Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #145

Status
Not open for further replies.

scapa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
9,090
I’ve read the warrant but not listened yet to the podcast. I’d say LE had a lot of good reasons to suspect RL and search his property, almost all of which we didn’t know until today.
Some of the information like cell phone data they wouldn’t have known right away.
So granted, LE had good reasons to perform this search, so now my question is…why did they stop looking at RL.
Agree, and have similar questions.

My guess is that they didn't find the information they needed for an arrest. He was clearly the person they believed him to be in terms of physical capacity and the "propensity for violence" -- the assault on one victim prompted by her "disrespecting RL in his own home" seems telling here -- as well as his proximity to the crime scene and clumsy attempts to set up an alibi.

These documents make out a strong case for a SW. This is becoming one of those cases in which there are almost too many suspects, each of which has compelling reasons for being suspected, none of which seems quite conclusive. It's like a hideous, vicious, downmarket real-life Cluedo in which thankfully the bravery and accomplishment of the two victims is still front and centre.

But yeah -- RL sure looked for it, based on this new reporting.
 

scapa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
9,090
I agree, I don't think the bodies were moved a great distance. I think there was a lot of blood at the scene and that's the reason that TL was able to answer confidently that LE believes they were killed in the same place they were found, when he got that question (twice) in the Carroll County Comet interview.

After reading all of this information, the one thing I am sure of is that this isn't a "the girls made him mad" type of crime. This was something done for the offender's pleasure.

This is an excellent point -- and one I think argued pretty convincingly against RL as the culprit. His violence based on the affidavit seems reactive and not deliberate. He was clearly a dangerous man, but his anger and threats seem to have been directed against women he had a relationship with and felt offended by -- this was not a planner.
 

Yemelyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
27,546
This is an excellent point -- and one I think argued pretty convincingly against RL as the culprit. His violence based on the affidavit seems reactive and not deliberate. He was clearly a dangerous man, but his anger and threats seem to have been directed against women he had a relationship with and felt offended by -- this was not a planner.
For more perspective on your point (which I agree with), in one of the episodes of the podcast "Down the Hill" the producers interviewed former FBI profiler Mary Ellen O'Toole and she talked about the concept of reactive vs. instrumental violence. This was the episode called "Three Februaries." She discussed how an example of reactive violence is - someone gets mad at me and hits me in the nose, then I hit them back. Instrumental violence is, sucker punching someone because you enjoyed the feeling of hitting them and/or their hurt, confused, terrorized reaction. The violence involved in this crime doesn't seem reactive to her. She said she doesn't have access to any information about the murders that isn't also known to the public (though she may have known about the removal of clothing as "souvenirs" and other aspects of the crime scene, since I believe this search warrant information was perhaps circulating among some journalists before), but she says that based on what is known - the outdoor location, the seemingly predatory or "hunting" behavior of the offender, the age of the victims, this looks to her like instrumental violence instead. She says it's cold-blooded, it's predatory, it's devoid of emotion toward the victims (they are like objects to this type of offender). It is most often seen in sexually sadistic offenders, which are some of the most violent offenders that exist.

She also says that the type of person who employs instrumental violence against a victim for the pleasure of it is a risk-taker; they may not go home and feel anxious about what they've done. In her opinion, they can fly under the radar for a long time because they can appear quite normal. Some of the hallmark "post-offense behaviors" that LE look for when developing suspects (changing appearance, leaving town, etc) may not apply to them.

The episode with her analysis is here: Chapter 9: Three Februaries - Down The Hill: The Delphi Murders - Omny.fm
 
Last edited:

Yemelyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
27,546
It is all good but at best, it puts RL close to the bridge at the time of the murders.

It doesn’t put the girls close to the bridge as no one saw them there. And now we hear that they had been moved.

I don't think, from the information in the warrant about the large amount of blood at the crime scene, that they were moved long distances. I don't think they were murdered somewhere else and dumped there. I think the bodies were moved around, manipulated, within the bounds of the crime scene and LE knows this from forensic evidence.
 

FromGermany1

Formerly FromGermany
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
11,372
Yep. Why does he need to claim to be picked up between 2 - 2:30 PM specifically (and the warrant states his phone was pinged in or around his property at 2:09) -- it's a 30 minute drive to the aquarium store and he has a receipt for 5:21 PM. If he was only worried about not being caught driving, why not establish an alibi for when he actually left and returned or even the earlier trip that day.
Imagine, RL asked his cousin because of a different person than himself, who was in trouble with an alibi for that time. Together they plotted 2 separate alibis, one for RL and one for the other person. The cousin's alibi would help to show, that RL and the other person weren't together at a certain time, although they were.
Does it make any sense?
 

Ekliptika

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
118
Reaction score
891
I believe that it was Sherif Leazenby who said that initially searchers did not realize what they had stumpled upon when they first found A&L (not his exact wording, Will try to find a link). This has always puzzled me. Now, with the latest information that the crime scene might have been Staged, I am thinking again about this quote from TL and what it might mean. Could it be that the staging/posing of the girls was not to shock anyone, but more to make it not look like murder to the people who would eventually find the girls?
 

O.Incandenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
242
Reaction score
4,457
These newest revelations from the warrant just blow my mind. Even though warrants are meant to only show the evidence to a judge to get approval (and leave out anything that goes against that line of thinking), if you were LE, would you have been pretty sure RL did it??? I think so!

What got RL off the list of suspicion? Proof that he was somewhere else (video proof he was at the aquarium store at a certain time?) Was it verified that the internal clock on the video stamp was accurate?
Perhaps more detailed phone data?

From the affidavit it sounds like they only had cell-phone tower ping location data at the time they applied for the warrant. That's not very accurate. If they later analyzed GPS data from the phone and it showed RL at his house using his phone during the time the murders occurred, that may have cleared him. It seems like the opposite result (GPS data showing him at the crime scene) would have led to an arrest, so either they never recovered the GPS data or it cleared him IMO.
 

DrQ

Curiosity Chromosome in DNA
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
178
Reaction score
827
JMHO Sometimes the person or persons looked at in the beginning, at some time in the investigation, or a POI can sometimes be the who committed the crime. Unfortunately, evidence and probable cause can take a lot of time to gather. For example Britnee Drexel found buried after 13 years. The man was on their radar early on but had an alibi (I believe) by girlfriend. Personally, I would never remove a potential suspect from the list based on an alibi by a girlfriend, family member, or personal friend.
 

Trebor5591

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
725
Reaction score
5,541
Agree, and have similar questions.

My guess is that they didn't find the information they needed for an arrest. He was clearly the person they believed him to be in terms of physical capacity and the "propensity for violence" -- the assault on one victim prompted by her "disrespecting RL in his own home" seems telling here -- as well as his proximity to the crime scene and clumsy attempts to set up an alibi.

These documents make out a strong case for a SW. This is becoming one of those cases in which there are almost too many suspects, each of which has compelling reasons for being suspected, none of which seems quite conclusive. It's like a hideous, vicious, downmarket real-life Cluedo in which thankfully the bravery and accomplishment of the two victims is still front and centre.

But yeah -- RL sure looked for it, based on this new reporting.

<modsnip>

The part about RL seeking an alibi before the bodies were even found is puzzling--I wonder if he heard the girls being murdered? Maybe he even went out to investigate and saw the girls bodies. Maybe he even saw the murderer. They were on his property, fairly close to his house. Maybe he knew he would be looked at by the police and knew he had no alibi, so he asked his relative to provide him one. The fact that Logan was arrested and jailed for parole violation growing out of the murder investigation showed that he did not trust local LE with some justification and likely would not have shared any information with them. Such a point of view is somewhat understandable, especially for individuals who have been arrested/jailed previously, and have had a "bad experience" with law enforcement. Not everyone has a favorable view of law enforcement. Many develop the point of view that the safest way to deal with the police is to keep your mouth shut.

Logan was 77 years old, outside the age range developed by law enforcement for the suspect. 77 years old is elderly--I doubt very much a 77 year old man is going to walking across the Monan High Bridge. That was a younger man shown in Libbys video, not a 77 year old man.

The fact that RL was eventually dropped as a suspect means that the police weren't able to find any firm evidence. For example--the missing article of clothing taken from one of the girls.

I don't believe RL murdered the girls, but he may have seen or heard something that day that he kept to himself.

All this is just my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Justice101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
1,354
Reaction score
4,872
Perhaps more detailed phone data?

From the affidavit it sounds like they only had cell-phone tower ping location data at the time they applied for the warrant. That's not very accurate. If they later analyzed GPS data from the phone and it showed RL at his house using his phone during the time the murders occurred, that may have cleared him. It seems like the opposite result (GPS data showing him at the crime scene) would have led to an arrest, so either they never recovered the GPS data or it cleared him IMO.

He "could have" given his phone to anyone during the murders. But if it was him on video at the aquarium store, then that is irrefutable IF the date and time was authenticated.

The ping from towers is pretty basic directing the phone to the cell tower with the strongest signal. Don't think they can triangulate very well with that to show an exact location.
 

iamnotagolem

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,969
Reaction score
8,199
<modsnip>

The part about RL seeking an alibi before the bodies were even found is puzzling--I wonder if he heard the girls being murdered? Maybe he even went out to investigate and saw the girls bodies. Maybe he even saw the murderer. They were on his property, fairly close to his house. Maybe he knew he would be looked at by the police and knew he had no alibi, so he asked his relative to provide him one. The fact that Logan was arrested and jailed for parole violation growing out of the murder investigation showed that he did not trust local LE with some justification and likely would not have shared any information with them. Such a point of view is somewhat understandable, especially for individuals who have been arrested/jailed previously, and have had a "bad experience" with law enforcement. Not everyone has a favorable view of law enforcement. Many develop the point of view that the safest way to deal with the police is to keep your mouth shut.

Logan was 77 years old, outside the age range developed by law enforcement for the suspect. 77 years old is elderly--I doubt very much a 77 year old man is going to walking across the Monan High Bridge. That was a younger man shown in Libbys video, not a 77 year old man.

The fact that RL was eventually dropped as a suspect means that the police weren't able to find any firm evidence. For example--the missing article of clothing taken from one of the girls.

I don't believe RL murdered the girls, but he may have seen or heard something that day that he kept to himself.

All this is just my opinion.

View attachment 344767
<modsnip

As far as his multiple DUIs that resulted in probation, one thing I found out when I worked in probation is DUIs are the most dangerous people supervised on probation. They are most likely to reoffend and most likely to kill someone while reoffending. Driving drunk is no joke. How many DUIs did he have under his belt before his probation? Quick google search says 3 duis before probation.

It’s unlikely his 3rd DUI arrest was really only the 3rd time he’d driven under the influence. He was a danger to the public and not only was he still driving without a license (or suspended) he was still drinking. His February 27 offense he was drinking at the Pizza King after having driven there.

So to say he had a bad experience with LE or to think they were picking on him? He was a danger to everyone on the road and it’s surprising he never killed anyone in a drunk driving accident. He deserved prison for what he did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Falling Down

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2016
Messages
1,984
Reaction score
10,742
He "could have" given his phone to anyone during the murders. But if it was him on video at the aquarium store, then that is irrefutable IF the date and time was authenticated.

The ping from towers is pretty basic directing the phone to the cell tower with the strongest signal. Don't think they can triangulate very well with that to show an exact location.

Correct. Could have given the phone to a searcher.

Phone location in such an area as the one in question might be good to within 200 feet, that's going off experience having worked in cell tower equipment design and manufacturing. People with experience driving for ride share platforms and/or using ride share apps know this, besides, they use Google to find pick up and drop off points.

The apps use Google Maps, which uses cell tower signals. What if one or more towers in an area are 'off' a little bit? What about 'dead spots' for signals? Tower data may have put RL's phone within 'x' number of feet close to the CS, when in reality the phone was 500 or more feet away. Happens all the time with tower location data.

That evening during the initial search, LG's phone was pinged, and they knew it was in the general area in question, but would not have known its precise location.

JMO
 

IQuestion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
7,889
Geesh, I seem to be posting in wrong place...if so please move my comments. I read the search warrant many times and still amazed at wording "participated in the murders." As opposed to using the words "committed the murders." It gave me the feeling FBI felt there were two perps. It brings to mind young Lee Malvo and John Muhammad relationship. And, RL having a girlfriend/relationship with a woman young enough to have a baby.... the odd meter is moving into the bright red zone, imo.
 

TL4S

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
27,080
A legitimate question. It's long been said that L's phone was pinging all over town the night of the 13th. We know this isn't accurate, because it was later explained as the cell phone truly remaining in one spot, but just signals bouncing off various towers. Now, those were "pings," as opposed to RL's cell phone data coming from calls and texts. So do calls and texts have more accurate location data than a ping? LE seemed to have fairly precise location of RL's phone that day.
 

O.Incandenza

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
242
Reaction score
4,457
Correct. Could have given the phone to a searcher.

Phone location in such an area as the one in question might be good to within 200 feet, that's going off experience having worked in cell tower equipment design and manufacturing. People with experience driving for ride share platforms and/or using ride share apps know this, besides, they use Google to find pick up and drop off points.

The apps use Google Maps, which uses cell tower signals. What if one or more towers in an area are 'off' a little bit? What about 'dead spots' for signals? Tower data may have put RL's phone within 'x' number of feet close to the CS, when in reality the phone was 500 or more feet away. Happens all the time with tower location data.

That evening during the initial search, LG's phone was pinged, and they knew it was in the general area in question, but would not have known its precise location.

JMO
That's true for location data based off of cell tower pings, which is what they were referencing in the affidavit. But assuming RL's phone was GPS equipped and they were able to retrieve that data, they should have been able to get fairly precise (within a few feet probably) location from that. The GPS location is based on satellites, so the scarcity of cell phone towers wouldn't matter.

It seems clear that they didn't have that information at the time the affidavit was filed, but they may well have gotten it later and determined that RL's phone was at his house, not at the crime scene. That would be one explanation for LE seeming to move on from him as a suspect.
 

photographer4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
1,865
Reaction score
8,208

I don't think, from the information in the warrant about the large amount of blood at the crime scene, that they were moved long distances. I don't think they were murdered somewhere else and dumped there. I think the bodies were moved around, manipulated, within the bounds of the crime scene and LE knows this from forensic evidence.

Ok, so I'm back to this then: how did searchers not know what they had stumbled upon or however LE worded this when talking about the crime scene?? I can only come up with a few possibilities:

-> Were they killed closer to the water and then taken to where they were later found? If they lost a lot of blood to and the killer's clothes would almost certainly have had blood on them, then how did those who found them not realize what they had found? Was there no blood at the scene? Do police think the scene was protected perhaps by a tarp or something? OR: Is it such that the nature of the injuries didn't do more than cause the kids to bleed out into the ground? EG: some injuries spurt and spray. Some just bleed. What was the nature of the bloodloss? If the scene wasn't noticeably bloody by those who found them, then why not?
-> How did those who find them not realize what they had found? Clothes were missing, but other than what was missing, clothes were recovered at the scene. So were the kids undressed and then re-dressed thus hiding wounds? Where could the wounds have been that searchers who found them may not even have initially noticed them?
-> One of LG's shoes was found on the bridge side of the creek. We know some clothes were missing and one shoe was recovered. why is one shoe found where it was? Does that speak to the killer leaving the area and dropping it perhaps? Like do we think LG dropped it there on her own hoping to give a clue as to their direction of movement? Or? Thoughts pls?
-> The girls were killed then moved. Do they mean within the killing area (eg: killed then placed into position to be found)? Or do they mean
-> The warrant indicates that the last communication from LG's phone was 2:13pm What format was that communication? Text? The upload to snapchat (AG on the bridge photo)? A phonecall? A chat app like Kik?
-> How far do police imagine the girls were moved post mortem? And why were they moved?

This crime is very fast paced, and I cannot decide if it involved a degree of planning or not?! What the hell happened to the girls out there and why??
 

IQuestion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
2,045
Reaction score
7,889
Thank you PHOTOGRAPER4 you ask some great questions. I just copied this part from your post:-> ""One of LG's shoes was found on the bridge side of the creek. We know some clothes were missing and one shoe was recovered. why is one shoe found where it was? Does that speak to the killer leaving the area and dropping it perhaps? Like do we think LG dropped it there on her own hoping to give a clue as to their direction of movement? Or? Thoughts pls?"
My thought is the shoe that was found is an important clue! If the shoe was found quite a distance from the bodies and the shoe had no blood on it, then one of the girls may have purposely dropped it. If the shoe was found quite a distance from the bodies and was covered in blood, then that would indicate (at least in my humble opinion) that the killer took the shoe along with some other belongings and dropped it as he made his escape.
Of course, the FBI is diligent in photographing crime scenes and would be looking for drag marks. Perhaps the killer just moved the girls to an area that provided more seclusion and delaying the discovery of the crime.
I remember some contributors discussing a second location many years ago and a possible accomplice...could that be the couple heard arguing? Did they mean a couple of men, women or one of each?
 

Yemelyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
27,546
Ok, so I'm back to this then: how did searchers not know what they had stumbled upon or however LE worded this when talking about the crime scene?? I can only come up with a few possibilities:

-> Were they killed closer to the water and then taken to where they were later found? If they lost a lot of blood to and the killer's clothes would almost certainly have had blood on them, then how did those who found them not realize what they had found? Was there no blood at the scene? Do police think the scene was protected perhaps by a tarp or something? OR: Is it such that the nature of the injuries didn't do more than cause the kids to bleed out into the ground? EG: some injuries spurt and spray. Some just bleed. What was the nature of the bloodloss? If the scene wasn't noticeably bloody by those who found them, then why not?
-> How did those who find them not realize what they had found? Clothes were missing, but other than what was missing, clothes were recovered at the scene. So were the kids undressed and then re-dressed thus hiding wounds? Where could the wounds have been that searchers who found them may not even have initially noticed them?
-> One of LG's shoes was found on the bridge side of the creek. We know some clothes were missing and one shoe was recovered. why is one shoe found where it was? Does that speak to the killer leaving the area and dropping it perhaps? Like do we think LG dropped it there on her own hoping to give a clue as to their direction of movement? Or? Thoughts pls?
-> The girls were killed then moved. Do they mean within the killing area (eg: killed then placed into position to be found)? Or do they mean
-> The warrant indicates that the last communication from LG's phone was 2:13pm What format was that communication? Text? The upload to snapchat (AG on the bridge photo)? A phonecall? A chat app like Kik?
-> How far do police imagine the girls were moved post mortem? And why were they moved?

This crime is very fast paced, and I cannot decide if it involved a degree of planning or not?! What the hell happened to the girls out there and why??
This newly released affidavit tells us a little bit, but obviously not enough to answer all of your questions. However, one thing the affidavit does say is: "A large amount of blood was lost by the victims at the crime scene." This is from point 4 of the affidavit. So yes, the crime scene was bloody.

Why did the searchers not know what they had come upon? Keep in mind that was one person's opinion who wasn't there at the moment they were discovered. However, perhaps the bodies were covered or concealed in some way (leaves or brush?). Perhaps the person speaking knew that the searchers did not get very close to the bodies (smart people if knew enough not to disturb the scene). I would also guess that shock might have kept the first searchers from processing exactly what they were seeing if it was especially brutal. For example, a lay person might have seen discoloration on the victims' bodies and assumed it was bruising from the victims fighting their murderer. When in reality, forensic examiners might know that those marks are due to the regular processes of early decomposition, not bruising at all. Just giving an example here.

It's my opinion that since the affidavit says that the crime scene was the location where the large amount of blood was lost, that the victims were moved within the boundaries of that specific area after death. We know from the crime scene coordinates given in this document that it was located probably 50 feet or so from the banks of the creek. The crime scene tape never extended as far as the creek. I think whatever occurred, happened within that taped off area alone. But it's JMO.
 

minazoe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,970
Reaction score
13,039
Brian Chadwell did this crime in my opinion, he may have been close to Logans property and Logan knew he was around.
perhaps became acquainted...I also think Chadwell had this meeting with Libby set up by KAK maybe KAK was also with him or KAK's father...I don't think a lot of people were there..but one was JBC and he was BG, I think this murder was about making money off of the pictures . So I think if KAK was there he was there to take pictures.

I wonder if he was worried that just breathing on them might leave DNA. ( all speculation subject to change ).

when I watch the weird cryptic Tic Tok video's where JBC is saying you can come get me etc and talking about his nose injury etc...it has a tone of warning and threatening...and I just feel like maybe they were turning on each other...and some bad things were happening , KAK being arrested etc.. the phone records..

JBC is a really scary guy..that look on his face is for real.

Maybe they have JBC's DNA on the girls..but they still haven't entirely solved the murders.

Also JBC is still a suspect and hasn't been downgraded...as DN, RL and others were. mOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top