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

[wary]

Which would mean Libby was communicating with AS from the trail, since Kelsi had dropped them off 30-45 minutes earlier (hopefully someone know more accurately) and if Kelsi was the last to communicate with Libby, then why would they tell KAK that AS was the last one to communicate with Libby??

Remember that LE people are under no obligation to tell the truth to people they’re questioning. So, if for any reason they thought that telling him that was a better strategy, they were free to go for it.

MOO

 

[PnzrIVausf.G]

Which would mean Libby was communicating with AS from the trail, since Kelsi had dropped them off 30-45 minutes earlier (hopefully someone know more accurately) and if Kelsi was the last to communicate with Libby, then why would they tell KAK that AS was the last one to communicate with Libby??

Well,officially her relative was the last to communicate with the girls but what was referenced in the article suggests perhaps she wasn't the last to communicate with the two(obviously aside from bg and the girls themselves).From what I gather all this is based on a comment from kak(how many grains of salt would you like?)that he told a reporter and I have been thinking about that.I wonder if kak would be more likely to embrace the media/fame and be more candid during an interview but that's just my opinion.

 

[PnzrIVausf.G]

Recent hair dye posts are a strain to consider, though I mention in a most friendly way. We're all worn down by these unsolved murders.
When BG video was first 'enlarged' his reddish hair tones are very apparent; several suspects have beards identical. Uppermost is one career criminal's mug shots all matching the video beard! Perhaps killer made many plans; yet let's not rule out spontaneity of being captured by Libby's video.

like a makeup artist?

 

[MistyWaters]

like a makeup artist?

Obviously a fashion stylist for BG was nowhere to be found. No point wasting time and energy on hair dye and makeup, then to wear clothes hardly one up from a homeless person if the notion is this person intended to trick teens into believing he was attractive.

 

[Schatz]

Just my own opinion, but I think this is a fairly common bit of misplaced logic. I see it often in news stories: "... and the store clerk was the last person to see Rudiger alive." Well, the murderer was actually the last person to see him alive, we know that. But saying "The clerk was the last known person" or "The clerk was the last person other than the murderer," or even "The clerk was presumably the last person other than the murderer to see Rudiger alive" is more cumbersome.

I think it's just a verbal shortcut and we are in general meant to understand that XYZ was -probably- the last person -other than the murderer- to see poor Rudiger alive. I think that's probably what is going on with the statement about KAK/AS.

To chime in on another point: In my own experience, "Guys" as direct address is actually very common in the American South, addressing people of equal or lesser status. A waiter wouldn't begin a statement to a group of formal diners with "Guys," but would when calling his fellow waiters to attention in the kitchen. A doctor wouldn't address a group of a patient's family members as "guys" but she might address the clinical team in the workroom as "guys."

Pardon the pedantry (I used to be a publications editor): Our southern "y'all" is more often used in the subject of a sentence (nominative, for those of us old enough to have had grammar in school) where "guys" even in the south would be more often used in direct address (the vocative case.) As in: "Guys, y'all need to get that silverware rolled before the doors open at five." FWIW, my own experience only.

Pedantry and nominative all in the same post! :swoon:

 

[Kell1]

Don't think there's anything being released that indicates the a_s account said the arranged meeting was at the bridge, or that he expected multiple girls to be at the meeting.

If you read through the transcript, it said he was in contact with them up until the day of their death, was suposed to meet them at the bridge, and then in a conversation with another female, who knew they were supposed to meet , whomever was behind the persona stated "I was there but she never showed"

 

[Kell1]

You mean the person who also googled "how long does DNA evidence last?" and started deleting accounts from cellphones and faked a employment-start date on FB for the day of the murders to appear to have been in Las Vegas when the girls were killed?

No actual fire there, not yet, but there's a heck of a lot of noisome smoke, isn't there?

Indeed

 

[sandy_80]

he was there to kill and had the weapons ..why would he want to be attractive !
he didnt need that ...on the contrary he looks pretty disguised

 

[sandy_80]

Remember that LE people are under no obligation to tell the truth to people they’re questioning. So, if for any reason they thought that telling him that was a better strategy, they were free to go for it.

MOO

exactly...we didnt see them confronting him with anything physical ?
but i like to stress on the ( communication ) ..on the internet this can be anything like writing a comment under a photo ..or anything generic like that..

 

[FrostedGlass]

Remember that LE people are under no obligation to tell the truth to people they’re questioning. So, if for any reason they thought that telling him that was a better strategy, they were free to go for it.

MOO

Either I never knew that or I completely forgot it. Are there any rules as to how far they can go with that?

 

[HistoryNut]

Makes me wonder why there's such a sense of urgency on the part of LE to find out who is connected to the AS account.

Maybe a specific electronic device connected to the account hasn't been accounted for. As in LE might have identifying info about a device, but like I said they don't know where it is right now. I've wondered as well about the AS account, as in when, specifically, it was being used to contact LG, before the murders.

Maybe that's the key right now, they know the AS account and LG were connected somehow shortly before the murders. They just don't know for certain who it was on the AS end, and which device they were using.

Which brings to mind KAK's whereabouts that afternoon, he has an alibi, far as we know. However, who was he in contact with that afternoon, possibly through the AS account?

Just random thoughts I've had after mulling over what this AS account stuff could be about, and reading the great posts here.

JMO

I'm still shaking my head about why LE let KAK run loose from late February 2017 to late August 2020 when he was arrested and charged with 30 counts. According to the Indiana Court Records website, the most recent count was for 5/14/2020: "35-42-4-4(b)(2)/F5: Child Exploitation-Disseminate, exhibit, or offer to do so; send or bring into". The same count shows up for 5/14/2016, so there was obviously evidence that he was sharing CSAM with other pedophiles for at least four years.

Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[MistyWaters]

Either I never knew that or I completely forgot it. Are there any rules as to how far they can go with that?

Deception in the interrogation room

The government may not coerce confessions, as provided by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the due-process prohibition against admitting involuntary confessions into court.

www.apa.org

“The notion that confessions must be given voluntarily seems straightforward, but becomes complicated when one considers certain police behaviors. Although police have long been prohibited from using physical force, they are able to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from criminal suspects, including the use of deception during interrogation. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed police to falsely claim that a suspect's confederate confessed when in fact he had not (Frazier v. Cupp, 1969) and to have found a suspect's fingerprints at a crime scene when there were none (Oregon v. Mathiason, 1977), determining such acts insufficient for rendering the defendant's confession inadmissible. State courts have permitted police to deceive suspects about a range of factual matters, including, for example, falsely stating that incriminating DNA evidence and satellite photography of the crime scene exist (State v. Nightingale, 2012)….”

 

[wary]

Either I never knew that or I completely forgot it. Are there any rules as to how far they can go with that?

MOO

Good question. I am not a lawyer. Some things, like the suspect’s right to silence, or right to a lawyer, are supposedly off limits.

But I believe that LE doesn’t get in trouble for saying that an alleged confederate has already confessed, or that a reliable witness already saw the suspect at the scene of the crime. For example. So I think that: “you were the last person to communicate with her” would fall into that category.

A Google search turned up a bunch of links, all saying about the same thing. The courts seem to have drawn the line about where I drew it, above. Lying about legal rights—not allowed. Telling the suspect that their fingerprints or DNA were found at the scene of the crime, or that someone has confessed and implicated you, just fine.

Deception in the interrogation room

The government may not coerce confessions, as provided by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the due-process prohibition against admitting involuntary confessions into court.

www.apa.org

 

[FrostedGlass]

So maybe KAK isn't lying about everything?

The moral issue of lying to get a confession/conviction is a big one for me.

Last month I came across this article about plea bargains, some of which I found appalling. I understand that people are so fed up with crime that maybe they don't care so much about who pays just so someone does.

IMO, we shouldn't ever send an innocent person to jail just to get a case cleared or to promote a win.

Coercive Plea Bargaining Has Poisoned the Criminal Justice System. It’s Time to Suck the Venom Out. | ACLU

The vast number of cases brought under our system of mass incarceration means that plea bargaining is the only way for courts to get through the sheer number of cases in their dockets. This system lacks process, fairness, and often even rule of law.

www.aclu.org

 

[FromGermany1]

Can it be a coincidence, if A/L communicated with a-shots since weeks and also on Febr 13th, but a serial killer was on his mission at the MHB area and looked for his next victim/s on Febr 13th (because it was his free Monday or because it was one day before Valentin)?
IF the killer is someone, who stalked his future victim on the basis "young, female, out of a broken family (sorry, but it is fact), living in the same state or an adjacent state, precocius (or some other characteristics) in her SM", he might have found L on her several accounts and became interested for some (odd) reason. Maybe, the real killer has nothing to do with child p*rn, but "needed" some thrill kill/s (?) now and then. The real killer made all the child p*rn men (a "ring"?) very suspect, perhaps not even intentional at all.
Can it be? I don't know.

 

[TL4S]

MOO

Good question. I am not a lawyer. Some things, like the suspect’s right to silence, or right to a lawyer, are supposedly off limits.

But I believe that LE doesn’t get in trouble for saying that an alleged confederate has already confessed, or that a reliable witness already saw the suspect at the scene of the crime. For example. So I think that: “you were the last person to communicate with her” would fall into that category.

A Google search turned up a bunch of links, all saying about the same thing. The courts seem to have drawn the line about where I drew it, above. Lying about legal rights—not allowed. Telling the suspect that their fingerprints or DNA were found at the scene of the crime, or that someone has confessed and implicated you, just fine.

Deception in the interrogation room

The government may not coerce confessions, as provided by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the due-process prohibition against admitting involuntary confessions into court.

www.apa.org

I wonder what the rules are about showing the suspect record evidence, such as when the interviewers showed KAK the numbers from the two devices they said were logging in and out of a_shots at 8am on the 13th. Or reading supposed online communications with girls from KAK's devices, search histories, dropbox exchanges, etc. Or reading his a_shots exchanges from Vegas. Can they use fake records of digital activities during an interview/interrogation? Legitimate question.

 

[wary]

I wonder what the rules are about showing the suspect record evidence, such as when the interviewers showed KAK the numbers from the two devices they said were logging in and out of a_shots at 8am on the 13th. Or reading supposed online communications with girls from KAK's devices, search histories, dropbox exchanges, etc. Or reading his a_shots exchanges from Vegas. Can they use fake records of digital activities during an interview/interrogation? Legitimate question.

Good question. It’s possible that this particular type of questioning hasn’t worked itself up to the Supreme Court yet. Again, I’m no lawyer. But the idea that you can tell a suspect that a confederate confessed and implicated him—that evidently dates back to a Supreme Court ruling in 1969. I’d think that showing the suspect falsified records isn’t all that different.

I’m not defending the practice of faking evidence for interrogation, (not condemning it, either,) but I think the logic is that an innocent person would give them a blank look and say: “I never did that/said that. Someone must have hacked my account.

In KAK’s case, they would want to know who else had access to the accounts. Making up incriminating things might be a good way of finding that out from KAK?

MOO

 

[Yemelyan]

I wonder what the rules are about showing the suspect record evidence, such as when the interviewers showed KAK the numbers from the two devices they said were logging in and out of a_shots at 8am on the 13th. Or reading supposed online communications with girls from KAK's devices, search histories, dropbox exchanges, etc. Or reading his a_shots exchanges from Vegas. Can they use fake records of digital activities during an interview/interrogation? Legitimate question.

IMO, courts have moved to limit physical coercion by police that is aimed at obtaining a confession (threats of physical harm, threats of the death penalty, or promises of leniency if a person confesses) but they have not taken the same steps to limit mental coercion tactics.

Lying by interrogators occurs in nearly all false confessions and is currently allowed by the 1969 Supreme Court decision Frazier vs Cupp. Police have, for example, used fake satellite images to "show" a suspect that his truck was at a crime scene when it really wasn't, they are allowed to suggest to a person that they might have "blacked out" and just don't remember the crime that was committed, they are allowed to tell you that you failed a lie detector test when you didn't (not that it's really measuring truth anyway), they are allowed to tell you witnesses saw you fire a gun or that your wife believes you did it and is going to divorce you.

On a mature, mentally sound, sober, non-sleep-deprived person, these mental coercion tactics may not work and individuals can stand their ground against police suggestions. But juveniles, mentally ill persons or people with lower mental capacities, or people who have been questioned for hours - these people often will falsely confess.

When mental coercion works, it's often done so in combination with a police interrogation tactic called "contamination." Police will show the person crime scene photographs or supposed evidence. A suggestible person might then start to incorporate details from this "evidence" into their narrative. Once the person starts repeating details that an innocent person should not have known, they are trapped.

Since the National Registry of Exonerations has been keeping records, 20% of all exonerations have involved a person who "confessed" to a crime that they really didn't do.

False Confessions, Explained

Ending false confessions is a moral imperative that requires action from police and all the stakeholders in the criminal legal system.

theappeal.org

False and Coerced Confessions, Center on Wrongful Convictions: Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

www.law.northwestern.edu

 

[ShamelessObserver]

Where does it say in that transcript that AS arranged to meet Libby at the MHB.?

 

[AC4RD]

I’m not defending the practice of faking evidence for interrogation, (not condemning it, either,) but I think the logic is that an innocent person would give them a blank look and say: “I never did that/said that. Someone must have hacked my account.

An innocent person probably would. But after 10 hours of questioning, with most of the police lying, acting furious at you, throwing question after question and interrupting you, threatening you, an innocent person might well be tricked into confessing, yes? (Yemelyan's post downthread was very informative about this.) Now imagine being a young person, or a black person in Mississippi, or whatever ...

I've heard this many many times, most notably from my father-in-law, a lawyer: "If you are arrested, do not say anything but 'lawyer.' Don't answer questions, even if someone asks if you want a soda. 'Lawyer.'"