Found Deceased IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #146

Status
Not open for further replies.

m00c0w

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
1,056
I agree with you, but - completely hypothetically - RL could have been making a call to BG. Maybe he was serving as some sort of lookout and then contacted BG once the girls reached the bridge?

Obviously MOO, I keep trying to think of how to explain this ragtag gaggle of miscreants that has appeared with connections to this case. So many creeps have popped up.
To take that a step further, a phone is not a person. Just because a phone made a call, does not mean that the person who owns that phone made the call.
 

Marzipan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2014
Messages
271
Reaction score
1,301
(snipped for conciseness by me)

See, this is where I'm getting confused. You're saying you're not saying LE might have thought they knew each other, just that you think LE thought they might know each other?

As far as him being "at the crime scene" for three hours, they only have an approximate location. He may have been helping with the search; he may have been somewhere else on his property altogether. Historical cell tower records are not very accurate with regards to location, which is why they said "in the proximity of" instead of at the site, or a certain distance away from the site. I strongly believe that is just wordsmithing to make the case for the warrant.

JMO
Have we ever heard whether he did or didn’t participate in the search?
Edited - okay, I see now that it’s likely no because he was home working on the aquarium if telling the truth.
I mean, maybe. In the Jacob Wetterling case people didn’t believe the POI was home cataloging his record collection or whatever, but it turned out he likely was and he was innocent of the crime.
Lots of weird things here with RL, of course. Who knows. Don’t get why no footprint evidence was mentioned if they think he was out at crime scene. There should have been footprints from house to scene and back again, maybe a couple of times.
 
Last edited:

photographer4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
8,193
RI said the CS was "odd" and had "signatures." We now know the killer took a souvenir piece of clothing, moved and staged the bodies, and probably left bloody. LE also recently told the family they believe it was SM-related and put out the a_shots ask.

I don't know what, if anything, RL had to do with the murders that day, but I'm having trouble picturing him as a catfishing, depraved killer.

They were looking for photos / video / devices on which these materials could be made and stored…. has it occurred to anyone else that perhaps the killer put up a trail cam or two in the area where the killing took place? Maybe he put those up ahead of bringing the girls there? Perhaps they were even along the route. Maybe some device that he could connect to and watch in live time as the girls walked around the area and approached the bridge? He could have been in the woods near the bridge, seen them coming, on his phone via some live feed set up and then come out after they had stepped on the bridge. He could easily have taken any such devices with him. Devices like this are not even expensive to get really and are easy to set up / take down quickly. Finding out he used one or two of these wouldn’t shock me. Police may not even know if this was done or not done really depending on the evidence at the scene and in the general area. Scary thoughts.
 

photographer4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
8,193
I am thinking something along the lines of RL noticing someone in the vicinity and not mentioning to LE. Or withholding information of some sort.

I saw RL interviews countless times on all the local indianapolis news channels and I have a hard time seeing him as a catfishing, depraved killer as well.
People had a hard time thinking of Ted Bundy as a killer as well, and yet… we all know how that went. Just sayin….
 

photographer4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
8,193
What if they didn't struggle because they thought this guy was someone they were safe with- what if he really did pose as LE? Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Who knows, maybe he even cuffed them and told them it was "just until they were off the trail?"

MOO JMO
I keep going back to one LE saying he saw the look on one of the girl‘s faces and it was a look of terror or something to this general effect. The video is 43 seconds long. How could he have seen this if something terrifying hadn’t happened within those seconds? Is there other video? I doubt it. So what did the officer see? And we’ve been told we all have it all wrong and no one has it right so far. What if literally the attack happened initially at the end of the bridge? Does not mean they died there, but could mean they were incapacitated there. We know the video says down the hill. We don’t know if that is a command to the girls or a direction of something he wants them to focus on. We have no idea.
 

bbbd4u

Verified SAR/Emergency Management
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
305
Reaction score
840
Since several people have talked about the phone tower data and there seems to be some confusion about towers versus GPS and accuracy between the two methods... let me explain what's going on here using some sourcing. This is something I have extensive experience in with my day job, so to see the data misrepresented is somewhat bothersome.

This article is a pretty good primer on how historical cell tower data works - you get a list of phone calls and texts from the telco, and with each call or text are the towers the phone was connected to during the session (sometimes more than one, in the case of a phone call that is jumping between towers). The data from that product is then analyzed according to the article:


Of note, one of the first things they point out is "...data from a single cell tower is essentially worthless in trying to place someone in a particular location. The best you can expect is a band within a 120° “pie wedge” from the cell tower.". This is true from my experience, as well.

If you have one tower, you will wind up with a tower location and which sector of the tower the signal was present in:

View attachment 344994

You also get a signal strength that sort of allows you to estimate how far away from the tower the phone was, but it's still going to be somewhere within that 120 degree sector along that band. You can have miles of possible area to cover. If you have multiple towers that overlap, you can start to narrow down where the phone is using basic triangulation - the more towers, the better. AFAIK, there were only two towers in the area of RL's house, for instance, so your ability to pinpoint an exact location isn't going to be very solid. You'll still have a pretty sizeable chunk of area to account for.

Using cellmapper.net, you can actually see that his house sits at the very edges of sectors of both towers. With this, it may be possible to eliminate him having been at his house without knowing where he actually was on the rest of the property that is still within the relevant portion of the relevant sector.

Here's an additonal WaPo article that goes into some more depth about the intricacies involved with this:


They have a similar tower sector image in that article as well. One interesting note from the article that bears repeating:



JMO if not covered by something cited
Thank you very much for sharing this information and diagram. I hope this helps give everyone a better understanding at how cell phone pings should be obtained for the closest accuracy as possible.

I was involved with a search a few years back where a cell phone ping was obtained using 3 towers. The cell provider told LE that their cell pings could be off up to 3.4 miles.

I am not sure if this cell provider just went above and beyond to get the measurements for this one specific case I worked or if that is accurate for all of their cell pings for their towers.
 

m00c0w

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
3,047
Reaction score
1,056
Thank you very much for sharing this information and diagram. I hope this helps give everyone a better understanding at how cell phone pings should be obtained for the closest accuracy as possible.

I was involved with a search a few years back where a cell phone ping was obtained using 3 towers. The cell provider told LE that their cell pings could be off up to 3.4 miles.

I am not sure if this cell provider just went above and beyond to get the measurements for this one specific case I worked or if that is accurate for all of their cell pings for their towers.
In my experience, you only get margins of error with "live" ping data. Historical records only give you the tower, sector, and signal strength. It's up to the analysts to figure out the probable area based on overlapping tower sectors, known cell coverage, and other metrics.

JMO
 

FromGermany1

Formerly FromGermany
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
10,810
Since several people have talked about the phone tower data and there seems to be some confusion about towers versus GPS and accuracy between the two methods... let me explain what's going on here using some sourcing. This is something I have extensive experience in with my day job, so to see the data misrepresented is somewhat bothersome.

This article is a pretty good primer on how historical cell tower data works - you get a list of phone calls and texts from the telco, and with each call or text are the towers the phone was connected to during the session (sometimes more than one, in the case of a phone call that is jumping between towers). The data from that product is then analyzed according to the article:


Of note, one of the first things they point out is "...data from a single cell tower is essentially worthless in trying to place someone in a particular location. The best you can expect is a band within a 120° “pie wedge” from the cell tower.". This is true from my experience, as well.

If you have one tower, you will wind up with a tower location and which sector of the tower the signal was present in:

View attachment 344994

You also get a signal strength that sort of allows you to estimate how far away from the tower the phone was, but it's still going to be somewhere within that 120 degree sector along that band. You can have miles of possible area to cover. If you have multiple towers that overlap, you can start to narrow down where the phone is using basic triangulation - the more towers, the better. AFAIK, there were only two towers in the area of RL's house, for instance, so your ability to pinpoint an exact location isn't going to be very solid. You'll still have a pretty sizeable chunk of area to account for.

Using cellmapper.net, you can actually see that his house sits at the very edges of sectors of both towers. With this, it may be possible to eliminate him having been at his house without knowing where he actually was on the rest of the property that is still within the relevant portion of the relevant sector.

Here's an additonal WaPo article that goes into some more depth about the intricacies involved with this:


They have a similar tower sector image in that article as well. One interesting note from the article that bears repeating:



JMO if not covered by something cited
At first it was said, that Libby's cell phone pinged all over the town (Delphi?) and the family/searchers thought, the girls may have been on their way to a friend or being at the home of a friend or on their way running away even. Why was that assumed, when Libby's phone actually was in the MHB area at a certain place and later on indeed found there near the murdered girls? Does it mean, the cell phone moved within the MHB area from one place to another, from outside to inside a building and back to outside?
Maybe stupid to ask, but. o_O
 
Last edited:

Blacksheep13

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
48
Reaction score
336
Out of curiosity, I reread the podcast transcriptions I posted (which can easily be found in the media thread) many moons ago and found the following information/statements particularly interesting in light of recent developments —

More than 20 people who were contacted by LE in connection to this case were arrested on unrelated charges.

70 subpoenas and 12 search warrants (that we know of) were executed in the months following the crime. The two executed at Ron Logan’s property, as well as the one on Bicycle Bridge Road about 5 miles away, have already been mentioned. On February 25, another search warrant was executed at a residence on Canal Street in Peru, IN (30 miles away). LE said the persons at this particular residence were in no way connected to Libby and Abby.

Sheriff Tobe Leazenby said the property owner has “been covered” by the investigators.

2019 Press Conference
“During the course of this investigation, we have concluded the first sketch released will become secondary. As of today, the result of new information and intelligence over time leads us to believe that the sketch -- which you will see shortly -- is the person responsible for the murders of these two little girls. We also believe this person is from Delphi, currently or has previously lived here, visits Delphi on a regular basis, or works here. We believe this person is currently between the age range of 18-40 but might appear younger than his true age."

LE later clarified that the new sketch -- who is the man on the bridge -- is not the same person as the initial sketch. The person in the first sketch might not even exist as depicted. It might be a fabrication based on several combined and fading memories.

“To the murderer, I believe you have just a little bit of a conscience left, and I can assure you that how you left them in that woods is not--is not what they're experiencing today."

April 22, 2019
PRESS RELEASE: "New Face of the Delphi Murder Suspect"

The official release contradicted Carter in two minor ways --

1. The release described the suspect as someone in their mid-20s to mid-30s; Carter described him between the ages of 18 and 40 but may appear younger.

2. The release said "We have a witness. You made mistakes. We are coming for you, and there's no place for a heartless coward like you to hide that gets his thrill from killing little girls." ; Carter never mentioned the mistakes or the witness.

The caption displayed by the new sketch on the official press release: “This is the face of the suspect that goes with the body on the video on Liberty German's phone minutes before she and Abigail Williams were murdered."

Sgt. Robert Ives:
“Well, human nature being what it is, it’s hard for me to believe anybody could do something so bizarre and horrible and not feel compelled to tell somebody about it.”

In January 2019, Sheriff Tobe Lazenby stated that further evidence had been sent to the FBI at the end of 2018 and they were conducting DNA testing research. This could indicate that new methods of extraction, such as the M-Vac system or the new method for extracting DNA from a rootless hair are being used.

Sgt. Kim Riley:
“The way the girls were found, how they were found, what had happened to them. It was just a lot of things were going through their minds and just trying to figure out the crime scene. Is it here? Is it there? How much of a crime scene do we have here? And that was one of the questions that was being discussed too, ya know. How big of a crime scene do we got? What are we dealing with? How much evidence do we have here to deal with?”

“I mean, if you’ve never been there, you gotta remember we’re in Indiana—we’re in central Indiana—and the ravines are not deep here, but we do have ravines, small hills, and there was basically a creek that ran through there—real close to the crime scene. It was down in the lower gully—I guess you’d call it—where the bodies were found. There was two hills on each side and plus one on the side of the—on the side of the creek. So, you know, trying to figure out where did they come from, how did they get here, which way did the suspect, or suspects, go. Uh, those are all things they’re trying to figure out to see how large of a crime scene they gotta make.”


DTH: And the crime scene begins on the bridge?

Sgt. Kim Riley:
“Well, the crime scene originally started where we found the bodies because that was all the crime scene we knew at that point and time. As we found evidence, looked into things and found the phone, that’s when we actually realized that the crime scene did start at the bridge. So, now we have to back up even more to bring that bridge into—into the crime scene. So, now we’ve got it—we’re moving the crime scene a third of an acre. Now we’re talking—‘cause it’s—walking, it’s about a quarter of a mile from where the bodies were found to where the video was taken.”

We had, basically, to turn every leaf over from the crime scene all the way up the whole thing. And I don’t mean we turned every one, but I mean—it was just that dramatic of a crime scene. That’s what took so long.”


Superintendent Doug Carter:
“That was a bit of a challenge—to take a step back from this. We brought in, I think maybe five or six crime scene technicians. And our job at that point was to build a fence around them—not a literal one, one figuratively—and do everything we need to do to support them. The crime scene was very complicated.”

DTH: Compared to other investigations you do...

Superintendent Doug Carter:
“Well, I think it’s become commonly known that it includes, um, the Monon High Bridge. Um, it includes the-the-the trailhead. We’ve been there—it’s a cool little bridge to sit on and reflect, if you haven’t been there.”

So, everywhere from the trailhead on. That’s all I can say about the crime scene.”


DTH:
Obviously, without telling us the parts that you don’t want to release, can you tell us what that’s like to watch that video?

Sgt. Kim Riley:
“It was scary. Uh, I guess would be one way to put it. Just [pause] seeing, um, you know—seeing, just seeing the feelings that were going through the girls at the time. I’m not going to say which one, in particular. But, just knowing that—I, you know, just knowing what they knew is—is just, is just frightening for, uh, a 13- or 14-year old girl to know.”

Robert Ives:
“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. What people will think I’m talking about... it’s probably not. And so, because of unique circumstances — which all unique circumstances of a crime are a sort of signature — you think, well this unusual fact might lead to somebody or that unusual fact might lead to somebody, and I wish I could tell you. But, again, that’s up to the state police.”

DTH: Was there a signature in this crime? Like, like when you characterize something as a signature. Like without telling us what it is.

Robert Ives:
“I would say there were two or three things. Ah, I’d say at least three.”

“People ask me do I think it will be solved and I do think it will be solved — because it’s so odd and so unusual, and people are so compelled to talk about the terrible things they do.”


DTH:
When we find out what happened here, do you think it’s going to be simple? Is it going to be the simplest explanation?

DC:
“No, I don’t think so, and that’s just my own personal opinion. Because, it’s uh, it’s complex.”

“It’s—from what happened down there to what happened over there is complex. And, there’s not a simple explanation.”
I find this fascinating. I do think LE knows more than they are letting on - I think this case is so extremely complex that they are trying to ensure they have all the i’s dotted and T’s crossed before moving forward. I really don’t think they’re at a loss for who did this. It’s more of, can we get a smoking gun out of this.

How is it complex? Idk. Maybe this was an extremely intricate ambush. Maybe multiple people were involved. These are just examples of possible complexity.

I also find it very interesting they believe the person is a local or someone who frequents the area.

Does anyone have a timeline from when the interaction started until it ended?
 

Charlot123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
5,269
Reaction score
34,415
I find this fascinating. I do think LE knows more than they are letting on - I think this case is so extremely complex that they are trying to ensure they have all the i’s dotted and T’s crossed before moving forward. I really don’t think they’re at a loss for who did this. It’s more of, can we get a smoking gun out of this.

How is it complex? Idk. Maybe this was an extremely intricate ambush. Maybe multiple people were involved. These are just examples of possible complexity.

I also find it very interesting they believe the person is a local or someone who frequents the area.

Does anyone have a timeline from when the interaction started until it ended?

All it tells me is that the killer/killers had the reason for murders, and it was not a mere trail killer. Think of how much risk...
 

Vegasgrl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
231
Reaction score
2,026
There's some kind of coincidence that happened in a very short amount of time - regarding people that were in the general area, I think. The staging that has been noted along with significant blood amounts and garments missing says planned to me. Or - red herring to cover-up an accident of some sort. By that I mean maybe the killer's intention was sexual assault/inappropriate hook-up/photos - but it turned into quick murders for some reason? I really hope this gets solved and families get the answer. And the perpetrator is convicted. Puzzler for sure.
 

IQuestion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
7,435
From the video of the man walking on the bridge...I have always thought mid forties. And, sure enough, LE finally came up with a new pic and said it could be someone 18 to 40 and look younger than their age.
Always thought BG was a man who had the day off from work, or got off early in the morning. (Monday, right?)
And, IMO his walk indicated an injured/sore/sciatic left hip. It had the "lead step with the right foot and a follow-up slight drag with the left leg." (I call it step-drag, step-drag, step-drag.)
And, familiar with the area because he was a "deer hunter" at one time.... the "double S bend" of the creek is where a hunter would frequent or stalk because the water is shallower, flows slower and a place where deer can be found drinking water and cross through the slow moving current.
We have only been privy to a short voice clip, yet I feel it was a reply to a question and not a command. Maybe along the line of, "We are looking for our friend Anthony Shots, have you seen him?" And the man replies, "Yeah, down the hill." Once the girls started down the hill, he brandished a weapon, they were unable to flee back across the bridge because he now blocked their ability to run back across the bridge. BG doesn't appear to be a runner/sprinter because of his hip and had to take control quickly. Again IMO, he also had to have a lot of upper body strength if he moved the victims to a less visible area.
Since I am techno-ignorant, would it be possible to access the AnthonyShots real time communications if they had the password to get into that account? Maybe the killer thought he could get away with his crime because this was not his backyard, so to speak, but still an area with which he was familiar.
It's been 5 long years and I know LE wants to get it absolutely correct. I don't want a person to get off because, their defense is, "It's all circumstantial evidence."
 

Yemelyan

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
2,974
Reaction score
27,210
At first it was said, that Libby's cell phone pinged all over the town (Delphi?) and the family/searchers thought, the girls may have been on their way to a friend or being at the home of a friend or on their way running away even. Why was that assumed, when Libby's phone actually was in the MHB area at a certain place and later on indeed found there near the murdered girls? Does it mean, the cell phone moved within the MHB area from one place to another, from outside to inside a building and back to outside?
Maybe stupid to ask, but. o_O
The affidavit is quite clear that the last ping of the phone was in the area of the bridge/where they were found. So IMO the best evidence we have is that the phone did not move around.

It was a family member who made the "pinging around town" comment, not LE; if I had to guess, it reflects knowledge gained from the cell provider that the phone sometimes pinged off one tower in the area and sometimes off the other, and a layman's attempt to make sense of that.

It's my understanding that in reality a phone can be stationary and still ping off different nearby towers at different times, just depending on various circumstances including local amounts of cell phone traffic, etc, but I assume the family member did not know that at the time.

I think you are correct that LE strongly believed at the beginning of the search that the girls had snuck away to a friend's house or to see a movie in a nearby town or something, but it wasn't because of the phone pings - it was just their opinion based on their experience with other Carroll County kids over the years.
 

FrostedGlass

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2017
Messages
2,338
Reaction score
8,115
I'm quibbling again, but in a case this complicated, I think it is good to be careful about the way we phrase things, and this is a point that I think is worth being sure of. The search warrant application doesn't accuse RL of a crime as such. As I read it, the warrant application states that in the agent's professional opinion, there exists reason to search RL's property and devices for evidence related to the murders; it doesn't make a specific claim about RL's guilt. Just FWIW.
IMO She kind of does make a claim.
From the doc:
Page 8
"1. Based on the aforementioned facts, I believe there is probable cause to believe that Ronald Logan has committed the crime of murder and evidence of that could be found on Ronald Logan's property."
 

sandy_80

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
572
Reaction score
3,297
there has been so many red herrings in this case..which isnt abnormal
( take the unsolved case of Rose Burkert & Roger Atkison, case has a good many reasonably suspects with legit motives and everything including a crazy serial killer related to the victim yet non of them it seems is the killer )
focusing too much on these has let the case get out of hand...
they have failed in making use of all the evidence and the witnesses and the rest of they had...
what I want to see is new faces looking at the case..just to see a new perspective
 
Last edited:

IceIce9

Verified EMT
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
39,615
People had a hard time thinking of Ted Bundy as a killer as well, and yet… we all know how that went. Just sayin….
True.

But I had suspected social media involvement in the murders from day 1, and after seeing many local interviews with him I didn’t think he appeared to be SM savvy. Also, I thought he looked too tall to be BG. When the revised age range was released he definitely would have been much older than BG.

JMO
 

photographer4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
8,193
At first it was said, that Libby's cell phone pinged all over the town (Delphi?) and the family/searchers thought, the girls may have been on their way to a friend or being at the home of a friend or on their way running away even. Why was that assumed, when Libby's phone actually was in the MHB area at a certain place and later on indeed found there near the murdered girls? Does it mean, the cell phone moved within the MHB area from one place to another, from outside to inside a building and back to outside?
Maybe stupid to ask, but. o_O
How do phone pings from the cell service provider work? Do they silently determine a location or is it more like when I use find my device etc and they over ride the silence feature to beep or whatever really loudly to make finding them easier?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top