IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #51

[Bemused]

That's what someone could say about BG's photo as well "I can't swear under oath as to that being so and so because the picture is too blurry" .LE will need to have DNA or some other type of evidence when they do arrest someone to prove that he is the BG.

I agree with you 100%, but I've seen people state that they're 100% positive that BG is not RL despite the photo being blurry and despite the fact they do not personally know RL nor were they on the bridge at the same time. They may be able to state that on WS, and believe it to their core it's true, but can they swear under oath as to that being a fact? I don't believe they can. IMO

 

[TheOtherChristina]

When people talk about DNA results in a couple of days, they are talking about very specific scenarios that many not apply here. (I know that many people here know this, but others do not.)

Upthread, someone mentioned the rape of a child. If DNA in the form of semen is found in the vaginal vault of a child, there is no alternate explanation for that DNA. The only conclusion is that it belongs to the rapist. That's a DNA test that could be completed in days. All that's required is a clear DNA sample recovered from the semen and a clear swab from the suspect. Compare A to B. Done.

That's a best-case scenario (speaking from a crime-solving perspective only). In this case, we're dealing with two victims, and it's possible there was no sexual assault. Also -- I apologize for being indelicate -- there are plenty of sexual assaults that don't leave DNA behind. The presence of semen -- and again, I'm sorry if this is overly blunt -- is not conclusive evidence of sexual assault. No seven-year-old is having consensual sex, but a fourteen-year-old might or might not.

But let's postulate, for a moment, that there is no biological evidence of sexual assault. Lots of reasons that could be the case. All of a sudden, what it means to test DNA in this case becomes a lot more amorphous. If trace DNA is present in the form of hair on the girls' clothing, touch DNA on their shoelaces, this is getting way more complex. Imagine that LE now must test dozens or even hundreds of complete or partial DNA samples that could be innocuous or could be from the killer(s). They've got to test against and rule out every member of both girls' families, friends, each other. If you're using DNA testing not to determine whether A matches B, but rather, which of these traces is the outlier, that's not going to take three days.

Of course, all this is my opinion only and I have no way of knowing if this is or isn't the case here, but this is all to explain why I don't think any conclusions can be drawn about DNA testing just yet.

 

[Razz]

I fully agree; especially since his home was broken into and property was taken just the month before.

I didn't know that either. What things were taken from his home and how was he broken into.



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[FrostedGlass]

I believe that was several years (3?) prior. Do you have a citation as to that call to police and the date? TIA

March 31-2014, 11:53 a.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported forced entry into his residence and property taken. Maj. Tobe Leazenby investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-04-09/Local_News/Police_Calls.html


April 26-2014, 9:49 p.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported finding a person in his barn who was not authorized to be there. The unidentified person fled the barn prior to police arrival. The suspect was not located. Liggett investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-05-21/Local_News/Police_Calls.html

 

[Jax49]

Re the photos of BG, I agree they are not good enough to rule someone in as the murderer.

But, they should be sufficient to rule people out. For example, if BG is 5' 8" and a suspect is over 6 foot that would rule him out.

moo

 

[Bemused]

March 31-2014, 11:53 a.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported forced entry into his residence and property taken. Maj. Tobe Leazenby investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-04-09/Local_News/Police_Calls.html


April 26-2014, 9:49 p.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported finding a person in his barn who was not authorized to be there. The unidentified person fled the barn prior to police arrival. The suspect was not located. Liggett investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-05-21/Local_News/Police_Calls.html

The murders occurred in February 2017, nearly 3 years after those police reports. It doesn't seem likely to me there is a relationship to 3-year old crimes, IMO.

 

[Deleted member 155000]

When people talk about DNA results in a couple of days, they are talking about very specific scenarios that many not apply here. (I know that many people here know this, but others do not.)

Upthread, someone mentioned the rape of a child. If DNA in the form of semen is found in the vaginal vault of a child, there is no alternate explanation for that DNA. The only conclusion is that it belongs to the rapist. That's a DNA test that could be completed in days. All that's required is a clear DNA sample recovered from the semen and a clear swab from the suspect. Compare A to B. Done.

That's a best-case scenario (speaking from a crime-solving perspective only). In this case, we're dealing with two victims, and it's possible there was no sexual assault. Also -- I apologize for being indelicate -- there are plenty of sexual assaults that don't leave DNA behind. The presence of semen -- and again, I'm sorry if this is overly blunt -- is not conclusive evidence of sexual assault. No seven-year-old is having consensual sex, but a fourteen-year-old might or might not.

But let's postulate, for a moment, that there is no biological evidence of sexual assault. Lots of reasons that could be the case. All of a sudden, what it means to test DNA in this case becomes a lot more amorphous. If trace DNA is present in the form of hair on the girls' clothing, touch DNA on their shoelaces, this is getting way more complex. Imagine that LE now must test dozens or even hundreds of complete or partial DNA samples that could be innocuous or could be from the killer(s). They've got to test against and rule out every member of both girls' families, friends, each other. If you're using DNA testing not to determine whether A matches B, but rather, which of these traces is the outlier, that's not going to take three days.

Of course, all this is my opinion only and I have no way of knowing if this is or isn't the case here, but this is all to explain why I don't think any conclusions can be drawn about DNA testing just yet.

I appreciate the way you explained this. This level of complexity is my understanding as well and is why I suspected the process could very well be ongoing, but I didn't explain it nearly as well as you did. Thanks so much!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WebSight]

When people talk about DNA results in a couple of days, they are talking about very specific scenarios that many not apply here. (I know that many people here know this, but others do not.)

Upthread, someone mentioned the rape of a child. If DNA in the form of semen is found in the vaginal vault of a child, there is no alternate explanation for that DNA. The only conclusion is that it belongs to the rapist. That's a DNA test that could be completed in days. All that's required is a clear DNA sample recovered from the semen and a clear swab from the suspect. Compare A to B. Done.

That's a best-case scenario (speaking from a crime-solving perspective only). In this case, we're dealing with two victims, and it's possible there was no sexual assault. Also -- I apologize for being indelicate -- there are plenty of sexual assaults that don't leave DNA behind. The presence of semen -- and again, I'm sorry if this is overly blunt -- is not conclusive evidence of sexual assault. No seven-year-old is having consensual sex, but a fourteen-year-old might or might not.

But let's postulate, for a moment, that there is no biological evidence of sexual assault. Lots of reasons that could be the case. All of a sudden, what it means to test DNA in this case becomes a lot more amorphous. If trace DNA is present in the form of hair on the girls' clothing, touch DNA on their shoelaces, this is getting way more complex. Imagine that LE now must test dozens or even hundreds of complete or partial DNA samples that could be innocuous or could be from the killer(s). They've got to test against and rule out every member of both girls' families, friends, each other. If you're using DNA testing not to determine whether A matches B, but rather, which of these traces is the outlier, that's not going to take three days.

Of course, all this is my opinion only and I have no way of knowing if this is or isn't the case here, but this is all to explain why I don't think any conclusions can be drawn about DNA testing just yet.

Thank you so much for this! The "compare A to B" part is fairly straightforward but the other info was helpful for me to visualize.

 

[Razz]

March 31-2014, 11:53 a.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported forced entry into his residence and property taken. Maj. Tobe Leazenby investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-04-09/Local_News/Police_Calls.html


April 26-2014, 9:49 p.m. - Burglary, 5858W. 300N., Delphi. Ron Logan reported finding a person in his barn who was not authorized to be there. The unidentified person fled the barn prior to police arrival. The suspect was not located. Liggett investigated.
http://www.carrollcountycomet.com/news/2014-05-21/Local_News/Police_Calls.html

The dates are off by 3 years but that's okay.

I don't know, but with this break in and/Or trespassing on his property in the past, it makes it more likely
IMO that he'd go after someone especially if they're kids.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 155000]

Re the photos of BG, I agree they are not good enough to rule someone in as the murderer.

But, they should be sufficient to rule people out. For example, if BG is 5' 8" and a suspect is over 6 foot that would rule him out.

moo

Good point. The guy doesn't have dark skin, he isn't 400 pounds nor is he 80 pounds. That does help when sorting through potential tips or persons of interest, I am sure. Unless, I suppose, there really were two people involved in their killing. In that case, they may not know if DNA recovered belonged to BG or an accomplice...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WebSight]

The dates are off by 3 years but that's okay.

I don't know, but with this break in and/Or trespassing on his property in the past, it makes it more likely
IMO that he'd go after someone especially if they're kids.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

How does it make it more likely?

We don't have any evidence that he has ever "gone after" anyone in the past, and imo, we would need to see a history of that. Nor do we know that he particularly cares. I know he has some no trespassing signs, especially around the paddock areas and near the road but I have not seen any evidence of excessive signage in the wooded area that would indicate that this is a problem for him.

He probably would not be aware most days that there is anyone trespassing. He cannot see down the hill from his farm unless he is standing/walking/working on the rim or that part of his property. Most of his work would encompass his paddocks around his house and barns. It is all downhill from the edge of his farm. He probably would not be able to see anyone that far away as well.

 

[Bemused]

Good point. The guy doesn't have dark skin, he isn't 400 pounds nor is he 80 pounds. That does help when sorting through potential tips or persons of interest, I am sure. Unless, I suppose, there really were two people involved in their killing. In that case, they may not know if DNA recovered belonged to BG or an accomplice...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm amazed by the photo work Nin has done, but I'm not sure if there is scientific proof her calculations are accurate. They may be or they may be very close but we don't know with any degree of certainty. We don't know how skewed BG may be and he's bent slightly forward. TTBOMK, LE has never released a height or weight estimate on BG. IMO

 

[Cryptic]

The dates are off by 3 years but that's okay.

I don't know, but with this break in and/Or trespassing on his property in the past, it makes it more likely
IMO that he'd go after someone especially if they're kids.

Though this motive is possible, I don't think it is very likely as there is no evidence of a "build up" with RL. Though he was burgalized, trespassing through his "back twenty" seems to have been fairly common. Yet, RL only reported them on what, two occasions?

In addition, there is no evidence of RL say, aggressively confronting trespassers, posting ominous signage, conducting "security patrols" on the property, frequently calling the police demanding action on real or imagined trespassers or say, self declaring himself a "guardian" of the public trails near his property.

My guess is that RL, while undestandibly not liking burglars or condoning trespassers seems to have been very hands off regarding local youth and their activities.

 

[Mercedes]

Omg yes!!! Several times!! It's like a malicious malware virus or something! I have to close out my entire browser and reload it to get back to websleuths . next time I'll take a screenshot of what it says and post it

Yesterday afternoon I got a pop-up (while on websleuths) that said Apple was infected with a virus (I was using my iPad) and that I must follow the instructions. Was told not to ignore warning and not to exit. So, following our house/office rule, I immediately powered off and rebooted. We never click into an unknown site. When I turned ipad back on, everything seemed ok. FYO
Hope this helps. :scared:

 

[asyousay]

That photo it's hard to tell much on it , so if you asked 10 different people to describe it you would get 10 different answers IMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I also think that RL calling police rather than confronting the person shows us what his inclined response would be. How this is used against him I do not understand. I would say it dispels the idea that he would be enraged and confrontational in a trespassing situation. jmo, still.

Yes, that's how I see it as well.

Someone broke into my garage a few years ago and I reported it to police as well. It's absolutely preposterous to think that occurrence proves that going forward I will become inclined to stalk and murder young teens roaming the neighbourhood.

However that someone had broken into RLs barn once before does indicate someone other than him or his friends, relatives or associates in the past were connected to the general area of the crime scene and RLs property in general. That may or may not be significant but I would imagine all outbuildings have been thoroughly searched.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Razz]

How does it make it more likely? See, I think the opposite. He probably would not be aware most days that there is anyone trespassing. He cannot see down the hill from his farm unless he is standing/walking/working on the rim or that part of his property. Most of his work would encompass his paddocks around his house and barns. It is all downhill from the edge of his farm.

Also, we don't have any evidence that he has ever "gone after" anyone in the past.

Well.......we'd had break ins of cars in an area where we'd play tennis.

One day, a break in occurred about 20 yards from us. Several of us, all older women, gave chase. We were reprimanded by the cops ("how are you going to stop a bullet with that tennis racquet") but the fact they did a break in so close to us was more maddening than it was frightening.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[WebSight]

Though this motive is possible, I don't think it is very likely as there is no evidence of a "build up" with RL. Though he was burgalized, trespassing through his "back twenty" seems to have been fairly common. Yet, RL only reported them on what, two occasions?

In addition, there is no evidence of RL say, aggressively confronting trespassers, posting ominous signage, conducting "security patrols" in the area, frequently calling the police demanding action on real or imagined trespassers or say, "claiming" public trails near his property.

My guess is that RL, while undestandibly not liking burglars or condoning trespassersl seems to have been very hands off regarding annoyances.

Yes! I just posted a similar response but you said it better! Thx!

 

[WebSight]

Well.......we'd had break ins of cars in an area where we'd play tennis.

One day, a break in occurred about 20 yards from us. Several of us, all older women, gave chase. We were reprimanded by the cops ("how are you going to stop a bullet with that tennis racquet") but the fact they did a break in so close to us was more maddening than it was frightening.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I actually added more to that post which expanded on this original response. I would love it if you would read the new post. Someday I will get this posting thing right! I always have to rewrite!

Your example, I am not understanding what you mean as it pertains to RL being more likely to go after kids?

 

[Deleted member 155000]

How does it make it more likely?

We don't have any evidence that he has ever "gone after" anyone in the past, and imo, we would need to see a history of that. Nor do we know that he particularly cares. I know he has some no trespassing signs, especially around the paddock areas and near the road but I have not seen any evidence of excessive signage in the wooded area that would indicate that this is a problem for him.

He probably would not be aware most days that there is anyone trespassing. He cannot see down the hill from his farm unless he is standing/walking/working on the rim or that part of his property. Most of his work would encompass his paddocks around his house and barns. It is all downhill from the edge of his farm. He probably would not be able to see anyone that far away as well.

I don't personally think RL is a calculated killer (though I guess I don't completely rule out his possible involvement in an accidental or impulse crime given some of police statements discussed earlier).

But I think you could develop several different theories about how a prior trespassing report could impact his attitudes about people on the property.

I'm sure a defense attorney would say, as you do, that the call proves it would be typical of RL to report a trespasser to LE rather than confronting the person directly...unless if when RL called 911, he indicated he did confront or threaten the person.

A prosecuting attorney would probably look at it the way the other poster here seems to be. RL was alert to trespassers and possibly troubled by them and, after the person evaded police the first time, he may have taken it into his own hands.

I don't think you can work out from either of those loose theories unless you had a lot of other corroborating evidence though, so right now it's all just speculation.

I hope LE decides to release more info eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk