Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #129

[Charlot123]

I read it differently. I think he's saying there was more evidence at the crime scene (where the bodies were found). moo

(Redacted)

What is interesting, Ives commands respect with the way he is presenting it. He does not end up putting himself in a situation when he says, “I can’t comment on this”. And yet even he ends up pointing at the illogical part - he still thinks the person is local, yet the girls are random victims. Yet there is no one found locally who could match the profile of a serial killer, yet the perp probably is a SK.

How odd.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

(Redacted)

What is interesting, Ives commands respect with the way he is presenting it. He does not end up putting himself in a situation when he says, “I can’t comment on this”. And yet even he ends up pointing at the illogical part - he still thinks the person is local, yet the girls are random victims. Yet there is no one found locally who could match the profile of a serial killer, yet the perp probably is a SK.

How odd.

Something like that would in my eyes be a "twist" possibly. Not the fact, they were looking for lost girls and found only dead girls.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

If he left a religious based signature at the place of murders, it doesn’t make him religious in my eyes.

Cynical perhaps, more than religious. IMO

 

[Charlot123]

Something like that would in my eyes be a "twist" possibly. Not the fact, they were looking for lost girls and found only dead girls.

Unless there are moments that could explain it all. He probably is still a local, yet he might be living in Kentucky where the accent is not the same, but similar. Or, he never killed here, but killed women elsewhere. There should be a place with similar “signatures”, but either the victims were not found, or, it was neither understood nor registered, becoming part of “folk legend”. Or, if he really favors water, maybe “a woman drowned” somewhere. The twist might be in the connections.

 

[Charlot123]

Cynical perhaps, more than religious. IMO

Or maybe, a very “predictable” person rebels against everything around him, be it culture, girls, women, religion. And then hides in his shell again.

I think your “nerdish” theory makes sense, too, this is why he would look younger than his biological age.

 

[janewall]

I read it differently. I think he's saying there was more evidence at the crime scene (where the bodies were found). moo

I read it as another confusing statement. "... a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene" means, to me, that there was more evidence somewhere else. But what precisely is Ives defining as "the crime scene"? The entire area from where the killer(s) intercepted the girls, took them under control, and directed them "down the hill", including any paths they may have tried to flee along but couldn't, to the site across the creek where they ultimately were murdered and left to be found? Or, more narrowly, only the site where their bodies were discovered?

If the crime scene in Ives' definition = only the kill site, i.e. the area near the creek bank where the girls were found, within the taped-off area, that means any evidence found outside that tape, even if it was along the bridge and on the path(s) they took, could be considered other "than that at the crime scene". That part sort of makes sense, although I'd think there was potential for considerable evidence along the way to the taped area – footprints, broken brush, dropped items, blood smears, evidence of scuffling in the dirt etc. What doesn't make sense, to me, is why LE would not define the crime scene as covering the entire area from where the killer first intercepted them, somewhere on or near the south end of the bridge, then somehow coerced/directed them on a forced march to the opposite shore of the creek and the final moments of their lives. Yet that's what Ives' phrasing seems to indicate - unless he means there is also physical evidence that was discovered outside the perimeter of that bridge/woods area. Maybe LE found something near where Kelsi dropped the girls off. Or something on their walking route to the High Bridge. Maybe tire tracks or footprints that show where the killer entered or left the park/trail area, or RL's land. Maybe additional photographs, uploaded or not, taken by ... whom? Libby, or the killer, or a witness? Maybe a cell phone signal showing his movements - but one that has been untraceable, a burner phone.

So many maybes, and so little information about what or where. And the ability of LE to reply to questions with plain-English words that only lead to further uncertainty about interpretation truly impresses me. It's when I really want to be a reporter, asking follow-up questions to try to pin down all deceptively simple-sounding turns of phrase like "crime scene". MOO JMO IMO

 

[Ekliptika]

I still can’t get over how old BG looks and sounds and reconcile it with the young guy sketch. U can mask age in a look, I guess a bit, but u can’t mask the age of your voice. Do you guys think there were 2 perps?

I Can see both an older guy and a Young guy. It depends on what frame of the video I look at. In one frame I see the older guy with what looks like a hat or a hoodie and a goatie, in another frame I see a younger guy with redish-brown hair and no goatie.
This is another frustrating thing about this case, that even the few frames relased of the video is not consistent - you Can see to different profiles.
I Think that if they could release a bit more of the video, especially of the part where he is getting closer, it could be helpful understanding which of the profiles (Young or older) is the most correct one.
But I assume that LE would release that if they could, so maybe there is no more frames of him as he gets closer, maybe Libby removes the phone.
Or maybe they do have a bit more that they cannot release for some reason, where it becomes clearer that it is the young profile you see in the video, and this is part of the new direction and why LE is now looking for a younger guy.
It sure would be nice if they could release something that could end the discussions about the older guy, as LE seems to be pretty certain that they are looking for a younger person.

 

[Rush4087]

The searcher saw two deers and zoomed in with his camera on his cellphone and then saw the two girls lying there. There are alot of details being rehashed lately, and alot of questions but much of this info. is in the earlier threads and news articles.

I've read the earlier threads and news articles. And I wouldn't be rehashing it if I thought it had been hashed sufficiently already.

I don't dispute that somebody thought they saw two deer (not Kelsi though - and maybe not even the person who Kelsi was communicating with about the shoe) - I guess some man in the same search group as the person who talked to Kelsi about the shoe - so I guess in that sense it becomes almost like third person hearsay - or at least something that I think it should be acceptable on these threads to rehash..).

"Then the same person put up his phone and saw two deer in the ground moving." "And so, he (again, I think is a different person than the one who yelled up about the shoe) was looking to see what it might be, and he saw two deer standing up there, and when he saw them, he moved the camera down, and that's when he saw them."
-------

"was looking to see what it might be" ?
"in the ground moving" ?
"two deer standing up there" ?
"and when he saw them, he moved the camera down" ?
"and that's when he saw them" ?

From Kelsi, who got it from the girl, who got it from the guy with the phone (on zoom).

It seems unlikely to me that the deer were standing anywhere close to two dead girls. And I seriously doubt that the deer were standing within 100 yards or so of the search group.. So just how far away were the deer? How far above the girls? Could the man have only thought he saw two deer - when actually he was looking directly at the crime scene? I think it's possible. Would LE have told us if that is what happened?

From a distance in the woods, deer and deer antlers can look like a lot of different things (branches, for one). I have also thought before that BG may have been a deer hunter. We've also been told he left a "signature".

In an attempt to ID the perp, and knowing that there was a "signature" (or more than one "signature") left at the crime scene - and that the crime had a "twist" - many of us have been speculating about the crime scene itself.

It is not unreasonable to question whether a searcher in the woods, looking at trees and branches and leaves, from a long way away, and speaking through another party to Kelsi (three translaters if we count Kelsi) might've related seeing something that they only thought was two deer.

Again, IF LE came to find out that it wasn't two deer - and that instead it turned out to be the "signature" - they would not have released this info to the public, and we would all still be certain that somebody saw two deer. It's at least within the realm of possibility. Just speculating and trying to think outside the box. Jmo

 

[K9Enzo]

I think that's the signature. Jmo

Nah, if you talk to hikers or hunters, as an example, who come across a body, this is a common reaction. IMO

 

[Skully]

I read it differently. I think he's saying there was more evidence at the crime scene (where the bodies were found). moo

Ya, I agree. I had to read it a few times. There was a lot more psychical evidence than you would think at the crime scene. Not what you would think. So the killer left behind evidence and not what we would think. They said it was "odd".
That term has always bothered me.

 

[Skully]

When you look at him on the bridge, you can see that he has stuff under that jacket. There is something sticking out at the top of it. He must have brought stuff with him. I sort of run that through my head, like what would he be okay with leaving behind, and not leaving a DNA trail back to him.

 

[Skully]

"... a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene" the word that, sounds like he is referring to the signatures. Like there is a lot more physical evidence than "signatures' at the crime scene.

 

[stattlich1]

I've heard the speculation that BG might have been wearing a mask, then out of curiosity, stumbled on this website. They're not cheap, but they do appear realistic.

Dozens and dozens of masks just on this site alone. Mouth movement, chest coverage, old men, women, all sorts of stuff available.

The ultimate silicone masks - Realflesh masks

So, in the event BG might be imaged/ID'd in some manner, maybe he dressed to appear as someone LE would gravitate to in their investigation. You know, someone who would have committed previous crimes, who was already in the system.

 

[Skully]

I've heard the speculation that BG might have been wearing a mask, then out of curiosity, stumbled on this website. They're not cheap, but they do appear realistic.

Dozens and dozens of masks just on this site alone. Mouth movement, chest coverage, old men, women, all sorts of stuff available.

The ultimate silicone masks - Realflesh masks

So, in the event BG might be imaged/ID'd in some manner, maybe he dressed to appear as someone LE would gravitate to in their investigation. You know, someone who would have committed previous crimes, who was already in the system.

At this point, anything is possible.

 

[stattlich1]

"... a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene" the word that, sounds like he is referring to the signatures. Like there is a lot more physical evidence than "signatures' at the crime scene.

I originally, and still tend to think, this refers to there being more evidence found at crime scene.

However, I never interpreted it, as described recently in this thread, as being "a lot more physical evidence than that (which was found) at the crime scene. Meaning, there is a lot of evidence that LE has that was found at locations other than the crime scene.

 

[Skully]

I've heard the speculation that BG might have been wearing a mask, then out of curiosity, stumbled on this website. They're not cheap, but they do appear realistic.

Dozens and dozens of masks just on this site alone. Mouth movement, chest coverage, old men, women, all sorts of stuff available.

The ultimate silicone masks - Realflesh masks

So, in the event BG might be imaged/ID'd in some manner, maybe he dressed to appear as someone LE would gravitate to in their investigation. You know, someone who would have committed previous crimes, who was already in the system.

Okay those are really scary. I actually knew a guy that looked just like "sugar daddy", wonder if that is his face casting.....oh he was a sugar daddy.

 

[Yemelyan]

The scary thing about those mail in DNA sites is anyone can just swab their mouth and say they are John Smith, right? Who would know. Or make up some legit person and use that legit persons SS number, if they ask for that. But same thing, the DNA submitted wouldn’t actually match the person whose name was submitted. That’s why that database shouldn’t be considered legit for any criminal / legal stuff.

It's not considered an official "match" until a traditional cheek swab is performed on the POI and matched to the actual crime scene DNA, though.

Any "match" that comes up through genetic genealogy has to be confirmed through warranted, legal swab of the actual person while in police custody. Until that happens, legally any information received from Parabon or other company doing this work is considered a "tip," nothing more.

 

[Skully]

I originally, and still tend to think, this refers to there being more evidence found at crime scene.

However, I never interpreted it, as described recently in this thread, as being "a lot more physical evidence than that (which was found) at the crime scene. Meaning, there is a lot of evidence that LE has that was found at locations other than the crime scene.

Either way, they have a lot of physical evidence and at least 3 signatures that he left behind. If he left objects, like "toys" or "gifts" for the girls, he had to know his targets. Or maybe not. I just have never run across that other than on TV. Signatures yes, but nothing that said "odd". So my imagination keeps going. And some of the stuff I have seen is brutal, but not "odd".

 

[Yemelyan]

I read it as another confusing statement. "... a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene" means, to me, that there was more evidence somewhere else. But what precisely is Ives defining as "the crime scene"? The entire area from where the killer(s) intercepted the girls, took them under control, and directed them "down the hill", including any paths they may have tried to flee along but couldn't, to the site across the creek where they ultimately were murdered and left to be found? Or, more narrowly, only the site where their bodies were discovered?

If the crime scene in Ives' definition = only the kill site, i.e. the area near the creek bank where the girls were found, within the taped-off area, that means any evidence found outside that tape, even if it was along the bridge and on the path(s) they took, could be considered other "than that at the crime scene". That part sort of makes sense, although I'd think there was potential for considerable evidence along the way to the taped area – footprints, broken brush, dropped items, blood smears, evidence of scuffling in the dirt etc. What doesn't make sense, to me, is why LE would not define the crime scene as covering the entire area from where the killer first intercepted them, somewhere on or near the south end of the bridge, then somehow coerced/directed them on a forced march to the opposite shore of the creek and the final moments of their lives. Yet that's what Ives' phrasing seems to indicate - unless he means there is also physical evidence that was discovered outside the perimeter of that bridge/woods area. Maybe LE found something near where Kelsi dropped the girls off. Or something on their walking route to the High Bridge. Maybe tire tracks or footprints that show where the killer entered or left the park/trail area, or RL's land. Maybe additional photographs, uploaded or not, taken by ... whom? Libby, or the killer, or a witness? Maybe a cell phone signal showing his movements - but one that has been untraceable, a burner phone.

So many maybes, and so little information about what or where. And the ability of LE to reply to questions with plain-English words that only lead to further uncertainty about interpretation truly impresses me. It's when I really want to be a reporter, asking follow-up questions to try to pin down all deceptively simple-sounding turns of phrase like "crime scene". MOO JMO IMO

In one of my posts yesterday I transcribed part of an interview with LE where they explained how they defined the crime scene. Press officer KR says that right after the girls were discovered, they taped off about 1/3 of an acre where the actual bodies were discovered. Then they found the phone. Quickly they realized that they needed to include the bridge in the crime scene and did so. Then, according to Carter, they revised and stretched their definition of the crime scene "all the way back to the trailhead." This information is in the podcast Down the Hill.

 

[TL4S]

I read it as another confusing statement. "... a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene" means, to me, that there was more evidence somewhere else. But what precisely is Ives defining as "the crime scene"? The entire area from where the killer(s) intercepted the girls, took them under control, and directed them "down the hill", including any paths they may have tried to flee along but couldn't, to the site across the creek where they ultimately were murdered and left to be found? Or, more narrowly, only the site where their bodies were discovered?

If the crime scene in Ives' definition = only the kill site, i.e. the area near the creek bank where the girls were found, within the taped-off area, that means any evidence found outside that tape, even if it was along the bridge and on the path(s) they took, could be considered other "than that at the crime scene". That part sort of makes sense, although I'd think there was potential for considerable evidence along the way to the taped area – footprints, broken brush, dropped items, blood smears, evidence of scuffling in the dirt etc. What doesn't make sense, to me, is why LE would not define the crime scene as covering the entire area from where the killer first intercepted them, somewhere on or near the south end of the bridge, then somehow coerced/directed them on a forced march to the opposite shore of the creek and the final moments of their lives. Yet that's what Ives' phrasing seems to indicate - unless he means there is also physical evidence that was discovered outside the perimeter of that bridge/woods area. Maybe LE found something near where Kelsi dropped the girls off. Or something on their walking route to the High Bridge. Maybe tire tracks or footprints that show where the killer entered or left the park/trail area, or RL's land. Maybe additional photographs, uploaded or not, taken by ... whom? Libby, or the killer, or a witness? Maybe a cell phone signal showing his movements - but one that has been untraceable, a burner phone.

So many maybes, and so little information about what or where. And the ability of LE to reply to questions with plain-English words that only lead to further uncertainty about interpretation truly impresses me. It's when I really want to be a reporter, asking follow-up questions to try to pin down all deceptively simple-sounding turns of phrase like "crime scene". MOO JMO IMO

I can see this interpretation based on the "...a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene." wording alone. However, when taken into context with the paragraph that came before, it sounds to me that there was a lot more physical evidence at the scene than at a typical, cut and dry murder. JMO

The very first case I handled as prosecuting attorney back in 1987 and 1988 -- a fellow shot his wife in Deer Creek, Indiana. And, he pinned her up against the refrigerator, shot her in the back of the head. She fell on the floor, he shot her twice more in the chest. So, you had a dead person with three bullets in them. They were dead. Um, he was seen at the scene. You know, things like that.

All I can say about the situation with Abby and Libby is that there was a lot more physical evidence than that at the crime scene, and it’s probably not what you would imagine.