IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #37

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's one in particular with the proper charge information that matches subject #1. I work in law enforcement so I used a database available to me and checked his identifier information with what I found online. The charges, address, etc. are all the same. I know we're not supposed to sleuth people who aren't suspects so when I saw he was incarcerated since 2015 I wanted to steer away from people wasting their time and space on the forum to discuss him. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you thank you thank you for this. It would be awful to see people wasting time (and sleuthing/posting about someone we aren't supposed to) on a person who is currently incarcerated to begin with. I fervently hope others will take the time to read through the posts, I hVe a feeling we will have a lot of people asking about sleuthing #1 today. I wish we could pin your post at the top of each page, haha. Thanks again!
 
All humans have DNA, even RSOs.

Or if that's not what you meant then maybe I'd include more words to explain.

You don't think LE has DNA from RSOs?

You don't think LE has DNA from BG?

You don't think LE has DNA from RL?

You don't think BG is the perp nor is RL but you do think that the suspect left DNA but LE doesn't have it yet?

Who's DNA does LE not have in your opinion? I assume by "they" you meant LE but if not then I'm REALLY confused lol.

I think Eileen meant she doesn't think the perp's DNA was found at the crime scene.

IMO.
 
Any way, I've taken to just googling the girls to see if there's any actual new news, then coming here and starting with the most recent posts and work my way backwards about 100 posts. If there's nothing new, I don't bother with the rest because I know it's about hats or fish, guns or cars, RSOs or mustaches, probation violations or alibis... and I think those are important things to keep tossing around. But I just don't personally have additional input on those, and that's fine.

Thank you for your post. I completely agree. I initially read every post but after over thirty threads of repeated information and the same questions over and over I gave up. It seems that a lot of posters don't look to see if the information has already been posted. It gets frustrating to read and it makes it difficult to find the posts that actually have new or pertinent information. Sometimes it feels like people are posting just for the sake of posting.

Anyway, I don't intend to be overly critical or offend...especially in my first post. This seems to be a great site and I truly hope that we can stick to focusing on the girls and not ourselves.
 
I think Eileen meant she doesn't think the perp's DNA was found at the crime scene.

IMO.

I gotcha, i was pretty sure but hate to assume especially with things like this because an assumed fact that turns out to not be true can throw a lot of things off.

I just don't want to be part of a misunderstanding that somehow grows and grows and grows.

My thought is that the police have all the RSO's DNA in a database, and I think if LE found any DNA on the girls' or at the scene IMO they'd have already checked it against any banked DNA in their database from RSOs or anyone else who for whatever reason would ahve their DNA banked.

IMO they've made statements particularly in the past 3 days that confirm IMO the way I'm reading it that they DO IMO have DNA from the suspect (IMO), but IMO it didn't match anything in the database so IMO searching for RSOs at this point would be a waste of time IMO.

IMO.
all JMO
 
Thank you for your post. I completely agree. I initially read every post but after over thirty threads of repeated information and the same questions over and over I gave up. It seems that a lot of posters don't look to see if the information has already been posted. It gets frustrating to read and it makes it difficult to find the posts that actually have new or pertinent information. Sometimes it feels like people are posting just for the sake of posting.

Anyway, I don't intend to be overly critical or offend...especially in my first post. This seems to be a great site and I truly hope that we can stick to focusing on the girls and not ourselves.

thanks for the comment, and welcome! :welcome: I agree on all of the above. it is really hard to re-read so many old threads though. in 35 threads we have over 36K comments after all. crazy! :)
 
All humans have DNA, even RSOs.

Or if that's not what you meant then maybe I'd include more words to explain.

You don't think LE has DNA from RSOs?

You don't think LE has DNA from BG?

You don't think LE has DNA from RL?

You don't think BG is the perp nor is RL but you do think that the suspect left DNA but LE doesn't have it yet?

Who's DNA does LE not have in your opinion? I assume by "they" you meant LE but if not then I'm REALLY confused lol.

There are NOT always viable samples of DNA... I know that from court.

Example...Too much blood

Example...Diluted by water or elements such as melting snow.

Also could have DNA but persons DNA is not in any data base so they have absolutely nothing to match it to...

( He could of washed bodies in Creek )



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are NOT always viable samples of DNA... I know that from court.

Example...Too much blood

Example...Diluted by water or elements such as melting snow.

Also could have DNA but persons DNA is not in any data base so they have absolutely nothing to match it to...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but I don't understand what this has to do with the question I asked Eileen and which you quoted.
 
It appears that RL is in trouble for nothing except his drinking and driving and for over a week everyone has been trying to link him to the murder of two little girls...

If someone put a tooth under their pillow that night at RL's house next someone would be trying to blame it on the Tooth Fairy on here....lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think that's an unfair statement. His probation violation is NOT what people are worried about. It's the Probable Cause Search Warrant directly relation to the girls homicide investigation that is what's got everyone considering him
Here. And rightly so. JMO, moo.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
I gotcha, i was pretty sure but hate to assume especially with things like this because an assumed fact that turns out to not be true can throw a lot of things off.

I just don't want to be part of a misunderstanding that somehow grows and grows and grows.

My thought is that the police have all the RSO's DNA in a database, and I think if LE found any DNA on the girls' or at the scene IMO they'd have already checked it against any banked DNA in their database from RSOs or anyone else who for whatever reason would ahve their DNA banked.

IMO they've made statements particularly in the past 3 days that confirm IMO the way I'm reading it that they DO IMO have DNA from the suspect (IMO), but IMO it didn't match anything in the database so IMO searching for RSOs at this point would be a waste of time IMO.

IMO.
all JMO

Thank you so much for your posts this am. I happen to completely agree with you on the DNA angle. I think LE has killer's DNA from the crime scene, based on recent statements and it would be almost next to impossible for the perp to have committed these crimes without leaving any. It would require pretty much setting up a sterile field out there in the woods...all it takes is one hair. I would only add that I think LE has gone and checked out the RSO's who were in the system prior to DNA collection..JMO.
 
I am a fan of trying to keep the thread on topic too. I've read every single post since the beginning but have only commented a few times because the conversation often cycles back to debating things that have already been said repeatedly.

I feel pretty certain that LE would be trying to do the same thing as some of you and see which sex offenders might fit the build/look of BG. They would be eliminating some, who were locked up or on camera etc elsewhere, and looking for possible connections between the remaining individuals and the girls.

Because the girls had multiple SM accounts, and bc LE initially said "know what your kids are doing," it makes me think the person could've lived in the general region (maybe not the small town) and discovered them online. It would be important, too, in addition to looking at their SM interactions, to search their internet histories and see if they were participating in any online forums etc.

Just hypothetically, if the girls were expecting to meet a 16 year old boy, they may have known in the back of their head that people can lie on the internet and be someone else. They may have known they were taking a risk, but considered it a very slight risk, but when a man in his 30s or 40s approached them, they became suspicious and began videoing.

It's possible they photographed a passerby fairly innocently and he became angry that they were invading his privacy and there was some sort of confrontation too.

Or, what if some adult they knew from the community noticed they were under dressed (they may have been fine; just hypothesizing) and offered them sweatshirts from their car or home...and they willingly walked back toward RL's for what they thought was a legitimate reason.

Until LE confirms even generally what else is on that video, lots of possibilities still exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you for your post! One thing to remember IMO, is that LE has stated (there are definitely links on here I can go find them for you if you would like) that the stills/photos/audio are from AFTER a confrontation had already taken place...so I would feel relatively safe in thinking that if it was a random person they photographed and angered for example, we would have better/more images. I just find for my own sleuthing that it's a useful fact to keep in mind when theorizing about the what if's. IMO of course. MOO
 
<modsnip>

Sorry but he didn't do it...You guys are wasting time I think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So LE has wasted about 9 hours execution a probable cause search and seizure in relation to the double homicide? How do you know that? They seized items including his vehicle. That is pretty serious. I trust LE at the direction of the FBI pretty much know what they are doing. It's not an opinion that the SW and search was conducted. It's facts. We just don't know why yet.

I hope he's not involved. Makes it more of a betrayal somehow. But I can't dismiss the actions of law enforcement based upon my sentimentality.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/

just look up ronald logan. I do not put in the "E" for middle initial nor the birth date because I like catching all the stragglers, but the one you want is specifically this one:

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...6TXpNVFl4TnpFek1qTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhZak09In19

most recent updates are all the way at the bottom. It still only says that the hearing on the 20th was cancelled.

PS they can't NOT have a probation violation hearing. They pushed it back, probably so RL's lawyer will have time to work up a case to "explain"/refute whatever evidence they have against him since it's an evidenciary hearing.

I Can't get over how lucky that guy is. My relative has been in jail on probation violation charges since december 24th and is just FINALLY gonna have his own evidenciary hearing on April 4. RL gets to get in and out in under a MONTH. must be nice.

I second this. A close friend of the family, in his 60s, was taken down by a swat team when he walked into his garage for a parole violation. He's been in jail ever since. It will be two months by the time someone from the parole board interviews him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I asked earlier and the high was low forties that day. Pretty cold.

49F. He's wearing boots, baggy pants, a hoodie with the hood pulled up, a zipped up bulky coat, a ball cap, and at least one hand is in a pocket. No one needs two hats and two coats in 49 degree weather unless they grew up in the tropics.

Compared to what the girls are wearing, he is overdressed. In fact, the extra clothing disguise both his build and his facial features.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/delphi-in/46923/february-weather/332895
 
I think that's an unfair statement. His probation violation is NOT what people are worried about. It's the Probable Cause Search Warrant directly relation to the girls homicide investigation that is what's got everyone considering him
Here. And rightly so. JMO, moo.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

IIRC They never once said that the Probable Cause Search Warrant was for the homicide, they in fact specifically said many times it IS NOT. It is related to the probation violation. Am I wrong? Is there a MSM link or LE statement that says this SW was executed in relation with the homicide of the girls? because that would be huge.

ETA: yes I WAS wrong, sorry!!

http://fox59.com/2017/03/17/authorities-serve-search-warrant-in-connection-with-delphi-murder-case/
 
JMO it's possible they amended it to add additional charges/reasons, or to correct any mistake they may have made though I don't think they'd be making mistakes right now/would think they'd be more careful in something like this. JMO

Thanks. Nothing about this whole thing is straightforward based on the info we have, is it?

Making mistakes at this point would be pretty inexcusable.

IMO, his attorney must have something positive on behalf of RL to attempt to get the probation hearing revoked.
 
Just wanted to throw this out there from the rules page as sometimes i feel the need to remind myself to let the mods be mods and I think we could all do a better job of hitting the red triangle and scrolling and rolling rather than trying to act like a mod.....MOO

"Do use the alert feature (red triangle at bottom left of each post) if you think someone is posting outside the rules. Do not quote or respond to it. Moderators review all alerted posts."

link to rules:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 
They never once said that the Probable Cause Search Warrant was for the homicide, they in fact specifically said many times it IS NOT. It is related to the probation violation.

Oh boy, I am confused then. Dos someone have a link to the interview that LE gave about the SW of RL's property on 3/17. I thought they specifically said the SW was directly related to the homicides based on additional information LE had received.. I need to clear this up in my own head... TIA
 
I'm sorry but I don't understand what this has to do with the question I asked Eileen and which you quoted.

I was just posting about the answer that there is always DNA. I thought you meant at crime scene. LE may or may not have viable DNA that will stand up in a court of law for the reasons I stated above.

Lawyers are meticulous at going after those DNA samples and proofing them inaccurate in court. A lot of times the DA will choose not to use them rather than to put doubt in a jury's mind. (So police are not saying)

In my sister's case she bled to much for a good sample to prove rape; but they did find a hair, so in court rape was never used as an aggravating circumstance even though the motive was rape. They went with robbery.

Are justice system is unfair at times when a victim cannot speak for themselves.

I feel terrible for these two little girls...

There was nothing in my answer that was meant really toward you...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not intended to sound snarky...but what are we supposed to be talking about? We have been beating everything to death (bad choice of words sorry). If this can clear up the discussion about cars under the bridge then it needs to be said. Same would go for someone getting a clear image of the brown spot on BGs right side and saying it was a shirt/hoodie. By saying that we are putting the fanny pack debate to bed.

By ruling out things we are closer to the truth. I cannot see a shut down over logical and scientific information that took 37 threads to figure out.

MOO
Again, no snark intended :)
Got you, it was debunked about 15 threads ago. I didn't see need for new recreations proving it all over again in giant overblown posts that say the same thing. But if that's what everyone here wants to discuss today than so be it.<modsnip>

My crankiness not directed at you BTW sorry.&#9774;&#65039;

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for that.

It looks like the Petition for Revocation of Probation was amended twice. Do you have any ideas as to what would be amended?

RL denied the allegations; maybe he and his attorney came up with proof of his denial?

I don't know without seeing the actual pleadings in the case. If one files a motion such as this one, they normally have to have a basis to do so. The Judge set April 3rd to review it. We will have to wait until then to hear what his evidence is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
4,451
Total visitors
4,653

Forum statistics

Threads
592,469
Messages
17,969,375
Members
228,777
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top