Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #134

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yemelyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
31,782
Perhaps there’s a misunderstanding that I was trying to make a point, or an argument, regarding semantics or legal terminology of types of evidence in a formal discussion.
I believe a DNA match which is precise to only one single person carries much more weight as evidence in a criminal investigation than “blood type O”, which matches to over a third of the population.
Hair analysis that was first used in the 60’s in a murder conviction has now been discredited.
Going back to my original post and the point I was trying to make that seems to have been lost here; we have come a long way since the 60’s and have more, and better, investigative tools to gather evidence to solve cases and bring them to a trial than they had in the 60’s. JMO

I don't want to miss your point that LE has better investigative tools than they did 60 years ago, and can make decisions about the likely involvement of a POI with greater accuracy so I'll just center that and say yes - absolutely true.

However, two points I'd make for understanding crime (this is long-winded, but in case you want to know):

As @Ozoner said, DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Even really, really strong DNA evidence is still circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony that the witness saw the material facts of the crime with his or her own eyes. But witnesses can be unreliable/lie. So the direct vs. circumstantial qualification of evidence doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the evidence.

Second point: in forensic DNA testing, there is never a match that is 100% precise to one single individual. The idea that a suspect exactly matched a sample from a crime, and no one else on earth could have matched, is a fallacy. Even "slamdunk" DNA evidence that convicts people and puts them away for life, is NOT an exact match to their DNA. That's because at no point in forensic testing is the ENTIRE genetic profile of the suspect compared.

Instead, about 13-20 locations in the genome are compared to the sample from the crime. These locations were chosen because they are highly variable among human populations, so if you can sample all 20 of them, with each subsequent location where the genetic information is found to be a match, the probability that the suspect is, in fact, the contributor increases. Nowadays 20 locations are used, making the probabilities (if the DNA sample is complete) even more accurate...though still not exact.

However, even if there are matches at all 20 locations LE still can't say that there is NO ONE else in the world who might also have the same information at these 20 locations. After all, there are several billion of us on earth, and only 20 locations. Did you ever wonder why prosecutors use the term "there is a 1 out of 5 million chance" (for example)? They are reporting the chance that another, innocent person would ALSO share the EXACT same genetic information at all locations that forensic testing looks at. They are saying "this genetic information is a match to our suspect, but you could expect, if you looked at the DNA of several million people, that 1 out of every 5 million people would also match, or have this SAME genetic information encoded at these specific sites."

Now, is a 1 out of 5 million chance that another, innocent person contributed the DNA at a particular crime "good" evidence? Of course - taking into account other evidentiary aspects of the crime, this can clearly convict a person. However, is it an "exact match to a one single individual?" No. LE can never say accurately that DNA evidence, by itself, shows that no one else could have contributed the sample. LE might be able to say there is a very small probability that someone other than the suspect did.

Now, let's just say, for example, that in the Delphi case LE only have a partial DNA sample to work with. Remember, they don't test and compare a full genetic profile, gene by gene - they are looking for their 13-20 specific locations. If they only have 9 of the 20 locations, let's say - what does this do to their probabilities? Likely, it will go way, way down - now LE may only be able to say that the DNA profile shared by the suspect and the sample from the crime is expected to appear in 1 out of 400 random people. The exact probability will depend on how common the genes are in the population at large. Suddenly the DNA evidence is much weaker. In any sports stadium in a large city, you might find several people who "match" the profile from the crime. So then in prosecuting this type of partial DNA case, authorities have to rely much more on the other evidence that points to their suspect because "1 out of 400 chance" is not nearly as impactful. Is partial DNA what LE has in the Delphi case? Only LE knows.

All MOO but for an accessible overview of why a DNA match can't determine guilt all by itself, see this article: If Police Find a DNA “Match,” That Doesn’t Mean They Have the Right Suspect
 

taylorss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
911
Reaction score
6,827
Most evidence is circumstantial, including much very strong evidence.

Even the blood on the basement floor would be considered circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence s often more reliable than direct evidence—i.e. testimony by an eyewitness to a crime—because eyewitnesses are notorious for misidentifying suspects.

I hope this is a helpful comment & not just something that’s been posted here a million times - “circumstantial evidence” is anything that requires an additional inference to establish its connection to the crime. It is not in any way “bad” or “weak” evidence ... maybe we all know this!! Just there seems to be a mainstream misunderstanding of circumstantial evidence as ‘not the good kind.’ A classic example of circumstantial evidence that makes this point (sorry, graphic/ ugly) is:

A is sitting on his front porch, facing the home of B next door. Then a car pulls up & B’s ex-husband C gets out holding a gun. A watches C run into the home, gunshots are heard, then C runs out, jumps back into his car & takes off. Later LE comes to A’s house looking for info on the shooting of A’s neighbor B. All the evidence that A has to share with them is circumstantial because A did not see the bullets leave C’s gun & hit B. Therefore A can only infer that this is what happened based on what he did see.
 

mekeritrig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
112
Reaction score
1,906
I am having a hard time with the DNA evidence. It had been reported that DNA was found at the scene (link below). I just can’t wrap my head around JC spending so much time in prison without his DNA being in the DNA data bank. JMO
DNA evidence is top priority in Delphi murder investigation | Fox 59

South Dakota has presumably collected and submitted JC's DNA to the DNIS and by extension CODIS, however, we don't know enough about the DNA police collected in the Delphi case to make any assumptions about whether or not it's a complete profile or even belongs to the killer.
 

StarryStarryNight

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
26,249
I am having a hard time with the DNA evidence. It had been reported that DNA was found at the scene (link below). I just can’t wrap my head around JC spending so much time in prison without his DNA being in the DNA data bank. JMO
DNA evidence is top priority in Delphi murder investigation | Fox 59

The issue is not DNA at the crime scene, it is the quality of the DNA at the crime scene. If it is nothing more than touch DNA, or it is only partial or damaged, it is of marginal to no value. LE has hinted strongly in the last few months...on all those shows around the anniversary this year....that they only have touch DNA.
 

taylorss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
911
Reaction score
6,827
I never thought MOO that LE had actionable DNA info on BG. Just a whole bunch of circumstantial factors haha related to how they’d address the issue in public statements JMO

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:

taylorss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
911
Reaction score
6,827
I think that the digging into JBC's background has pretty much been exhausted at this point and the only thing's that are gonna change the situation going forward would be the production of an alibi by someone he knew (gf/employer/relative) or the police giving an update that he's being investigated as a suspect or the police tamping down the speculation like they've done when speaking about previous persons of interest.

There's no direct or circumstantial evidence that's been publicly found or reported on linking JBC to the Delphi case so far, so I'd be cautious about getting too invested in the idea that he's the killer.

ITA with your first paragraph! But there is actually quite a pile of circumstantial evidence suggesting a possible connection between BJC & the crime.

That’s not to say that we’ve heard/seen anything like sufficient circumstantial evidence to charge let alone convict! But to say there’s none is way off.
 

Barbieshell

Always be kind folks YOLO
Joined
Jan 3, 2020
Messages
294
Reaction score
2,488
I've been looking into how long cell phone data is kept in the US, the LE want to hope that Chadwell was on AT&T........

Subscriber Information: 7 Years
Call History: 7 years
Tower Locations as they related to Call History: 7 years
SMS Content: Not Available
Tower Dumps: 7 years
Range to Tower (RTT) Data: 180 days

The other service providers were lucky if you could get tower dump after 1 year, never mind 7 (obviously 4+ is what's required in this case so they're the only one that I could see that they could potentially glean important information from).

They need something electronic to link him I'd have thought, another thing I'd hope they'd do would be to sit the witnesses down with about 20 pics of men (including Chadwell's pic) and see if they can pick him out (however the witnesses may already have seen news reports about the incident with the little girl and either dismissed him or said to themselves "that's him !").

JMOO
 

everybodhi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2014
Messages
4,167
Reaction score
19,303
I don't want to miss your point that LE has better investigative tools than they did 60 years ago, and can make decisions about the likely involvement of a POI with greater accuracy so I'll just center that and say yes - absolutely true.

However, two points I'd make for understanding crime (this is long-winded, but in case you want to know):

As @Ozoner said, DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence. Even really, really strong DNA evidence is still circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony that the witness saw the material facts of the crime with his or her own eyes. But witnesses can be unreliable/lie. So the direct vs. circumstantial qualification of evidence doesn't have anything to do with the strength of the evidence.

Second point: in forensic DNA testing, there is never a match that is 100% precise to one single individual. The idea that a suspect exactly matched a sample from a crime, and no one else on earth could have matched, is a fallacy. Even "slamdunk" DNA evidence that convicts people and puts them away for life, is NOT an exact match to their DNA. That's because at no point in forensic testing is the ENTIRE genetic profile of the suspect compared.

Instead, about 13-20 locations in the genome are compared to the sample from the crime. These locations were chosen because they are highly variable among human populations, so if you can sample all 20 of them, with each subsequent location where the genetic information is found to be a match, the probability that the suspect is, in fact, the contributor increases. Nowadays 20 locations are used, making the probabilities (if the DNA sample is complete) even more accurate...though still not exact.

However, even if there are matches at all 20 locations LE still can't say that there is NO ONE else in the world who might also have the same information at these 20 locations. After all, there are several billion of us on earth, and only 20 locations. Did you ever wonder why prosecutors use the term "there is a 1 out of 5 million chance" (for example)? They are reporting the chance that another, innocent person would ALSO share the EXACT same genetic information at all locations that forensic testing looks at. They are saying "this genetic information is a match to our suspect, but you could expect, if you looked at the DNA of several million people, that 1 out of every 5 million people would also match, or have this SAME genetic information encoded at these specific sites."

Now, is a 1 out of 5 million chance that another, innocent person contributed the DNA at a particular crime "good" evidence? Of course - taking into account other evidentiary aspects of the crime, this can clearly convict a person. However, is it an "exact match to a one single individual?" No. LE can never say accurately that DNA evidence, by itself, shows that no one else could have contributed the sample. LE might be able to say there is a very small probability that someone other than the suspect did.

Now, let's just say, for example, that in the Delphi case LE only have a partial DNA sample to work with. Remember, they don't test and compare a full genetic profile, gene by gene - they are looking for their 13-20 specific locations. If they only have 9 of the 20 locations, let's say - what does this do to their probabilities? Likely, it will go way, way down - now LE may only be able to say that the DNA profile shared by the suspect and the sample from the crime is expected to appear in 1 out of 400 random people. The exact probability will depend on how common the genes are in the population at large. Suddenly the DNA evidence is much weaker. In any sports stadium in a large city, you might find several people who "match" the profile from the crime. So then in prosecuting this type of partial DNA case, authorities have to rely much more on the other evidence that points to their suspect because "1 out of 400 chance" is not nearly as impactful. Is partial DNA what LE has in the Delphi case? Only LE knows.

All MOO but for an accessible overview of why a DNA match can't determine guilt all by itself, see this article: If Police Find a DNA “Match,” That Doesn’t Mean They Have the Right Suspect
Thanks, I regret being so casual with my wording but, lesson learned.
 

yelodoggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
52
Reaction score
312

oceanblueeyes

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
26,446
Reaction score
43,646
I think that the digging into JBC's background has pretty much been exhausted at this point and the only thing's that are gonna change the situation going forward would be the production of an alibi by someone he knew (gf/employer/relative) or the police giving an update that he's being investigated as a suspect or the police tamping down the speculation like they've done when speaking about previous persons of interest.

There's no direct or circumstantial evidence that's been publicly found or reported on linking JBC to the Delphi case so far, so I'd be cautious about getting too invested in the idea that he's the killer.

Morning All!

I've just finished reading all of the many thought provoking posts on JBC being the possible murderer of the two girls. Plus many who are just as interesting trying to figure out what LE meant by it being odd. So a shoutout to all for all the great minds of all who participated.

Imo, I truly don't think any of us are putting our eggs in one basket. We've been down this road before. Imo, we are all waiting for the PC, and they will hold one.

However,imo, there isn't anything wrong with continuing to have hope LE has the right one on their radar this time.

I'm just jumping off your post please to add this:

Iirc, there was a mention on the closed thread of circumstantial evidence being found at the murder scene.

CE is actually the most compelling evidence to have which are in all criminal trials. CE cases by far are the least type to be ever be overturned if convicted.

All evidence is CE including DNA, trace evidence, testimony from witnesses who observed the defendants before, and after they committed the offense and so so much more is considered CE.

We don't have to ever wonder why all defense attorneys say the same thing adnauseam when stating to jurors it's ONLY CE used as diversionary tactic. :) The truth is they all cringe because it IS a powerful CE case they are having to defend for their clients.

DE are the kind of cases much more easily overturned on appeal for DE means the jury must solely weigh the verdicts on eye witness testimony which often can be faulty. Even this video, and voice of BG will be considered CE due to them not being conclusive to prove BARD no matter whoever the suspect turns out to be. In the past 20 years or more trials can be DE if they have one, and all the rest of the trials are all CE.

Even our USSC have continually ruled when upholding CE cases showing CE is more compelling evidence than DE.

Jmho
 
Last edited:

mekeritrig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
112
Reaction score
1,906
Morning All!

I've just finished reading all of the many thought provoking posts on JBC being the possible murderer of the two girls. Plus many who are just as interesting trying to figure out what LE meant by it being odd. So a shoutout to all for all the great minds of all who participated.

Imo, I truly don't think any of us are putting our eggs in one basket. We've been down this road before.

However,imo, there isn't anything wrong with continuing to have hope LE has the right one on their radar this time.

I'm just jumping off your post please to add this:

Iirc, there was a mention on the closed thread of circumstantial evidence being found at the murder scene.

CE is actually the most compelling evidence to have which are in all criminal trials. CE cases by far are the least type to be ever be overturned if convicted.

All evidence is CE including DNA, trace evidence, testomines from witnesses who observed the defendants before, and after they committed the offense and so so much more is considered CE.

We don't have to ever wonder why all defense attorneys say the same thing as nauseam when stating to jurors it's ONLY CE used as diversionary tactic. :) The truth is they all cringe because it IS a powerful CE case they are having to defend for their clients.

DE are the kind of cases much more easily overturned on appeal for DE means the jury must solely weigh the verdicts on eye witness testimony which often can be faulty. Even this video, and voice of BG will be considered CE due to them not being conclusive to prove BARD no matter who the suspect turns out to be. In the past 20 years trials can be DE if they have one, and all the rest are CE. Even our USSC have continually ruled CE is more compelling evidence than DE.

Jmho

I'm not saying that LE doesn't possess any circumstantial evidence, just that there is nothing publicly known at this time that links this new POI to the Delphi case. Everything concerning JC and a possible connection to the Delphi murders that have been dug up so far is speculative and doesn't link him to this specific case in any concrete way.

The police obviously have some amount of circumstantial concerning the crime they are sitting on. If this case has taught me anything it's that persons of interest just seem to come out of the woodwork every few months with all manner of coincidental features that make them interesting and it's not a good idea to get invested in any single one being the guy barring an actual link to the crime is found.
 

OverTheRhine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
140
Reaction score
1,920
Some information from Grey Hughes new video. He has an unverifiable source that claims a few things we didn't know. Grey only mentions them because this person had previously known other aspects of the crime that weren't released. He claims this source knew about the young guy sketch before it was released, and knew that it was done days after the crime. Apparently he shared this information with Grey well before the 2019 press conference.

He says Libby was dragged and had bruising on her wrists.
DG was seen on camera searching for the girls and another cyclist was in the area. He says BG had still been in the area for at least 20 minutes while DG was seen on camera.
He claims the first sketch was almost all done by looking at the video with maybe a little witness input.
The only DNA they have is possible weak partial touch DNA from one of the girls clothing.

 

Miigo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
275
Reaction score
2,715
I've been looking into how long cell phone data is kept in the US, the LE want to hope that Chadwell was on AT&T........

Subscriber Information: 7 Years
Call History: 7 years
Tower Locations as they related to Call History: 7 years
SMS Content: Not Available
Tower Dumps: 7 years
Range to Tower (RTT) Data: 180 days

The other service providers were lucky if you could get tower dump after 1 year, never mind 7 (obviously 4+ is what's required in this case so they're the only one that I could see that they could potentially glean important information from).

They need something electronic to link him I'd have thought, another thing I'd hope they'd do would be to sit the witnesses down with about 20 pics of men (including Chadwell's pic) and see if they can pick him out (however the witnesses may already have seen news reports about the incident with the little girl and either dismissed him or said to themselves "that's him !").

JMOO


I think it’s safe to assume that if JBC is in fact BG, that he’s followed the news and social media posts on this case closely over the last 4 years. That info can easily be found in his search history on his most recent phone.
 

Miigo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
275
Reaction score
2,715
JBC posted numerous screenshots to his Facebook, I’m in Canada so unsure of how it works in the USA, but here the carrier is usually listed at the top left of our phone screens.

Here’s an example of one of his screenshots, I don’t see a carrier name but maybe someone local would be able to tell which carrier this is

Brian Chadwell
 

mekeritrig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Messages
112
Reaction score
1,906
JBC posted numerous screenshots to his Facebook, I’m in Canada so unsure of how it works in the USA, but here the carrier is usually listed at the top left of our phone screens.

Here’s an example of one of his screenshots, I don’t see a carrier name but maybe someone local would be able to tell which carrier this is

Brian Chadwell

I know that is the 4G LTE icon that has been used on AT&T phones, but I'm not sure if that's an AT&T-specific thing.
 

Silver_produce0

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2020
Messages
121
Reaction score
1,224
He says Libby was dragged and had bruising on her wrists.

RSBM
this is interesting to me if true. I believe TL made a comment that they have “suggestive evidence of a fingerprint“ and I always wondered, if they have a fingerprint, where is it at the scene - on an object or a person. This could be where. This is actually the piece of rumored evidence that I expected to crack the case. But I don’t know if they truly have any partial print.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top