divergent because there was more than one person there- so, even the "incorrect" first sketch could have some features that more properly belong on the second sketch and vice-versa.

(If we accept that they made a separate sketch for each witness's description, how would they ever wind up with just one sketch if they did not do some "merging?")

All IMO as I too have struggled with this issue.
 
acutename said:
maybe for the initial sketch, they tried to make a composite from all the witness's descriptions- and maybe they now know that the descriptions were divergent because there was more than one person there- so, even the "incorrect" first sketch could have some features that more properly belong on the second sketch and vice-versa.

(If we accept that they made a separate sketch for each witness's description, how would they ever wind up with just one sketch if they did not do some "merging?")

All IMO as I too have struggled with this issue.
Click to expand...
That actually makes a lot of sense. As others have suggested, as well, maybe LE isn't confident all the people for the first sketch saw the same person. I wonder if it's more a case where two men were there who were just dressed similarly...

I also wonder if some of the people for the first sketch actually saw the younger version guy.
 
I don’t think we know for sure there was only one set of foot prints.

I can’t recall LE saying anything much about them, so that info seems to come from family/media/somewhere else.

Would volunteer searchers be able to determine how many people left the footprints? Maybe. Would LE have been able to tell if any may have been a contaminated footprint vs from A&L or BG? Maybe, if they got to them early enough in the investigation which is far from certain. A&L could have worn similar size shoes and even BG could have small feet if he’s towards the shorter end of the 5’6” range.
 
TL4S said:
I have always wondered if LE has some hair evidence that they think belongs to the killer, because through both sketches the description of hair color remained the same: reddish-brown. I guess it's possible that all the witnesses, from both sketches, were in agreement about that detail, but I just feel it's more likely there was hair left at the scene. Jmo.
Click to expand...

I thought so. But how can one be 100% sure if it was his hair? Imagine, the hair was in someone’ hand. Yet the killer was smart enough to leave no other DNA traces. Then the origin of the hair might be questionable. In other words, the killer is so smart that he leaves no DNA, takes care of it…and yet, he misses the hair… maybe he did not miss it, maybe it was intentional?
 
Charlot123 said:
I thought so. But how can one be 100% sure if it was his hair? Imagine, the hair was in someone’ hand. Yet the killer was smart enough to leave no other DNA traces. Then the origin of the hair might be questionable. In other words, the killer is so smart that he leaves no DNA, takes care of it…and yet, he misses the hair… maybe he did not miss it, maybe it was intentional?
Click to expand...
Maybe it wasn't his hair? Was he cunning enough to leave someone else's hair intentionally?
 
Jealoushe said:
I thought in the News Nation special he made it clear it was ONE person the sketches were based on. It will become clear in the future why.
Click to expand...
Could it be possible that the sketches were made from eye witness accounts from different days/occasions? Maybe the first in a hat was from the day of the video (spotted walking in the park, etc.) and the second one from another location during the time period in question without a hat, or even during the search? This has probably been discussed, haven’t come close to keeping up with it all.
 
JnRyan said:
With multiple witnesses maybe we are talking about two similar looking men is another aspect that is possible. LE may still not be certain that all of the witnesses on the first sketch are all actually describing the same man. The other man may just be an unidentified innocent man that is unaccounted for that day. Maybe that is the reason for the shift to the second sketch. I still try to make sense of it all especially after Superintendent Carter keeps saying the killer could look like a combination of the two.
Click to expand...
My memory leaves a lot to be desired these days, but I thought they said that the second sketch released was actually the first one done. I've always just assumed (I know, bad idea!) that other witnesses had looked at the first sketch and started saying what they thought was off about it, so a new sketch was started. It's possible that some people saw him with the hat and some without, it could have been said that he looked somewhat older than the sketch, some may have thought he was clean shaven while others thought he had a 5:00 shadow (likely if he were there for hours.), and possibly comments about other features such as the nose being wider etc.

They may have thought the revised sketch would be more accurate because more people had contributed to it, but later decided to try the original one because they hadn't had much luck. Or, I could be way off base, wrong about when they were drawn, or both. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 3,199 (members: 96, guests: 3,103)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
3,103
Total visitors
3,199
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,286
Messages
17,966,706
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top