Discussion in 'Located Persons Discussion' started by Tricia, Apr 22, 2019.
Yes it's a huge risk IMO
I guess I'm not convinced he put any thought into the phone whatsoever. All we know is that it was found in the general vicinity: maybe dropped in a struggle, thrown, or fell where she did. Maybe he left in a hurry and couldn't find it. We don't know. If she filmed him in such a manner that it wasn't obvious, then to him a teenager holding a phone wouldn't have made him suspicious of anything. I think if he had been he'd have at least thrown it in the creek.
ETA: And we also don't know what condition the phone was found in, that I'm aware of. Maybe he stomped on it? Who knows.
I agree, and we can’t say it was a huge risk because we lack information.
We don’t know if the killer noticed Libby capturing his image on video from 60 or 70 feet away, he was looking downward. We don’t know if the couple seconds of released video was all of it. We don’t know if Libby recorded the audio with her cellphone hidden and we also don’t know the specific location where her cellphone was found. For example if she tossed it or it fell in the river it’s doubtful the killer would’ve wasted time searching for it.
Maybe even thrown it in the water. And to piggyback on ur point, which was worded and explained perfectly, I want to add that the unknown here doesn't really make much of a difference IMO. The assumption of his technical prowess or knowledge of the phone does nothing to help ID the guy imo.
It seems I read that it was found on the ground near them, but without a source that's jmo. But yeah, I agree, him leaving the phone doesn't really say anything specific about his tech knowledge.
Sgt. Holeman said it was found in the vicinity of their bodies...he didn't specify it was on the ground though. That was in his interview with the local reporter which was transcribed on the media thread here by @Spellbound.
From his wording, I can't rule out that it was recovered from the water. LE are holding back info about the specific location of the phone/its condition IMO which in and of itself, is interesting to think about.
Barking out commands and speaking with authority are not always synonyms. Anybody, male or female, can bark out commands. Speaking with authority takes practice.
Barking out commands can also trigger defiance in some (nobody likes being yelled at). In contrast, a firm but confident command voice can result in compliance when barking stuff out does not.
I do, however, agree with you that BGs tone of voice does not definitevely indicate his profession.
We were discussing it a possible explanation of why someone would be looking through a phone at deer while searching for the girls. It was mentioned that the searcher found the girls when he/she saw deer and then looked further down and found the girls. A previous poster mentioned that it was strange to be looking at a phone screen while searching, and I offered zooming in or enlarging as a possible explanation. It is really of very little importance in the scheme of things.
Would this person be allowed to record his part in the search? Wouldn't that be a no no in a search party?
Perhaps. It may have also been recovered from the water.
Also, maybe Libby tossed it where BG couldn’t find it/get to it.
I’m not sure he even knew about the phone recording. If he didn’t know, there would be no reason for him to try to damage it, etc.
He wouldn’t want to take it, as it could be tracked.
I find it hard to believe he would not have gone thru the phone and try to destroy it. we don't know if it was touched or if it yielded prints. it may have been recovered in the water, in which case he may have intended to destroy it this way.
if he knew about the phone he may have wrongly assumed there was no leading information in that phone.
I think a fingerprint could survive the cold water but for how long?
file under : things we just don't know
As he spoke the words, he may’ve pulled a gun. Otherwise surely two teens wouldn’t immediately comply to go “down the hill” without any stated reason or explanation whatsoever, only 3 words and his tone of voice? There has to be more to it - as they’ve said to protect the integrity of the investigation IMO.
I think it stemmed from my post #588 I didn’t mention anyone using phone for zooming but that is where it ended up.
The searcher was reported to be a neighbor of property owner
Delphi man shows FOX 59 the crime scene where searcher made the discovery of two missing teens’ bodies | Fox 59
If I remember right, we were surprised when they ended the investigation at the crime scene so early, but a few days later a bunch of LE cars came back to the scene and started searching on land and in the creek. The helicopters were up in the air too. We were speculating then that they may have been searching for the phone at that time.
Mike Patty stated on Nancy Grace at CrimeCon that he, too, personally made a grid and went over the land again, with friends, to rescan the area. If LE went back out later and then found the phone, perhaps that would intice Mike to make sure nothing else was missed?
That's the interview I always think of, too. And you're right, his comment certainly doesn't rule out the phone ending up in the creek.
It does seems there was another source that talked about the phone being found on the ground, but I can't find it. However, other sources also made me reconsider it ending up in the water.
ISP: More audio recovered from slain Delphi teen's phone
"Sgt. Holeman tells us investigators recovered more audio from Libby’s phone, which was found with the girls at the crime scene."
*Still pretty vague, I know.
"Police released the images they say were taken straight from Libby’s cell phone, on Feb. 15, 2017 — the day after the girls’ bodies were found."
*Honest question: Could they have found the phone and retrieved video off of it after being submerged all night, and done it by the next day when they released the photo?
Didn't DG say the first couple times he called (3:11 and 3:15) there was no answer and after that it went directly to voicemail? Maybe that was said during the Renner interviews? Would the phone have gotten reception or stayed on under water?
Snipped for focus. Not sure I'd trust that article. They have the wrong family member scheduled to pick up the girls. moo
Thanks, I'll remove it.
Video of WTHR reporting live from Delphi the morning of Feb 14th about the search for the girls. 20 to 25 square miles was the intended search area, more than 200 searchers involved. By the emphasis on “where are the girls?” and the overall urgent tone of the news report in general, sadly to look back there was absolutely no hint at the time they wouldn’t be found alive.
This is my post from thread #127 in response to an approved video that swedeheart shared (has to do with the deet):
comes on at about 52:00.
• She was asked by a caller how much time had passed from when the girls asked to go to the trail & when she said yes & took them. She responded they asked initially a couple of hours earlier. She said no. They asked again after about an hour and she said yes.
• Social media aspect was brought up. Gray saying thats all been investigated & nothing was found. She says she doesn't think anything has been ruled out.
• She talked about the location where the shoe was found and the moment when a searcher called out he saw a shoe. She says she was on the private drive directly across from where the girls were found. The searcher saw something & used his phone to zoom in across the creek & then saw the girls.
• They discussed the Evansville case & the similarities. She said LE has been interested in whether the cases could be connected.
• They discussed the car in the cps parking lot. She said it was not the car she saw when dropping the girls off & that vehicle was ruled out by LE.
I paraphrased everything, hopefully I did not make any errors. IMO