IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #55

[J Lee]

If I am understanding correctly, there are varying degrees of speculation as to whether the remains were overlooked in the initial search, or if the Perp committed the murder elsewhere, and then deposited the earthly remains where they were eventually discovered?

The latter scenario is really mind blowing to me. If accurate, this would mean the Perp furtively moved through the night in an area he knew was being searched (at least during the day) to leave the bodies. Very, very risky! Was that part of the "thrill"? Was that area significant to him for some reason? Why would he risk detection to leave them there, vs. leave them where he murdered them? (Unless of course, it was his property).

WHAT is significant, (if anything) about that spot? Because it was close to the cemetery? If the cemetery was the pull, then why not leave the remains at the cemetery? The spot where the remains were left does not seem random to me. Did the Perp have some axe to grind with the property owner? Leaving dead bodies on someone's property would be one h*ll of a payback.

My mind is just spinning on these concepts....

Who maintains the property of the cemetery?
Who currently(as well as in the past) digs the graves?

Sent from my LGL51AL using Tapatalk

 

[J Lee]

If I am understanding correctly, there are varying degrees of speculation as to whether the remains were overlooked in the initial search, or if the Perp committed the murder elsewhere, and then deposited the earthly remains where they were eventually discovered?

The latter scenario is really mind blowing to me. If accurate, this would mean the Perp furtively moved through the night in an area he knew was being searched (at least during the day) to leave the bodies. Very, very risky! Was that part of the "thrill"? Was that area significant to him for some reason? Why would he risk detection to leave them there, vs. leave them where he murdered them? (Unless of course, it was his property).

WHAT is significant, (if anything) about that spot? Because it was close to the cemetery? If the cemetery was the pull, then why not leave the remains at the cemetery? The spot where the remains were left does not seem random to me. Did the Perp have some axe to grind with the property owner? Leaving dead bodies on someone's property would be one h*ll of a payback.

My mind is just spinning on these concepts....

Maybe BG has spent time at the cemetery and thus knows the immediate area quite well. Maybe BG knows someone buried there.

Sent from my LGL51AL using Tapatalk

 

[MistyWaters]

Thank you! That confirms that they were at the river elevation. Last night I was wondering if they were higher up. That doesn't make much sense ... not sure how to explain what I'm thinking ... but they were 50-60 feet from the creek but not at the top of what looks like a cliff in the topo maps

There's a couple of other videos as well. Unfortunately I've yet to find one that illustrates a view both ways, uphill and down. I also wonder how large was the area with crime scene tape or if there was crime scene tape in more than one location and some of the videos are confusing that with the discovery site.

But my best guess is it appears the discovery scene is midway down the hill, not level with the river bank but not at the top either. I thought the Bob Saccamano theory was interesting, that where the bodies were found represented a sort of natural entrapment due to the topography (my interpretation ).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rosesfromangels]

Only the locals would know if the spot where the remains were found is significant for any reason. Is it a local spot where kids go to hang out? Is that particular spot known for anything other than it's now infamous location?

 

[otto]

If I am understanding correctly, there are varying degrees of speculation as to whether the remains were overlooked in the initial search, or if the Perp committed the murder elsewhere, and then deposited the earthly remains where they were eventually discovered?

The latter scenario is really mind blowing to me. If accurate, this would mean the Perp furtively moved through the night in an area he knew was being searched (at least during the day) to leave the bodies. Very, very risky! Was that part of the "thrill"? Was that area significant to him for some reason? Why would he risk detection to leave them there, vs. leave them where he murdered them? (Unless of course, it was his property).

WHAT is significant, (if anything) about that spot? Because it was close to the cemetery? If the cemetery was the pull, then why not leave the remains at the cemetery? The spot where the remains were left does not seem random to me. Did the Perp have some axe to grind with the property owner? Leaving dead bodies on someone's property would be one h*ll of a payback.

My mind is just spinning on these concepts....

Based on the assumption that the suspect would lead the girls to an area near his parked vehicle, and the location of the bodies, I think his vehicle was parked at the cemetery. There's a ravine, and very likely a path, from the cemetery to the creek. I think the girls bodies were left at the entrance to the ravine because the area is hidden from most viewpoints, and because it allowed the suspect to make a quick getaway. I don't think the suspect had any idea whose property he was on, and I don't think it made any difference.

 

[Lilowlet]

In that bottom video where he's explaining to the reporter how his property is laid out, he says something like: Right down there across from that Greek (or creek) house. Is he talking about the nature reserve building?

I've seen and ventured to a quite a few, but in tn alab areas, there were creek houses on some and not on others, could just be a regular creek house of someone's at sometime, I thought I saw one in a photo or vid.at one point but I'd have to find

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[gregjrichards]

Thank you. I heard there was a flurry of activity last night at the Delphi sheriffs office. Multiple cars. Has anyone heard anything on the scanner or otherwise?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately there is an unconfirmed rumour on sm there was a large drug bust last night I don't think it had anything to do with the case.

 

[Lilowlet]

Maybe BG has spent time at the cemetery and thus knows the immediate area quite well. Maybe BG knows someone buried there.

Sent from my LGL51AL using Tapatalk

Wonder LE surely has looked into the possibility i hope i lnow i looked rhrough the cemetery list, and was actually being crazy and looking for dates related to when the girls went missing. All imo always good question

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Unfortunately there is an unconfirmed rumour on sm there was a large drug bust last night I don't think it had anything to do with the case.

The drug bust might help too I hope!

 

[BoltzmanBrain]

I guess that BG was at least initially totally unaware that he was being recorded. It appears the Libby was probably focused in on getting another good shot of Abby and BG was just in the picture. LE stated that the poor quality was from being cropped out of a larger frame. I imagine as many of you do that she slipped the phone into her pocket and recorded the audio.

From a self preservation standpoint in this type of situation should we tell our girls (I have 3) that instead of hiding the fact that you have recorded evidence, attempt to use this to your advantage. Perhaps it would be better to get in his face and capture good video and audio to use as leverage for your survival. Essentially make it clear to him that you have sent high quality electronic data of him to the cloud and that if anything happens to you then he will immediately be identified.

Is this the better approach? Does it entirely depend on the perpetrator's motives? Shouldn't him knowing that he has a great chance of being caught detour him from going through with the murder.

I admire those girls so much in the way they stood up together and faced terror with bravery. I'm just wondering what would be the best approach for our children if god forbid they ever faced this evil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Falling Down]

There's a couple of other videos as well. Unfortunately I've yet to find one that illustrates a view both ways, uphill and down. I also wonder how large was the area with crime scene tape or if there was crime scene tape in more than one location and some of the videos are confusing that with the discovery site.

But my best guess is it appears the discovery scene is midway down the hill, not level with the river bank but not at the top either. I thought the Bob Saccamano theory was interesting, that where the bodies were found represented a sort of natural entrapment due to the topography (my interpretation ).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree with Bob, and would add that the spot is secluded, in a way. Not easily seen from the bridge, even in February, and it can't be seen from the other residence (the property on the opposite bank, up the road/driveway). The perp has to know that stretch of the creek very well. The creek would be a natural barrier that would have slowed the girls down, same for the hill up to the cemetery.

It takes roughly 7 minutes to walk from what was the parking area (now blocked off), to the NW appraoch to the bridge. Several more minutes to cross, if in a hurry or even at a normal pace. Tight time frame, but like a lot of other members I'm convinced he got them away from the bridge. Had anything thrown a wrench into his plans, he could've disengaged and ducked out of there, into the cemetery, and because of his efforts at concealing his appearance, it still would have been difficult to get a hold of this guy, if the girls got out of there alive.

Downright creepy, but slick.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Based on the assumption that the suspect would lead the girls to an area near his parked vehicle, and the location of the bodies, I think his vehicle was parked at the cemetery. There's a ravine, and very likely a path, from the cemetery to the creek. I think the girls bodies were left at the entrance to the ravine because the area is hidden from most viewpoints, and because it allowed the suspect to make a quick getaway. I don't think the suspect had any idea whose property he was on, and I don't think it made any difference.

Didn't talk RL on the first day of "ravines" here and there on his property and what an impassable terrain it would be? Not to say he is BG.

 

[Matlacha]

If I am understanding correctly, there are varying degrees of speculation as to whether the remains were overlooked in the initial search, or if the Perp committed the murder elsewhere, and then deposited the earthly remains where they were eventually discovered?

The latter scenario is really mind blowing to me. If accurate, this would mean the Perp furtively moved through the night in an area he knew was being searched (at least during the day) to leave the bodies. Very, very risky! Was that part of the "thrill"? Was that area significant to him for some reason? Why would he risk detection to leave them there, vs. leave them where he murdered them? (Unless of course, it was his property).

WHAT is significant, (if anything) about that spot? Because it was close to the cemetery? If the cemetery was the pull, then why not leave the remains at the cemetery? The spot where the remains were left does not seem random to me. Did the Perp have some axe to grind with the property owner? Leaving dead bodies on someone's property would be one h*ll of a payback.

My mind is just spinning on these concepts....

You didn't question why the perp would remove the girls, and I expect that is obvious--more time, more privacy, up to and including sex slavery. But if he/they did remove them, why take the risk of bringing them back? My first thought is that because leaving them where they were killed, or at some third spot, would be more incriminating. Using a property the perp owned, or to which he had access, would obviously be incriminating. But why not a third spot? Because it might trigger searches of traffic cameras, toll booths, gas station security cameras, etc., which helped lead LE to the perps in the Teresa Sievers case and, I imagine, many others. Yes, LE might still look at those things, but the perp might think not. The second thing, already mentioned by many here, is that the perp/perps wanted the bodies found quickly, in whatever way they were staged, to create shock and/or terror.

 

[Falling Down]

I guess that BG was at least initially totally unaware that he was being recorded. It appears the Libby was probably focused in on getting another good shot of Abby and BG was just in the picture. LE stated that the poor quality was from being cropped out of a larger frame. I imagine as many of you do that she slipped the phone into her pocket and recorded the audio.

From a self preservation standpoint in this type of situation should we tell our girls (I have 3) that instead of hiding the fact that you have recorded evidence, attempt to use this to your advantage. Perhaps it would be better to get in his face and capture good video and audio to use as leverage for your survival. Essentially make it clear to him that you have sent high quality electronic data of him to the cloud and that if anything happens to you then he will immediately be identified.

Is this the better approach? Does it entirely depend on the perpetrator's motives? Shouldn't him knowing that he has a great chance of being caught detour him from going through with the murder.

I admire those girls so much in the way they stood up together and faced terror with bravery. I'm just wondering what would be the best approach for our children if god forbid they ever faced this evil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Many threads ago, someone brought up the "SoS" function on cell phones. As soon as I read the post, I activated and set the SoS function on my smart phone.

That alone could save a life.

 

[Lilowlet]

Out for a bit ily guys. Today's the day!And I'm digging the atmosphere here today(if any e replies to a post I'll get back to it and read to catch up)

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[TigerLilly]

If I am understanding correctly, there are varying degrees of speculation as to whether the remains were overlooked in the initial search, or if the Perp committed the murder elsewhere, and then deposited the earthly remains where they were eventually discovered?

The latter scenario is really mind blowing to me. If accurate, this would mean the Perp furtively moved through the night in an area he knew was being searched (at least during the day) to leave the bodies. Very, very risky! Was that part of the "thrill"? Was that area significant to him for some reason? Why would he risk detection to leave them there, vs. leave them where he murdered them? (Unless of course, it was his property).

WHAT is significant, (if anything) about that spot? Because it was close to the cemetery? If the cemetery was the pull, then why not leave the remains at the cemetery? The spot where the remains were left does not seem random to me. Did the Perp have some axe to grind with the property owner? Leaving dead bodies on someone's property would be one h*ll of a payback.

My mind is just spinning on these concepts....

Ive spun this around in my mind too. Without actually seeing the area and reading other people's descriptions, I think they were left where they were killed. My first impression was that they were left near the creek in an area that didnt have steep banks to climb. IMO Near the creek because footprints led them to the girls. If they were left farther up in the woods where the terrain was rough and steep in places, then I dont see how he could have moved them to there. If they nust searched near the bridge and along the creek, I can understand how they werent found in the dark.
It would be very risky for the perp to linger and be moving them while people were searching. IMO, he planned the attack, it was finished fast and he was not in the area when the search started. JMO

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[crhedBngr]

Many threads ago, someone brought up the "SoS" function on cell phones. As soon as I read the post, I activated and set the SoS function on my smart phone.

That alone could save a life.

My Samsung Galaxy s3 has an "emergency call" button. Is this what you are referring to?

Edited To Add: Just pulled out my s3, and double-checked where the "emergency call" button is located. I've got the "lock" feature enabled. When I go to the unlock screen, I see the "emergency call" button below.

Therefore, I'm assuming I don't need to unlock my phone to make an emergency call, I can just hit the "emergency call" button, and it will do a "911" call.

ETA: Just found the "SOS" setting on this, and enabled it. Thank you for this!

 

[otto]

I guess that BG was at least initially totally unaware that he was being recorded. It appears the Libby was probably focused in on getting another good shot of Abby and BG was just in the picture. LE stated that the poor quality was from being cropped out of a larger frame. I imagine as many of you do that she slipped the phone into her pocket and recorded the audio.

From a self preservation standpoint in this type of situation should we tell our girls (I have 3) that instead of hiding the fact that you have recorded evidence, attempt to use this to your advantage. Perhaps it would be better to get in his face and capture good video and audio to use as leverage for your survival. Essentially make it clear to him that you have sent high quality electronic data of him to the cloud and that if anything happens to you then he will immediately be identified.

Is this the better approach? Does it entirely depend on the perpetrator's motives? Shouldn't him knowing that he has a great chance of being caught detour him from going through with the murder.

I admire those girls so much in the way they stood up together and faced terror with bravery. I'm just wondering what would be the best approach for our children if god forbid they ever faced this evil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I agree with that strategy, the downside is that as soon as victims disclose they have a phone, it is taken from them. That's also a disadvantage.

Also, I think that the suspect is deliberately disguised by being overdressed for the weather. On the one hand he is familiar with the area - comfortable abducting two victims at that location - and on the other hand he's wearing too many clothes for someone who is adapted to that type of weather. Abby is wearing an unbuttoned coat, the suspect is wearing a coat, hoodie, and some sort of head covering. If he was running when he approached them (blitz attack) and he's wearing clothes that he does not normally wear, he might not care if there is phone-quality video of him.

There's also the possibility that revealing that video has been shared might incite violence and anger.

 

[Matlacha]

In thread #54, cindersoot asked: I need opinions, do you think BG is wearing a holster? If a holster would left handed I assume. Does anyone see rivets on the holster?

Sorry for the late response, but I suspect no holster. The gun is very obvious against the fabric of the jacket, and its weight seems to be pulling on the fabric, suggesting it's carried in a jacket pocket. A real expert might even be able to guess the make and model (I'm not an expert, but the shape doesn't look right for a 1911 or Glock 20/21, though the gun is perhaps as large as those models). A holstered gun would not normally be so visible under a jacket. With a holster, the weight of the gun would be supported either by the belt (belt holster) or the neck and shoulders (shoulder holster), allowing the jacket fabric to drape over--and better conceal--the pistol.

 

[BoltzmanBrain]

While I agree with that strategy, the downside is that as soon as victims disclose they have a phone, it is taken from them. That's also a disadvantage.

Also, I think that the suspect is deliberately disguised by being overdressed for the weather. On the one hand he is familiar with the area - comfortable abducting two victims at that location - and on the other hand he's wearing too many clothes for someone who is adapted to that type of weather. Abby is wearing an unbuttoned coat, the suspect is wearing a coat, hoodie, and some sort of head covering. If he was running when he approached them (blitz attack) and he's wearing clothes that he does not normally wear, he might not care if there is phone-quality video of him.

There's also the possibility that revealing that video has been shared might incite violence and anger.

Those are all very good points. Thanks for the reply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk