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

[Barbieshell]

So this is what I think could have happened......
BG parks up at the cemetery, he's come prepared with a gun (could be imitation), a knife and some rope (he's not going to park in the main carpark). He makes his way to the trail and scouts the area / does a bit of recon to see who's there, he then positions himself slightly into the trail but not at the entrance.

A & L get dropped off, they head into the trail and within a short period of time stumble across BG - he engages them in smalltalk "hey where are you girls off to"..."oh we're just going to check out the bridge", they politely humour him and then head off towards the path that will lead them to the start of the bridge.
BG hangs back a bit (he needs to check nobody else is coming / stays there for a bit - maybe 10 minutes).

He then heads to the bridge, starts to cross the bridge and sees the girls are still hanging about there. He walks towards them (they probably didn't think he was a threat, after all he'd been friendly enough on their 1st encounter).

As they head to the end of the bridge to allow him to either get past or turn around to go back over the bridge he whips out his gun (says something like...."Don't scream, guys, this isn't your lucky day"), motions with it for them to head "down the hill".

The girls scramble down the hill, sliding slightly down and he follows. He tells them to head along the path that runs under the bridge but they make a break for it across the creek and he gives chase.

He catches up with one to make sure they're both compliant and "don't do anything silly again or someone's going to get hurt". They end up at the kill site (nobody reported hearing gunshots I don't think) and I'd imagine he then incapacitated both pretty quickly with the knife, they will likely have died soon after. He'll have made his way back to his car and will have been out of there before the dad entered the trails.

This *advertiser censored* is still out there, we have a picture, audio and witnesses apparently (did they really see him ?).....I'd have hoped justice would have been served by now, but sadly not.
Someone has to know who this bloke is, It's horrifying knowing he's still roaming free and still a risk to the public.

*PURELY SPECULATION, JMOO.

 

[Ekliptika]

Most agencies have a forensic team, but the detectives are on site, so the decision as to what to collect is made by both. They work together. You can't know what is relevant to your crime scene unless you collect it. If you see something near by or close, it may be relevant, so you take it.

So when LE is stating that there is a lot of physical evidence found and it might not be what we would expect, this may not necessarily say anything about the crime/crime scene/perpetrator etc, it basically just means that there could have been a lot of crap lying around in the area?
Sometimes I am afraid that I am reading way to much into the words spoken by LE. When they say “a lot of physical evidence and not what you would expect” then I tend to assume there is a hint in those words to the nature of the crime, but really this may not be related at all? But why would LE even bother saying anything like that then? They must know that everything they say will be scrutiniced by the public, and I trust that they are professionels and would not say random stuff just for fun to see what wild theories this may cause.
Sorry for the rambling. In general, I am puzzled by LE communication strategy in this case. There is a lot they cannot communicate due to integrity of the case, but it seems like they still want to communicate something. Is this to keep the case alive, hoping that someone Will come forward with that one tip?

 

[St. Anthony2017]

At this point, anything is possible.

Very scary but realistic looking.

 

[Ekliptika]

So this is what I think could have happened......
BG parks up at the cemetery, he's come prepared with a gun (could be imitation), a knife and some rope (he's not going to park in the main carpark). He makes his way to the trail and scouts the area / does a bit of recon to see who's there, he then positions himself slightly into the trail but not at the entrance.

A & L get dropped off, they head into the trail and within a short period of time stumble across BG - he engages them in smalltalk "hey where are you girls off to"..."oh we're just going to check out the bridge", they politely humour him and then head off towards the path that will lead them to the start of the bridge.
BG hangs back a bit (he needs to check nobody else is coming / stays there for a bit - maybe 10 minutes).

He then heads to the bridge, starts to cross the bridge and sees the girls are still hanging about there. He walks towards them (they probably didn't think he was a threat, after all he'd been friendly enough on their 1st encounter).

As they head to the end of the bridge to allow him to either get past or turn around to go back over the bridge he whips out his gun (says something like...."Don't scream, guys, this isn't your lucky day"), motions with it for them to head "down the hill".

The girls scramble down the hill, sliding slightly down and he follows. He tells them to head along the path that runs under the bridge but they make a break for it across the creek and he gives chase.

He catches up with one to make sure they're both compliant and "don't do anything silly again or someone's going to get hurt". They end up at the kill site (nobody reported hearing gunshots I don't think) and I'd imagine he then incapacitated both pretty quickly with the knife, they will likely have died soon after. He'll have made his way back to his car and will have been out of there before the dad entered the trails.

This *advertiser censored* is still out there, we have a picture, audio and witnesses apparently (did they really see him ?).....I'd have hoped justice would have been served by now, but sadly not.
Someone has to know who this bloke is, It's horrifying knowing he's still roaming free and still a risk to the public.

*PURELY SPECULATION, JMOO.

Your theory is similar to mine, although I am not sure if he came from the cementary or Freedon Bridge. Maybe he came from the South, via the private drive.
Just curious, where do you think he intended to take them, if the creek crossing was due to the girls trying to run from him? If they had not done that, what would have happened?

 

[Barbieshell]

Your theory is similar to mine, although I am not sure if he came from the cementary or Freedon Bridge. Maybe he came from the East, via the private drive.
Just curious, where do you think he intended to take them, if the creek crossing was due to the girls trying to run from him? If they had not done that, what would have happened?

I'm not sure, but I had wondered - where would that path / road lead to (that runs under the bridge) ?

Is there a chance he could have been parked up further along that path and his initial thought was to abduct them in his car ? (say if he hadn't parked at the cemetery / old CPS building etc).

 

[Ravenmoon]

I don’t want to delve too deeply into the origins of Nr 13 being “unlucky”, because the mod will say it is off-topic. I just wanted to mention it definitely did not start with the Bible, and goes far deeper into history, so to assume that the killer is religious, no matter what he left at the scene, would not be right, IMO.

Is he, though? If he is local and hiding in plain sight, for sure, he goes to church. But this is all.

(About the perp and his numbers, I always thought he had some unusual feelings about prime numbers, and was probably good at math, but it is just my idea.)

I agree with the conversation going off topic.
I just noticed that the "holiday" and other things have been mentioned more than once in recent posts you have made and thought that I should chime in since it applies to an area that I am quite familiar with.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So this is what I think could have happened......
BG parks up at the cemetery, he's come prepared with a gun (could be imitation), a knife and some rope (he's not going to park in the main carpark). He makes his way to the trail and scouts the area / does a bit of recon to see who's there, he then positions himself slightly into the trail but not at the entrance.

A & L get dropped off, they head into the trail and within a short period of time stumble across BG - he engages them in smalltalk "hey where are you girls off to"..."oh we're just going to check out the bridge", they politely humour him and then head off towards the path that will lead them to the start of the bridge.
BG hangs back a bit (he needs to check nobody else is coming / stays there for a bit - maybe 10 minutes).

He then heads to the bridge, starts to cross the bridge and sees the girls are still hanging about there. He walks towards them (they probably didn't think he was a threat, after all he'd been friendly enough on their 1st encounter).

As they head to the end of the bridge to allow him to either get past or turn around to go back over the bridge he whips out his gun (says something like...."Don't scream, guys, this isn't your lucky day"), motions with it for them to head "down the hill".

The girls scramble down the hill, sliding slightly down and he follows. He tells them to head along the path that runs under the bridge but they make a break for it across the creek and he gives chase.

He catches up with one to make sure they're both compliant and "don't do anything silly again or someone's going to get hurt". They end up at the kill site (nobody reported hearing gunshots I don't think) and I'd imagine he then incapacitated both pretty quickly with the knife, they will likely have died soon after. He'll have made his way back to his car and will have been out of there before the dad entered the trails.

This *advertiser censored* is still out there, we have a picture, audio and witnesses apparently (did they really see him ?).....I'd have hoped justice would have been served by now, but sadly not.
Someone has to know who this bloke is, It's horrifying knowing he's still roaming free and still a risk to the public.

*PURELY SPECULATION, JMOO.

This is exactly how I imagine it too.

 

[Angels27]

I’ve only known healthcare workers to be fingerprinted if they work for government facilities, like the VA, corrections, and maybe schools. Community hospitals and clinics do not require fingerprinting.

All I know is I had to take her to this place before she started working at a hospital in Miami for a background check before she could start her residency. Maybe they don’t do fingerprinting as part of it. I just assumed they did. And for the lifeguard position I remember distinctly she did need to get fingerprints done and that was for a county run pool.

 

[ReadySet]

Watching the "Wonderland Murders" on the ID channel. The investigators got a match of DNA to the killer, but he left the country after they took the swab and before they got the match. Trying to get him back to the country, they actually put it out to the press that the case was unsolved and the task force on the murder was being disbanded.

I've never heard of this before, LE announcing a case is cold when it's not.

However, it's consistent with many cases I've followed where LE is seemingly "doing nothing" and the case seems cold, and then bam! the case is solved.

 

[Ekliptika]

I'm not sure, but I had wondered - where would that path / road lead to (that runs under the bridge) ?

Is there a chance he could have been parked up further along that path and his initial thought was to abduct them in his car ? (say if he hadn't parked at the cemetery / old CPS building etc).

My first theory was that this was an attemp to abduct the girls (or one of them) that went wrong. To me, this seemed like a perfect spot to do this. A road under the end of the bridge and all he had to do was get the girls Down to the private road and into his car that would be parked somewhere there and then he could be out of the area pretty fast, as the private road goes straight to the bigger roads in the area. I did a bit of reasearch as to whether this would even be possible, if there was a locked gate where the private road start, Security cameras etc. However, when the girls understood his intentions they tried to escape and he chased them to the other side of the creek, where he killed them.
The more I have looked into and learned about the case, I think this could also be a very planned crime, where he intentionally led them across the creek with the purpose of committing the murder at that exact spot where they were found. I don’t think the girls were targeted, though, but random victims that just happened to be there and he saw an opportunity.

 

[Barbieshell]

My first theory was that this was an attemp to abduct the girls (or one of them) that went wrong. To me, this seemed like a perfect spot to do this. A road under the end of the bridge and all he had to do was get the girls Down to the private road and into his car that would be parked somewhere there and then he could be out of the area pretty fast, as the private road goes straight to the bigger roads in the area. I did a bit of reasearch as to whether there was a locked gate or not where the private road start, Security cameras etc. However, when the girls understood his intentions they tried to escape and he chased them to the other side of the creek, where he killed them.
However, the more I have looked into and learned about the case, I think this could also be a very planned crime, where he intentionally led them across the creek with the purpose of committing the murder at that exact spot where they were found. I don’t think the girls were targeted, though, but random victims that just happened to be there and he saw an opportunity.

Yeah I agree, sadly I think they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. He'd obviously come prepared, but I honestly just think he was there to abduct / kill someone and couldn't pass up the opportunity when A & L passed him that day.

 

[Angels27]

This is exactly how I imagine it too.

What’s interesting (to put it one way) is that the supposed eyewitness and source of young guy sketch says she saw some guy on trail or bridge, or who knows where she supposedly saw him, claims the guy had a hat scarf red hair etc etc and the sketch of young guy is nothing like that. The sketch of young guy is NOTHING like BG either which is the only REAL evidence we have. BG has what looks like a dark goatee, hat, and you cannot see if he has curly hair or not like YG sketch. So where did young guy sketch really come from. They are telling us to ignore the first sketch they released which looks way more like BG and to only consider young guy sketch now. What happened to BG all of a sudden!? he’s no longer in the picture?! are we supposed to completely ignore that video that is right before our eyes of an old short fat guy with a goatee whose body and movements way more clearly match the voice? And they say BG is the killer, right? Wth is going on????

I’m really starting to think there might be 2 people involved. No way is YG sketch the guy on the bridge. No way is the guy on the bridge YG sketch. and we know what BG looks like and we know what he sounds like, so they might know who he is maybe but they’re just looking for the other younger guy?

 

[Barbieshell]

What’s interesting (to put it one way) is that the supposed eyewitness and source of young guy sketch says she saw some guy on trail or bridge, or who knows where she supposedly saw him, claims the guy had a hat scarf red hair etc etc and the sketch of young guy is nothing like that. The sketch of young guy is NOTHING like BG either which is the only REAL evidence we have. BG has what looks like a dark goatee, hat, and you cannot see if he has curly hair or not like YG sketch. So where did young guy sketch really come from. They are telling us to ignore the first sketch they released which looks way more like BG and to only consider young guy sketch now. What happened to BG all of a sudden!? he’s no longer in the picture?! are we supposed to completely ignore that video that is right before our eyes of an old short fat guy with a goatee whose body and movements way more clearly match the voice? Wth is going on????

I think the person the witness saw wasn't him, I honestly think BG looks way more like the 1st sketch and sounded about 40 years old (not a chance is he a teenager ffs).

 

[Angels27]

At this point, anything is possible.

With regard to the mask - I think BGs face matched the body type, movements and voice of a 50-70 year old guy. So I don’t think a mask was worn. So what is young guy sketch all about??? And why are they saying the perp is between 18-40. Or 18-30 I heard somewhere as well. ??? No way is BG under 50. Do u think they no longer think BG is the guy? I thought they were still saying he is.

 

[Angels27]

I think the person the witness saw wasn't him, I honestly think BG looks way more like the 1st sketch and sounded about 40 years old (not a chance is he a teenager ffs).

ironically enough, YG sketch is supposedly the very first sketch they drew right after the crime. And they released it to the public 2 YEARS later. Now they are telling us to only consider YG sketch and not the other one. It might be bc the perp generally has a clean-shaven face but on the day of the crime he had a goatee for whatever reason. Maybe he had one prior to 2/17 and shaved it off after. Or I wonder if the eyewitness based the sketch on a guy she saw days or weeks prior to 2/13/17 with no goatee.

 

[Yemelyan]

So when LE is stating that there is a lot of physical evidence found and it might not be what we would expect, this may not necessarily say anything about the crime/crime scene/perpetrator etc, it basically just means that there could have been a lot of crap lying around in the area?
Sometimes I am afraid that I am reading way to much into the words spoken by LE. When they say “a lot of physical evidence and not what you would expect” then I tend to assume there is a hint in those words to the nature of the crime, but really this may not be related at all? But why would LE even bother saying anything like that then? They must know that everything they say will be scrutiniced by the public, and I trust that they are professionels and would not say random stuff just for fun to see what wild theories this may cause.
Sorry for the rambling. In general, I am puzzled by LE communication strategy in this case. There is a lot they cannot communicate due to integrity of the case, but it seems like they still want to communicate something. Is this to keep the case alive, hoping that someone Will come forward with that one tip?

Sorry, I'm not the person you were replying to but I think I can give you an accurate answer. Remember that physical evidence is a legal term and RI is a former prosecutor; he worked on the case for ten months and so when he made these statements about the quantity and character of the physical evidence years after the crime was committed, IMO he was saying something significant about the crime scene. He didn't mean there was a lot of litter in the area that turned out to be unrelated. He meant that there was a large quantity of "things" at the scene that logically should point to the person responsible IMO. Again this can be biological - hair, body fluids or excreta - or nonbiological - clothes, restraints, weapons, papers, dirt, fibers, etc.

He made some other comments in his interview that relate to this as well. He also commented on the fact that in his career since 1987 in Carroll County he had only one known stranger murder (the rest were crimes of passion by people known to one another), and he had rarely had an outdoor crime scene or one that stretched over such a large area. So the murders were "odd" to him for those reasons as well.

He also said that the quantity and nature of the physical evidence was what gave the investigators the thought that they would, within a few days, have a viable suspect in the case.

So I don't think you are reading too much into his words in this instance. However, he's retired and no longer part of the case so whatever he says, while informative, is not part of LE's official communication strategy.

 

[Ekliptika]

I would so much like to know where the witness that is the originator of the younger looking sketch saw him and what he was wearing at the time.

What’s interesting (to put it one way) is that the supposed eyewitness and source of young guy sketch says she saw some guy on trail or bridge, or who knows where she supposedly saw him, claims the guy had a hat scarf red hair etc etc and the sketch of young guy is nothing like that. The sketch of young guy is NOTHING like BG either which is the only REAL evidence we have. BG has what looks like a dark goatee, hat, and you cannot see if he has curly hair or not like YG sketch. So where did young guy sketch really come from. They are telling us to ignore the first sketch they released which looks way more like BG and to only consider young guy sketch now. What happened to BG all of a sudden!? he’s no longer in the picture?! are we supposed to completely ignore that video that is right before our eyes of an old short fat guy with a goatee whose body and movements way more clearly match the voice? And they say BG is the killer, right? Wth is going on????

I’m really starting to think there might be 2 people involved. No way is YG sketch the guy on the bridge. No way is the guy on the bridge YG sketch. and we know what BG looks like and we know what he sounds like, so they might know who he is maybe but they’re just looking for the other younger guy?

I don’t have the answers to your questions but I believe they lie somewhere in Carter’s words on the 2019 PC: “For more than 2 years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy. But we have”.

 

[Skully]

So when LE is stating that there is a lot of physical evidence found and it might not be what we would expect, this may not necessarily say anything about the crime/crime scene/perpetrator etc, it basically just means that there could have been a lot of crap lying around in the area?
Sometimes I am afraid that I am reading way to much into the words spoken by LE. When they say “a lot of physical evidence and not what you would expect” then I tend to assume there is a hint in those words to the nature of the crime, but really this may not be related at all? But why would LE even bother saying anything like that then? They must know that everything they say will be scrutiniced by the public, and I trust that they are professionels and would not say random stuff just for fun to see what wild theories this may cause.
Sorry for the rambling. In general, I am puzzled by LE communication strategy in this case. There is a lot they cannot communicate due to integrity of the case, but it seems like they still want to communicate something. Is this to keep the case alive, hoping that someone Will come forward with that one tip?

You asked me about collecting evidence at a crime scene, and I am telling you what they do. I don't know what this crime scene has, because they haven't released it. You gather what is there, because you can't go back in time if something was important and get it later, it may be gone or destroyed. I can only tell you what we do.

 

[Angels27]

I would so much like to know where the witness that is the originator of the younger looking sketch saw him and what he was wearing at the time.


I don’t have the answers to your questions but I believe they lie somewhere in Carter’s words on the 2019 PC: “For more than 2 years, you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy. But we have”.

Yeah that was really interesting, wasn’t it? But exactly what does that mean? Shift gears to a different investigative strategy. Could that mean look at someone else? Doesn’t really sound like it. Sounds more like maybe they thought the perp had one motive and now their looking a a possible different motive? Which would call into question a whole new pool of suspects maybe. I don’t know what to think about it. What’s everyone else’s take on it? It was an important turning point in this case.

 

[Skully]

With regard to the mask - I think BGs face matched the body type, movements and voice of a 50-70 year old guy. So I don’t think a mask was worn. So what is young guy sketch all about??? And why are they saying the perp is between 18-40. Or 18-30 I heard somewhere as well. ??? No way is BG under 50. Do u think they no longer think BG is the guy? I thought they were still saying he is.

I was just making a comment. I don't think he has a mask on, it was just a comment, like "anything is possible" out of frustration that this guy is not caught. Sorry if you think it was more.