Found Deceased IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 #83

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 189081

Guest
OK so am I allowed to post a theory based on MHO

I think it is possible the girls made it across the bridge without incident.
Yes I think they hung around for a while when at the end of the end of the bridge, sometime after Libby had taken the photo of Abby.
I also happen to think they started their journey back across the bridge towards the pickup point.

During their hang out stage at the end of the bridge I don’t think they would have noticed BG not until they turned around to go home which is when I think they came face to face with him.
So they were heading home and he was heading towards where they had come from.

For whatever reason they either

1. They Turned around independently and went back to allow him to pass freely and easily
2. They were forced to turn around (reason unknown)
3. Whichever it appears they were directed by BG once they returned to the SE side of the bridge

I have come to the conclusion IF BG was following them he was doing so at a fair distance and sometime behind. Long enough not to be photographed in the 2:07 pm photo behind Abby.

IF BG Was Not following the Girls specifically he was taken totally by surprise by the presence of the girls on their return journey.
· He was in the act of up to no good whilst on the bridge
o It could have been as simple as disposing of evidence from a previous crime whilst on the bridge.(Example only)
· He thinks they saw whatever the no good was
· Most importantly he didn’t want any witnesses to know
o Who he was
o What he was doing there
· He needed to isolate his immediate problem. Libby and Abby.
o He did so by killing the Girls or leaving the girls for dead whilst he did his Houdini act

KR
Reacher
 

Jerrod

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
424
Reaction score
2,293
I truly believe LE was bluffing with the sketch. I think they had some minute bit of DNA from the crime scene (unrelated to BG) that led them to believe “not blue eyes”, and I think they had a few potential suspects (DN included) so they made a composite sketch that looked like DN and maybe some older guy with the hat. When that didn’t pan out, now we are to disregard the hat, face, sketch, not blue eyes, etc and focus on the gait, which can only be speculated on without video of BG walking. I think the “witnesses” was a lie to put pressure on BG. With LE’s attempts failing, they give the most recent “presser” which was pathetic and amounted to nothing. I think BG has won this battle, and will probably strike again.

BBM- I've read this posted many times here. Can you or someone please show me where LE said that? The most recent comment I heard from LE was to try and focus on the gait. If they said to disregard everything else including the sketch, I'd like to have that quote for my files as I surely haven't seen it to date.

Megyn Kelly Today interview excerpt, 1/15/18

Megyn Kelly: “Has there been - have there been any similar crimes, Doug, similar MO’s in the area?”

Doug Carter: “We believe that a person that would commit a crime like this - with such incredibly evil intent - likely has committed that crime before and, with that known, he likely will commit it again. And, the image we have to America is: Please, disregard the face, but look at the body, because anybody could identify a family member by looking at the body.”

 

Bird of Paradise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
293
Jerrod, thank you for posting this. I did see that interview.

I suppose I took this differently than most. I didn't hear it as telling people to disregard everything about the sketch, but that he was emphasizing to look at the stance, the gait. After all, the picture of the man on the bridge is blurry. That much is a given. And I believe that quote was in reference to that bridge image--not the sketch.



Megyn Kelly Today interview excerpt, 1/15/18

Megyn Kelly: “Has there been - have there been any similar crimes, Doug, similar MO’s in the area?”

Doug Carter: “We believe that a person that would commit a crime like this - with such incredibly evil intent - likely has committed that crime before and, with that known, he likely will commit it again. And, the image we have to America is: Please, disregard the face, but look at the body, because anybody could identify a family member by looking at the body.”

 
D

Deleted member 189081

Guest
How about this for size. I think the description LE have is possibly a running recorded commentary from Libby's phone. Only Libby or Abby could have been that close to know the eyes weren't blue. Come on, folks. How do you know what colour someone's eyes are? You would have had to have been close up and face to face, Of course, there is the DNA as well. I think the description came from the girls and the phone recording as they or the phone would have been witnesses to the crime.

KR
Reacher
 

Hatfield

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
17,014
Reaction score
59,055

Megyn Kelly Today interview excerpt, 1/15/18

Megyn Kelly: “Has there been - have there been any similar crimes, Doug, similar MO’s in the area?”

Doug Carter: “We believe that a person that would commit a crime like this - with such incredibly evil intent - likely has committed that crime before and, with that known, he likely will commit it again. And, the image we have to America is: Please, disregard the face, but look at the body, because anybody could identify a family member by looking at the body.”


JMO
Thanks for sharing that to refresh our memories.

Re BBM
I am sorry to be critical of LE here but that statement is just ridiculous.
"disregard the face in a sketch" WTH?

Its no wonder we all are so confused. From the very beginning with the fiasco with the landowner to the last silly and useless media interview the LE statements have been terrible and confusing. There is no clarity and at times it almost seemed like they were purposely giving us riddles instead of good concrete information.

They are in serious need of a good professional spokesperson.
If they dont have the skill to provide media statements then they should not use people that cant do it properly. We have seen this problem many times and they need to learn to use a professional spokesperson or hire one if they dont have one.
 
D

Deleted member 189081

Guest

Megyn Kelly Today interview excerpt, 1/15/18

Megyn Kelly: “Has there been - have there been any similar crimes, Doug, similar MO’s in the area?”

Doug Carter: “We believe that a person that would commit a crime like this - with such incredibly evil intent - likely has committed that crime before and, with that known, he likely will commit it again. And, the image we have to America is: Please, disregard the face, but look at the body, because anybody could identify a family member by looking at the body.”


Hiya sorry to interrupt,

But is there a link to that quote. I am having problems finding it.

Cheers
KR
Reacher
 
D

Deleted member 189081

Guest
JMO
Thanks for sharing that to refresh our memories.

Re BBM
I am sorry to be critical of LE here but that statement is just ridiculous.
"disregard the face in a sketch" WTH?

Its no wonder we all are so confused. From the very beginning with the fiasco with the landowner to the last silly and useless media interview the LE statements have been terrible and confusing. There is no clarity and at times it almost seemed like they were purposely giving us riddles instead of good concrete information.

They are in serious need of a good professional spokesperson.

If they dont have the skill to provide media statements then they should not use people that cant do it properly. We have seen this problem many times and they need to learn to use a professional spokesperson or hire one if they dont have one.

Well when PR Spokesman says Sugar Creek instead of Deer Creek on a MSM outlet you do have to ponder.At about 25 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DiBYdeGbdE

KR
Reacher
 

kizzykat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
679
Reaction score
1,470
BBM- I've read this posted many times here. Can you or someone please show me where LE said that?

The most recent comment I heard from LE was to try and focus on the gait. If they said to disregard everything else including the sketch, I'd like to have that quote for my files as I surely haven't seen it to date.




Megyn Kelly Today interview excerpt, 1/15/18

Megyn Kelly: “Has there been - have there been any similar crimes, Doug, similar MO’s in the area?”

Doug Carter: “We believe that a person that would commit a crime like this - with such incredibly evil intent - likely has committed that crime before and, with that known, he likely will commit it again. And, the image we have to America is: Please, disregard the face, but look at the body, because anybody could identify a family member by looking at the body.”


In addition to what Jerrod posted, this is an excerpt from the anniversary PC at the trail:

7:39 mark:
Supt Carter: In all of my career I don't ever remember having the photograph of the person we believe is responsible. I don't ever remember having the voice of a person that we think is responsible. Or having a sketch of the individual that we believe is responsible. So -if, if all of you closed your eyes for just a moment and you thought of a family member but you didn't think of them from the neck up - you would know how they stand, and the clothes they wore and their posture. You would know that voice. I would know it if was my father, just like you would know it if it was yours. Somebody out there knows who this person is.
http://www.wlfi.com/content/news/LIVE-STREAM-EVENT--473948353.html
(BBM)

Those two statements made by Carter recently and within a month of each other would seem LE is steering the public away from focusing on the sketch and face in video still. He could've said focus on the gait, the clothes, posture and left it at that. But both times he took it a step further, adding comments to disregard the face, and don't think of someone from the neck up. Which ultimately is very confusing. IMO and MOO.
 

Satchie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
5,388
Reaction score
26,511
They have stated it is a "composite sketch". That means more than one source of info and witnesses can't really remember and/or they have different memories. So it isn't a particularly reliable/true representation of what BG looks like.

Secondly, they aren't appealing to the general public to solve this crime, they believe the best source for tips is a family member or someone very close/known to BG, who will recognize him physically from the images and also will know he could have been at the crime scene.
 

kc1023

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
550
Reaction score
4,331
IMO Carter is saying look at the body (paraphrase) because the sketch and picture have not lead to successfully identifying BG. So he's like eh just look at the dang body then, you can recognize people you know just from what their body looks like. Like it's more of a suggestion than an actual statement to disregard. You know how you can recognize your spouse or teenager in a crowd from a distance without seeing their face? That same principal. IMO only.
 

kkdj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
9,986
Reaction score
64,142
In addition to what Jerrod posted, this is an excerpt from the anniversary PC at the trail:

7:39 mark:
Supt Carter: In all of my career I don't ever remember having the photograph of the person we believe is responsible. I don't ever remember having the voice of a person that we think is responsible. Or having a sketch of the individual that we believe is responsible. So -if, if all of you closed your eyes for just a moment and you thought of a family member but you didn't think of them from the neck up - you would know how they stand, and the clothes they wore and their posture. You would know that voice. I would know it if was my father, just like you would know it if it was yours. Somebody out there knows who this person is.
http://www.wlfi.com/content/news/LIVE-STREAM-EVENT--473948353.html
(BBM)

Those two statements made by Carter recently and within a month of each other would seem LE is steering the public away from focusing on the sketch and face in video still. He could've said focus on the gait, the clothes, posture and left it at that. But both times he took it a step further, adding comments to disregard the face, and don't think of someone from the neck up. Which ultimately is very confusing. IMO and MOO.

I don't think they really know what BG looks like. He could have been disguised, changed his appearance, etc. Of course at this point, with them telling us basically to disregard the face, the sketch, we're just really confused. So, look at the build, the gait, the clothes? There's another case where the perp was overdressed, a sudden very quick attack that has been unsolved.The attacker was maybe about 5'7". His/her gait was unusual. I believe common tools were used in the murder. It's probably not related but there are some commonalities.
 

Shiressleuth

Former Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
4,817
I'm hesitant to even quote here because the podcast has not been approved by a moderator. A link was asked for by liltexans and that's the last we have heard regarding this so I tread cautiously...

The point I wanted to make was this...Shires, you have made an excellent find.

And that IMO is why it is so important to research something rather than take someone not in LE at their word.

No one else has mentioned the fingernails that I am aware of.

Not the grandparents nor anyone in the immediate family.

Jumping from one person's interpretation to creating a scenario is often dangerous and leads to the start of rumors.
I wasn't discussing the podcast anyway. I said I would look at it. Re (fingernails and earlobes for example) lividity this can be googled and is normal post mortem.
Has liltexans deleted Greg's link then? I have not been on the thread for some time so am catching up now. Sorry for not answering beforehand.
 

Bird of Paradise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
293
I wasn't discussing the podcast anyway. I said I would look at it. Re (fingernails and earlobes for example) lividity this can be googled and is normal post mortem.
Has liltexans deleted Greg's link then? I have not been on the thread for some time so am catching up now. Sorry for not answering beforehand.

Shires, I wasn't being critical. The fingernail comment came from the podcast. I think you answered an important point and that is why the nails appeared as they did and for us to check something out before running with a comment that may not be accurate. Hope that made sense.

Still waiting on clarification of the link.
 

Bird of Paradise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
1,862
Reaction score
293
IMO Carter is saying look at the body (paraphrase) because the sketch and picture have not lead to successfully identifying BG. So he's like eh just look at the dang body then, you can recognize people you know just from what their body looks like. Like it's more of a suggestion than an actual statement to disregard. You know how you can recognize your spouse or teenager in a crowd from a distance without seeing their face? That same principal. IMO only.

Yes this. Thanks.
I don't get how this comment turned into forget everything else.

And yes to Hatfield's comment. A new spokesperson is needed so these types of misunderstandings don't happen in the first place. Grr.
 

Satchie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
5,388
Reaction score
26,511
IMO Carter is saying look at the body (paraphrase) because the sketch and picture have not lead to successfully identifying BG. So he's like eh just look at the dang body then, you can recognize people you know just from what their body looks like. Like it's more of a suggestion than an actual statement to disregard. You know how you can recognize your spouse or teenager in a crowd from a distance without seeing their face? That same principal. IMO only.

I agree, and just to add, the sketch was likely released to jog memories of people who may have seen someone around Delphi at the time of the murders: hitch-hiking, in a shop, walking trails. Those kinds of tips can't be expected any more.
 

kkdj

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
9,986
Reaction score
64,142
IMO Carter is saying look at the body (paraphrase) because the sketch and picture have not lead to successfully identifying BG. So he's like eh just look at the dang body then, you can recognize people you know just from what their body looks like. Like it's more of a suggestion than an actual statement to disregard. You know how you can recognize your spouse or teenager in a crowd from a distance without seeing their face? That same principal. IMO only.

I get what you're saying but I think if that were the case LE would have stated such more specifically. I'm thinking the sketch is useless at this point and LE was letting us know to not go by that, but rather the things about someone that are unmistakeable. You know, many years ago, my friend and I just happened to randomly stop at a beach. From afar, I recognized my neighbor because of his build and posture. I couldn't even pick out his face from this distance, but I knew it was him! Sure enough it was!
 

StrangerThings

New Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Jethro4WS
For that to be true - that LE knows who BG is but BG has a solid alibi - it means that LE does not have DNA. Otherwise, LE could obtain a warrant for the persons DNA as it does not matter one bit whether a suspect has an alibi or not when it comes to LE's probable cause nor a judge's decision on that probable cause. The system doesn't work that way. Obtaining a search warrant is not an adversarial process.

So, if LE does have DNA and they know who BG is then there is nothing stopping LE from moving on that person - nothing. If LE doesn't have DNA then they have much bigger problems than whether or not BG has a solid alibi. LE would have to have someway to connect BG to being at the bridge. Even worse, considering the issues with the sketch, I don't even know of what value the contributors to making that sketch would have in terms of being able to testify that they recognize a person as the one they saw. There is a large risk that any such identifications could be thrown out due to the issues surrounding the sketch.
Perhaps they don't have DNA then, although they say they have, so they already know obtaining DNA isn't going to help.

What are the issues with the sketch that could get identification thrown out? Not sure what you are referring to there.

Eta- just saw gjr comments re the podcast so it does sound like DNA is a possibility at the scene.




I think what Jethro was implying is they have DNA, what they don't have is a specfic POI. his response was to someone who was stating that the LE has a person and knows who BG is. But BG alibi is so lock tight, that they can't use just the DNA.

I believe LE has BG DNA, they just have no idea whom it belongs to.

That Jethro has had some of the best incite i've seen on this thread.
 

Shiressleuth

Former Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
4,817
A lot of posters believe LE have DNA due to POI's being excluded.
If they have DNA, why don't they do a Parabon image from it? They can be incredibly accurate.
 

Shiressleuth

Former Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2016
Messages
10,088
Reaction score
4,817
[=StrangerThings;13978078]
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Jethro4WS
For that to be true - that LE knows who BG is but BG has a solid alibi - it means that LE does not have DNA. Otherwise, LE could obtain a warrant for the persons DNA as it does not matter one bit whether a suspect has an alibi or not when it comes to LE's probable cause nor a judge's decision on that probable cause. The system doesn't work that way. Obtaining a search warrant is not an adversarial process.

So, if LE does have DNA and they know who BG is then there is nothing stopping LE from moving on that person - nothing. If LE doesn't have DNA then they have much bigger problems than whether or not BG has a solid alibi. LE would have to have someway to connect BG to being at the bridge. Even worse, considering the issues with the sketch, I don't even know of what value the contributors to making that sketch would have in terms of being able to testify that they recognize a person as the one they saw. There is a large risk that any such identifications could be thrown out due to the issues surrounding the sketch.
Perhaps they don't have DNA then, although they say they have, so they already know obtaining DNA isn't going to help.

What are the issues with the sketch that could get identification thrown out? Not sure what you are referring to there.

Eta- just saw gjr comments re the podcast so it does sound like DNA is a possibility at the scene.




I think what Jethro was implying is they have DNA, what they don't have is a specfic POI. his response was to someone who was stating that the LE has a person and knows who BG is. But BG alibi is so lock tight, that they can't use just the DNA.

I believe LE has BG DNA, they just have no idea whom it belongs to.

That Jethro has had some of the best incite i've seen on this thread.

I was asking Jethro what were the issues with the sketch that could get identification thrown out. Your quote has mixed mine and J's posts together so I am repeating my question for clarification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top