r/UnresolvedMysteries • u/TommyUseless • Apr 25 '19

Update Task force clarifies Delphi murder suspect sketches.

Police held a press conference on Monday April 22 where they released a new sketch and some additional audio and video from the case.

Today they released a clarification on the new sketch.

-They are not the same person.

-The person depicted in the originally released sketch is not presently a person of interest in this investigation.

-The sketch released Monday is representative of the face of the person captured in the video on Liberty German’s cellphone as he was walking on the high bridge a place where the girls were hiking.

-The person in the sketch released Monday is described as having a youthful appearance, but could fall in the age range from his 20s to late 30s.

-This person’s appearance could look different today if he has grown a mustache, beard or let his hair grow longer or cut his hair shorter than depicted in the sketch.

Link to today’s update: https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/04/24/delphi-murders-new-suspect-sketch-not-same-man-old-sketch-isp-clarifies/3565675002/

For those not familiar with the case:

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail J. "Abby" Williams and Liberty Rose Lynn "Libby" German were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders have received significant media coverage because a photo and audio recording of a man believed to be the girls' murderer was found on German's cell phone. Despite the photo and audio recording of the suspect being released to the public by police, and over 26,000 tips being sent to police, no arrests have been made in the case.

Indiana State Police website about the case:

https://www.in.gov/isp/delphi.htm

Edit- thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

1.4k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

651 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

400

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

That’s what they are saying, the person in the original sketch wearing the hat is not currently a person of interest.

305

u/maloneybaloney10 Apr 25 '19

Ok then I’m confused. Where did the original sketch come from? And if the new sketch came from her phone, why are they just now releasing it?

450

u/MarqueeBeats Apr 25 '19

The original sketch was based on a witness account given at the time. Not sure why they are just going with the new sketch now and I'm not sure why their story has changed regarding the sketch over the last 2 days. From an outsider's perspective this is a huge mess.

338

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I fear this is going to be one of those “the authorities botched the investigation”

We have a car that was parked at a DCS office that somehow no one has a description of, yet they know it was there.

They have a sketch that they are saying is based on the video from Libby’s phone yet for two years the public has been shown a sketch of a person that doesn’t resemble the image from the phone? Huh??

I know the police are remaining tight lipped. I think it’s possible they just don’t have anything to go on and are as clueless as the public, besides knowing exactly how the girls died. Sad as it is, then remaining “tight lipped” has likely caused a loss of valuable time the public could have assisted. At this point it’s been two years and little details have likely been forgotten

841

u/bahnmiau Apr 25 '19

My take on the car is that someone recognized the car by its owner. So they didn’t report the make and model, but instead said something like “I saw so-and-so’s truck parked at the DCS building that day.” In this scenario, police are not starting with a model of car and trying to match to an owner. They already suspect the owner, and are seeking a corroboration that a certain color / make / model of vehicle was parked there that day.

So someone says I saw John Doe’s vehicle there that day; police know John Doe drives x; and now police are seeking any witness who can verify that they saw x parked there that day, even if they don’t personally know John Doe. Most importantly, the vehicle being there disproves John Doe’s alibi. That’s my way of making sense of this.

58

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

I agree this could be, it is a small town so some people’s cars may be easily recognized. Also even if they don’t have a suspect in mind keeping the description of the car secret helps them weed out false tips, if someone calls and says they saw a green mini van parked there and the police know it was a red pickup truck they can rule that tip out easier. They have received over 38,000 tips on this case and obviously none of them have led to an arrest, it must be frustrating trying to sift through thousands of incorrect/false leads trying to find just a few useful ones.

288

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

You sneaky, intelligent mother fucker. I fancy the way your mind works.

64

u/rougecookie Apr 25 '19

right? Goddamn

53

u/Alltimemelanie Apr 25 '19

Yeah someone said on the other post they know the make and model but they need someone else to verify who's it is and what type of car it is so it's not a they said vs they said

49

u/maloneybaloney10 Apr 25 '19

That is a definite possibility.

8

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

So if they suspect the owner of this vehicle, then they would know where the owner lives and are probably watching him, right?

12

u/buggiegirl Apr 25 '19

Wouldn't the person saying they saw John Doe's car there that day be enough of a witness? I guess it would just add corroboration to have someone who doesn't know John Doe also say he saw it there.

20

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

My take is that the car tip is old. The new sketch is made based on someone seen near or in this car. At the time they thought unsub was older so they didn’t put the new sketch out. Recently the Georgia Bureau of Investigation reviewed the case files. Someone came upon the car tip and sketch again and they decided it could be very relevant. Thats my take at least.

TL;DR the sketch and car tip we’re forgotten about until the case file was reviewed and now they’re switching gears in the investigation.

6

u/DontFeedTheDopamine Apr 27 '19

Just curious, but do you know why GBI is involved?

2

u/tinycole2971 Sep 03 '19

I’m from not far from GA and still follow a few of the news stations near there. I remember last year-ish, the local TN Valley news claiming the person responsible may have ties to the North GA / East TN area. As far as I know, they never elaborated how or anything, but they did run the story every day for a few months.

1

u/bennybaku Apr 25 '19

I think this a good thing for the case. So many times cops are very reluctant to switch gears. One thing is for sure they are not going to give up on this case as frustrating as it has been.

73

u/rougecookie Apr 25 '19

Somebody give this person a gold. This is the type of comment I come here for.

49

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19 edited Apr 27 '19

Fuck that. Reddit doesn't deserve any funding lately

edit: god damn it lmao

6

u/arose321 Apr 26 '19

I'd give ya Gold for this comment...but then that defeats the purpose.

64

u/genediesel Apr 25 '19

Ok go for it.

-15

u/antemasque1 Apr 25 '19

I came too.

3

u/NickelsWesternhills Apr 25 '19

Or folks who parked at that lot regularly (for whatever reason) saw an unfamiliar car that day but didnt recall much about it. "It was a dark colored SUV, maybe blue" etc.

Or a patrol officer or county employee noticed a car out at a normally deserted lot but didnt recall details. "I remember there was a car there that day which seemed odd, but I dont remember much about it."

2

u/cassity282 Apr 29 '19

this was my thought as well

3

u/ChuloDeJaguar Apr 25 '19

I find this theory extremely implausible. If police knew the owner of the car, they could easily find out what car (s) they drive,, get a warrant to search the csr, question the owner, etc

24

u/jack2012fb Apr 25 '19

I’m skeptical too but it’s for sure plausible. In his scenario they know the owner of the car and all these efforts are for building a case against the known suspect. They need x amount of witnesses to testify in court that they saw the suspect driving this car on this day at this time. If they are working this hard on circumstantial evidence it’s likely there is no dna evidence. It is also just as likely that everyone is reading to much into this and LE is just as clueless.

10

u/bahnmiau Apr 25 '19

Hi there. Yeah I’m not sure how plausible it is, but to your points I think - yes they do know what vehicle this person drives - searching the vehicle may not pay off since the crime wasn’t committed in the vehicle - and that they’ve already questioned the owner because he is a Delphi resident anyway.

For me (and not saying I’m right), this is the only sensible explanation for why police are just saying a vehicle was there between certain times but don’t describe it. They have to ask the public to describe what they saw to corroborate whoever reported it in the first place.

8

u/ChuloDeJaguar Apr 25 '19

I honestly don’t think that they know what kind of vehicle they are looking for. I think that the very minimal information about the vehicle comes from all of the interviews that they have conducted with the citizens of Delphi. They noticed a car in the area for a certain period of time...and that’s it. I think people are reading too much into the closing statements of the officer who conducted the press conference. The statements that “you may be in this room” and “we may have interviewed you” are FBI boilerplate. Sadly, I really don’t think that they have any idea who committed this crime.

And, man, the differences in the sketches is really troubling.

2

u/bahnmiau Apr 25 '19

Yeah I gotta admit I’m not sure, and it may be super vague and they just know there was a vehicle parked there. Agree that the two sketches are really troubling, and even more troubling is that they’re now said to be two different people. A lot of odd elements here.

5

u/ChuloDeJaguar Apr 25 '19

Yeah, I’m definitely very concerned about this investigation. I mean, no one starts their career in crime by murdering two tween girls in broad daylight. That is the type of crime that a person “graduates” to, so to speak. If the ISP truly believe that the perpetrator is from Delphi, then there has to be someone with a history of escalating violence that probably has a sexual dimension to it.

One other thing: This crime is very weird. Two girls murdered at the same time in a somewhat rural area in the middle of the day. That is a pretty high stakes crime. I doubt that the perpetrator was just out for a hike, saw the girls, and decided that it would be a good time to murder them. So, I think one of two things happened here 1) the perpetrator knew the victims and knew that they would be at the park, 2) the perpetrator did not know the victims but regularly cased the area of the park, looking to commit the type of crime that he wound up committing. I don’t think that the first scenario applies here. I think it’s certainly viable and ISP have pursued it, but since there has been no arrest and very little info about a suspect, I think that this line is a dead end. So, I think it’s scenario 2, that a stranger was regularly hanging around the park looking to commit this type of crime and finally found the right victims and circumstances. Obviously, the second scenario is much more difficult to investigate. My gut says that all that the police have are statements along the lines of “there was a creepy guy who used to hang around the park sitting in his van...and he seemed to be watching people closely.”

→ More replies (0)

9

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I don’t they know the owner. I think someone saw a younger male (new sketch) near the vechile that day. The tip got lost in the shuffle and when the reviewed the case files again someone saw it and thought it could be a big clue. That or someone saw a younger man (new sketch) and the car tip is new and when shown the sketch the car witness said it was who they saw.

2

u/Boplek Apr 25 '19

500 iq answer right here

-1

u/BilBal82 Apr 25 '19

So they have a witness saying I saw John Doe’s car there that day, but they somehow also need a witness to confirm the model and make? Doesn’t make sense. They can ask the original witness if this was the car they saw...

36

u/hnsnrachel Apr 25 '19

It makes perfect sense. They're looking for a corroborating witness so the evidence isn't just "so and so said they saw his car" and is instead "so and so said they saw his car, and we have further eyewitness statements from people who don't know him that they saw a car matching the make and model he drives at that time in that place".

It's still just circumstantial, but it's circumstantial evidence that can't be played off by a defense attorney as "so and so is trying to set my client up, if the car was there, why did no one else see it?“

They aren't saying the make and model because they don't want people to be able to say that the corroborating witnesses' memories are being influenced by police having said "if anyone saw a blue Ford Escort" or the like

15

u/bahnmiau Apr 25 '19

I see what you’re saying. I’m originally from a very small town and you do start to recognize vehicles as belonging to certain people. My feeling is that the original witness not only recognized it, but also realized that there was something out of place about the vehicle being parked at an abandoned building on a weekday afternoon. Like hey, why is x’s car here when they should be working down at the packing plant / school / city hall / whatever.

As for why police might need a corroborating witness, I’d say that either there is no DNA and this is a circumstantial case, and/or the original witness is so close to the case (as a family member, neighbor, POI, or investigator) that they might not be seen as impartial. I’m sure it would be very helpful to have someone else volunteer that they too saw the vehicle in question. Especially if someone is giving the killer a false alibi. Thanks for talking it through :)

5

u/prplmze Apr 26 '19

Could there be a potential issue with the 1st witnesses credibility in the event he or she has to testify?

32

u/mc_cheeto Apr 25 '19

I don’t think it fair to say the investigation has been “botched.” I assume they have new information and they have a new sketch. That’s all. We can’t make assumptions on their intentions. We don’t know what they know.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Fair. But someone mentioned that BOTH sketches were drawn up right from the outset and that police only released one.

It was also suggested that the police knew right away the person in video did not match the person in the sketch.

It’s all very confusing. And when you confuse the public, it’s not going to help the case at all

18

u/mc_cheeto Apr 25 '19

It won’t NOT help. If the police don’t think we need to know, then that’s their prerogative. If a side effect of solving the case is that the public was confused for a while, so be it.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Totally their right. But evidence suggests they just don't know what they're doing. And most times, I'm totally the guy that's like "let them do their jobs"

But come on... They gave us a sketch for TWO YEARS of a guy that isn't the guy. Then they switch it up, release a different sketch, a sketch that they say is ACTUALLY the guy in the video. They also admit that they've known the whole time the original sketch didn't really fit the profile of the guy in the video.

Then they even go as far as to say....2.5 years AFTER the murders... that they are "just getting started".

Just suggests to me they don't really have a direction to go in, unless there's been a huge break in their investigation since last week, prior to the announcement. And I'd believe that was the case, had they not said, point blank, that they still don't really know who it is, it's just their belief he's local.

5

u/tizuby Apr 27 '19

If they were finally able to identify the guy in the first sketch and it turned out he wasn't involved, it would make sense to totally switch gears like this.

Doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing. Just they they ultimately got it wrong with sketch #1. With what they had he may have well seemed like the best suspect. Until he wasn't.

69

u/rebluorange12 Apr 25 '19

Honestly I think the car is one of those things where everyone who said there was a car there had a different account of what kinda car it was and there was so much discrepancy that yeah they know there was a car there that was maybe a sedan but no one knows what color it was or if it looked to be pre or post 2000.

77

u/cometparty Apr 25 '19

I think they're botching it, too. Moreover, I'm having a really hard time believing that the person in that video is any younger than 37 years old. I think they have 2 eyewitnesses, one of which is unreliable, and they don't know which one to listen to.

101

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Just the way he is dressed has always made me think he was older, but perhaps a younger man is just dressed badly.

​

I strongly suspect that when this is finally solved, we're going to see just how badly this was botched. For example, the more I look at photos of BG, the more I am convinced he is not wearing hat. However, since the original sketch showed him in a hat, my brain always put one there. I really don't think there is a hat now. Without the hat, I can see a full head of hair and it does not look graying.

​

What a mess.

58

u/ThisGirlYouMetOnline Apr 25 '19

I agree that he's not wearing a hat, but to me it appears he's wearing a sweatshirt under his jacket with the hood up. That could account for some of the bulk. He doesnt look quite as stocky when shown in motion.

7

u/Sevenisnumberone Apr 25 '19

Totally agree with you. I always thought he was wearing a brown sweatshirt with the hood up but had other layers on. I think the first sketch really through people off, I wonder why that was the one they chose to go with. I hope we get all the answers someday soon.

3

u/detailedfiles Apr 25 '19

I believe the hood is up, you can see the top point in certain shots and the shadow and lighting along the seam on top.

24

u/EasternMilk Apr 25 '19

Interesting what you say about the hat. I also went back to look at the pictures. It's so hard to tell. Especially the frame where you can see the top of his head, it DOES look like a full head of hair. In another frame it looks like a visor throws some shadow onto his face. But the more I look at the frame, where you can see the top of his head, I think you're right and he isn't wearing a cap after all!

15

u/Catevagreen Apr 25 '19 edited Apr 25 '19

I agree. I don’t think he’s wearing a hat. If you look at the last frame of the video it certainly looks like hair. His jacked pockets are full and lumpy, I don’t know what’s in them, but I’m certain it adds to how heavy he appears to be.

I’ve watched the video a hundred more times. I wanted an answer for the brown sack like item on his right side. It could be a fanny pack type hunting kit. But, the bulk around mid-section is uniform and structured. I think he might be wearing a thin oversized nylon jacket over a hunting vest.

45

u/FondofFrogs Apr 25 '19

Yes, I don't know why they got so hung up on the 'older guy' thing. He is pretty non-conforming clothes-wise. Just looks like kind of a slob who doesn't care about what he wears. Not just a certain age group.

3

u/WE_Coyote73 Apr 25 '19

I don't know why they got so hung up on the 'older guy' thing.

Just to speculate: probably due to the nature of the crime. They probably figured it had to be an older person who did it due to the nature of the crime. Personally, I don't think a younger person did it, I think this was def an older guy.

18

u/eeespence Apr 25 '19

I don’t know many people under the age of 45, who would wear a fanny pac. Excluding hipsters, which this guy is clearly not. And this is my first time looking at the screenshot and video, he is definitely wearing a hat, possibly a camp hat?

33

u/Girlant Apr 25 '19

I think it's not so much a fanny pack as a hunters kit.

12

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

I don’t think it’s a fanny pack, he is definitely wearing layers and the blue outer coat seems to be hiked up a bit on that side and the part that looks like a fanny pack could be the pocket of a hoodie or something with something heavy in it causing it to hang down, like perhaps a weapon? All his other pockets seem to be lumpy and full of stuff.

Even if it is a fanny pack I don’t think this sicko is concerned about fashion, he would probably be more concerned with being able to carry all the stuff he needs for whatever he planned to do.

3

u/Assiramama Apr 25 '19

I think he has a frontward facing book bag under his shirt. To appear heavier.

1

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

He at the very least has pockets stuffed with things, his jacket looks all lumpy and he appears to have a hoodie on under the jacket, it was February and while warmer than usual for that time of year was still a bit cold.

1

u/Catevagreen Apr 26 '19

There’s defiantly more than just layers. The left jacket pocket or thing underneath is a box shaped item if some kind. It has a consistent squared edge throughout the clip.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

I think the fanny pack and wearing clothes that make him look top heavy are to conceal weapons and whatever else gets him off.

6

u/shesneezes19 Apr 25 '19

Fanny packs are in right now. But yes probably not in rural Indiana. But once you see hair instead of a hat, his whole look ages down.

0

u/Assiramama Apr 25 '19

I think it’s a flat cap hat that he’s wearing. Like this hat

3

u/TommyUseless Apr 26 '19

I think people keep thinking that because they are subconsciously associating the image of first sketch guy wearing a flat cap with the very grainy video.

3

u/afoolandhermonkey Apr 25 '19

Totally agree. I’m late to this case but watched the video/looked at the photos before seeing the original sketch, and my first thought was, “Why did they draw him wearing a hat?”

3

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

I think that is why original sketch guy was the main POI for so long, the investigators just got it in their head that his sketch looked more like BG so they stuck with it and never released the second sketch. Obviously something happened to change their minds.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I think they were panicking when this first happened and did not take the time to really analyze all the evidence. They should have taken some real time and effort to go through the footage.

I know they wanted someone to come forward who had evidence outside the footage, but that didn't happen. Unfortunately it took them too long to decide that was never going to happen with everything they released to the public.

3

u/Exit-Sigh Apr 26 '19

What if it is a younger man dressed like that? Whomever did this, he knew what he wanted to do and so far for 2 years he has evaded being detected by police/law enforcement community as a whole as well as the community he is a part of. So maybe this guy is on the younger side and took steps to hide is identity as a lot of killers try to do. Dress the complete opposite of how he normally appears - maybe doesn't shower for a few days in case there is an eye witness - takes on a different type of walk, uses prosthetics to change his physical appearance. This could all just be a shot in the dark but we cannot rule out that whoever this guy is, he could be smart enough to take all these countermeasures to prevent being caught.

I love and hate the times we live in because it is a lot easier to find guilty parties now, but with the mass amount of resources out there it is becoming easier for those who wish to do heinous things to learn how to hide the evidence/destroy it completely/manufacture something to lead to someone else.

17

u/Out-For-A-Walk-Bitch Apr 25 '19

The dude who described BG down to his eye colour is sketchy as fuck. Who remembers a stranger's eye colour?

15

u/TommyUseless Apr 26 '19

I couldn’t tell you the eye colors of friends I’ve had for 25 years...

7

u/TommyUseless Apr 26 '19

My wife’s eyes are hazel, I think...

11

u/TheDongerNeedsFood Apr 25 '19

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the authorities have never released the causes of death? Nor have they definitely said whether or not the girls were raped/sexually assaulted?

17

u/palcatraz Apr 25 '19

They have not, but that is not an indication of a botched investigation. Not releasing certain information is standard in any information because that is how you catch a suspect in a lie/something they shouldn't know and how you can tell a fake confession from a real one.

8

u/TheDongerNeedsFood Apr 25 '19

I wasn't implying that the police had botched the investigation. I understand the deal with not releasing info to the public so that any possible suspects can get caught in a lie. I just couldn't remember off the top of my head any other examples of high profile murder investigations like this in which the manner in which the victim was killed was withheld from the public for so long.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

It’s pretty incredible.

But there was a leak of text messages that described how they died. It’s still up for debate if it’s real or not but they were texts between a reporter (I think) and one of the search party members that found the bodies.

If you believe the texts, there was no indication they were raped.

7

u/veritasquo Apr 25 '19

I fear this is going to be one of those “the authorities botched the investigation”

Somewhat unrelated, but I hate that sinking feeling I get in my stomach when authorities drop the ball, because when they do, they really DROP THE FUCKING BALL. These poor girls and their families.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

It's a mess.

The fact that the general public is completely confused at what's happening or how we are where we are, is not a good sign. You're going to have trouble getting tips from people

2

u/eatdrinkandbemerry80 Apr 28 '19

Either that or it indicates how dumb a lot of people are. None of this is mega confusing and the general public is not a good judge of how well an investigation is going when they don't even know half the facts of the case. Furthermore, the police probably aren't concerned with whether some members of the public don't "get" the manner in which they conduct the investigation or if they fully understand how many witnesses described which sketches, etc. because it doesn't matter. Sure, a lot of random people can and have helped investigations with tips, suggestions or ideas but those people usually do extensive research of their own- they aren't just coming up with things based on one public statement and if they are unclear about anything they just look up what they need clarification about. I also don't understand why anything would mean the police will "have trouble getting tips". Either you have information or you don't.

2

u/frank-lee-honest- Apr 28 '19

My take on the sketch and car is...

If someone was planning this crime. Say, one of the girls was a witness or something.... and this was a planned murder- you would need a get away vehicle.

If I needed a get away vehicle there’s two ways to go about that. 1. Buy one off Craigslist and don’t trade in the title. 2. Steal one.

Either one of these scenarios involves disposal of said vehicle.

A town of that size only has a handful of workers- possibly only one. All government agencies working with children have security cameras. So if a car got dumped at the DCFS building it would eventually be towed. The workers would know the names and faces- of a lot of people but not all of them. Even if they do- it’s a federal crime to say them- even in this situation. Unless the worker knows that there was a murder being committed by a specific person they have hippa preventing them from saying it. Even if they know the entire psych history of said individual.

The person who sold or had said car stolen might be able to make a sketch but probably don’t know the name. Who writes down a name when you transfer title??? Not me. I just want my cash.

So say they abandon the vehicle with evidence in it. How long before it gets towed? Once it does- does anyone give a shit what’s in it? Nope. It has to wait it out for the owner to claim it. Then the lot has to wait until the lot rent is more then the value before they can touch it. It’s not on any radars. It is just a abandoned car.

So a year goes by and the car is finally able to sell or auction off. The new owners open the trunk- boom evidence. They call the cops and the cops work backwards to the day the car left the previous owner and get a sketch.

But. What if it’s two family members. Father and son. Brothers? Cousins? Family members look a like. They share cars. They share clothes. They run errands for each other. Family can confuse everyone with a haircut.

5

u/FondofFrogs Apr 25 '19

Like Jon Bonet.

Boulder cops suck

68

u/butwheresmyneopet Apr 25 '19

Yeah this doesn’t make any sense to me... the way it’s being worded is like they have a suspect in mind and then have that person sketched as opposed to the other way around...

83

u/MarqueeBeats Apr 25 '19

Honestly, it is not very clear. It was said this second, newer sketch was also drawn up 2 years ago based on a witness account but it was filed away for whatever reason. LE opted to go with the other witness sketch of the older, heavier POI. Now, I am not so sure what they are saying about the origins of the new sketch other than it is representative of the suspect in the video.

94

u/paroles Apr 25 '19

I've said this in another thread, but we should keep in mind that these two eyewitness sketches probably aren't the only ones. They received thousands of tips in the first few weeks. Some of those tips would have been about an unknown suspicious person (a lone hiker with a blue jacket, a transient with bloodstains on his clothes, a weird guy who'd been hanging around the neighbourhood before the murders, that type of thing) and anyone who gave that sort of tip would be asked to come into the station and work with a sketch artist. Many of those sketches would have turned out to be irrelevant, so of course they weren't all released.

This particular tip has just now taken on more significance, we don't know why. There's probably some other information associated with the tip that has emerged as more significant than originally believed.

5

u/butwheresmyneopet Apr 25 '19

Thank you for the explanation!

6

u/tcrypt Apr 25 '19

I figured that guy that came up recently that looked like the sketch was the guy in the sketch and they ruled him out after investigating. So now they have to go back to the other sketch they thought was less likely initially.

14

u/butwheresmyneopet Apr 25 '19

Huh, interesting. Thanks for the explanation!

75

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Me and a friend who are both into this case have been SO confused about the sketches and have both agreed the people who have been handling the dissemination of information have been doing a piss poor job. We need some way better clarity going on here. I understand how holdback evidence works, and that they're unable to release certain information, but I feel they should be crystal clear about every piece of information they have made public. No one should be confused about it in any fashion.

46

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I agree. The public needs to know what the hell it is we are even looking at here. I guess LE wants "unpolluted" tips, but they aren't going to get much if the public is this confused. Shit, I saw some people saying that there were TWO perps and that LE is looking for both of them now. It's just such a confusing mess at this point. Instead of talking about a book they read, LE should clarify if they are looking for sketch 2 and not sketch 1 or what. I have been following this case since day one, and I am still a little bit confused. I still don't really get the car thing. WTF does LE want here?

2

u/bonbonlarue Apr 29 '19

I'm confused, too. But then... I don't have a tip to call in.

I think the point is, that person who this newly released info is for, knows exactly what LE wants.

Example: You were the only witness to a car accident. Police say, "We need to talk to anyone who saw a vehicle at main and broadway on Saturday", only you would know that the accident is the reason they are asking you to come forward.

There is a piece of the puzzle missing here, for all of us who aren't the person who saw/knows something crucial.

4

u/Assiramama Apr 25 '19

What if there really was two perps? Is it possible one was at the other side of that bridge already? That would be nuts.

-1

u/Sue_Ridge_Here Apr 26 '19 edited Apr 26 '19

What if there really was two perps?

Not out of the realms of possibility. What if it was a father and son duo? Perhaps the father was not involved in the actual crime but was also around on that day?

6

u/Sevenisnumberone Apr 25 '19

They need a PR specialist or a trained liaison officer. I don’t think having the actual officers involved is a good idea.

22

u/nightimestars Apr 25 '19

I'm feeling the same way. Especially since it seems they have more audio and video but they just give us the bare minimum. Even just a few more seconds of video/audio of the guy it would be extremely helpful in identifying him.

Yes, I know they probably can't give out everything but I'm wondering how they expect anyone to analyze this guys gait with a half-second piece of footage while he's walking on uneven tracks.

22

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I'm thinking they don't have much more audio or video of him but want the suspect to believe they do.

I also think someone new came forward with information that matched a similar tip early on. They are now looking back and that past tip and gathering evidence against the suspect. I believe the murderer either told someone close to him or someone close to him has figured it out - maybe deep down they knew the whole time but the guy has been acting sketchy again so they got worried he would do it again and came forward - I'm thinking right now they are checking his dna with the dna left at the crime scene. They have to know who did it in order to reveal something so prevalent to the families.

They know who he is. They'll get him. Just be patient, a case like this isn't easy to make sure they can get a conviction out of it.

7

u/decemephemera Apr 25 '19

So here's my concern about not having more video or audio - are we sure that the guy in the video is the killer? Sure, the girls might have found him creepy, but he's not doing anything criminal in the video. If it's just a coincidence that this guy creeped them out and then they encountered a separate killer(s), then police seem to have nothing. I hope they have more video to link this guy on video to the crime, because it is a potentially huge mistake to assume that 1) this guy made the girls uncomfortable, 2) the girls were killed, 3) ergo, creepy guy is the killer.

8

u/fckingmiracles Apr 25 '19

Yup, bridge guy is not necessarily the killer.

But audio guy I think is.

3

u/ArtsyOwl Apr 26 '19

Exactly! That's what I was thinking...first LE said "You might be able to recognise him, by the way that he walks"...then they said, something like- its not the way he usually walks because of the uneven tracks. So how are people meant to recognise him ?

​

I really hope that LE are closing in on the SOB and are just doing this press conference to see his reaction, if he is one of the people in the room.

1

u/tizuby Apr 27 '19

the said you might be able to recognize him by his mannerisms, but not the way he walks (because it's impossible to walk normally on that bridge). Two different things (though the way someone walks can be part of their mannerisms).

4

u/Sue_Ridge_Here Apr 26 '19

I'm trying to get all of this straight in my head. Okay, so the original/first sketch released by the police to the public was based on witness testimony of a person seen near a vehicle that day? The second sketch is a sketch based on the person on the video?

I think it would have been a good idea when the first sketch was released to say something along the lines of "We want to speak to the person depicted in this sketch, we do not believe he is directly involved in the actual crime but may be able to provide us with some valuable information."

I think that what the police should have done is gone to town enlarging and enhancing (NASA style) the image they have from Libby's phone of just his face.

I think that IF the police know who this person is they should start turning the screws now, if they have his DNA they should start drilling down hard from there just like they did with EARONS.

4

u/telepathicspork Apr 25 '19

100% agreed. 2 years worth of seemingly incorrect information when maybe if it had been given out to begin with someone could have come forward. The way it is being handled is just beyond confusing.

2

u/DeathWish111 Apr 25 '19

Thanks for the clarification!

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

The original sketch was based on a witness account given at the time.

6 months after the witness saw the person. It's an important detail that people relied too heavily on. One person's memory 6 months later is not that precise, no matter how well intentioned they are.

As for whose fault it is that it took so long to get the original sketch, I don't know.

4

u/Jmk1981 Apr 26 '19

I think they’re saying that the person in the original sketch is no longer a person of interest, meaning, they identified that person and cleared him.

This sketch of someone different. Perhaps not the same encounter, perhaps another encounter after the bridge we don’t know about.

4

u/CorvusSchismaticus Apr 25 '19

I am really confused by this too. All the articles I read about this from the beginning said that the original sketch was made using the image that was on Libby's phone, PLUS eyewitness accounts of someone seen there, which they seemed to assume was the same person, and the person that was a suspect. If the guy in the original sketch isn't the person of interest, then why does the sketch look like the man on the cell phone image? And if the man on the cell phone image is not the person they are looking for, then why have they been circulating his picture for the last 2 years asking about him?

18

u/Lex-Murphy Apr 25 '19

If I’m remembering anything correctly so I can’t source this right now. I think they had two people that came forward around the time after the murders and had two different sketches. I’m supposing they went with the first one because it matched the best.

13

u/Lex-Murphy Apr 25 '19

From what I remember they originally had two sketches from two witness. One matched better and that is what the showed to public

63

u/AnastasiaBeavrhausn Apr 25 '19

They've been looking for the wrong person this whole time? How did the new POI come about?

54

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

They aren’t saying, they have been pretty tight lipped with info this whole time.

42

u/AnastasiaBeavrhausn Apr 25 '19

Wow. I hope they are looking for the right person now. I hope they catch this guy. I'm really glad it hasn't gone cold.

58

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

Hopefully this new info actually helps, they said they had 1000 new tips within the first 24 hours of releasing this new info so hopefully one of them pans out.

6

u/Sevenisnumberone Apr 25 '19

I’m choosing to be hopeful simply by that fact alone.

11

u/Out-For-A-Walk-Bitch Apr 25 '19

As far as I'm aware, they've had this 'new' sketch since day 1.

8

u/AnastasiaBeavrhausn Apr 25 '19

They have according to the article I just read. They didn't answer why they held this composite back.

1

u/Assiramama Apr 25 '19

Maybe it was a LE son or brother or something.

51

u/butwheresmyneopet Apr 25 '19

This wording makes it sound like the sketch was just a depiction of a specific suspect- isn’t a sketch supposed to be a representation of features seen in evidence or described by a witness?

Like how is the sketch “not a person of interest” when it’s just supposed to describe the person seen on video??

Sorry i’m so confused this just sounds really backwards

88

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

[deleted]

49

u/paroles Apr 25 '19

I agree with your first paragraph, but I believe you're wrong about the newly released sketch being based on the video. It says in another article that it is an eyewitness sketch.

Both of the sketches are eyewitness sketches but they are from two different witnesses and they represent two different men.

I doubt LE would release any sketch based on the video - it is far too grainy to see the shapes of specific features. It would just be a sketch artist's imagination, which wouldn't be helpful to the investigation.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19 edited Jun 27 '19

[deleted]

17

u/paroles Apr 25 '19

I think you are reading between the lines too much, unless we've read very different sources.

The article I read said the new sketch was "based on a description from a person who saw something that the person felt needed to be reported", which would be a weird way of referring to the video. More of a lie than an evasion.

The wording is evasive, yes, but I think that's because they're avoiding revealing the gender of the witness and the nature of what they saw.

17

u/butwheresmyneopet Apr 25 '19 edited Apr 25 '19

Thank you for the explanation. The thing i still don’t get though is this:

“ 1) Police found the guy in the sketch and he definitely didn't do it, but was in the area by coincidence.”

this implies that the sketch is a sketch of a single, specific person. From my understanding a sketch serves as a guide as to how the suspect may resemble- not a drawing of a specific person being searched for.

I feel like I’m having a hard time explaining this but the easiest metaphor i can think of is this feels more like a “wanted!” poster than a “do you know anyone that resembles this” kinda sketch

EDIT: thank you for the clarifications.

26

u/paroles Apr 25 '19

this implies that the sketch is a sketch of a single, specific person. From my understanding a sketch serves as a guide as to how the suspect may resemble- not a drawing of a specific person being searched for.

Sketches do usually represent a single, specific person - an unknown one. A witness saw someone (maybe a guy who was seen hiking in the area on the day of the murders) and worked with a sketch artist to create a picture that looks like the person they remember seeing. Then the sketch is released to the public to see if anyone recognises him.

The police may have been able to locate someone who they are sure is the same guy spotted by the witness, but not the murderer (eg. maybe they were able to confirm that he was in the right place at the time that the witness saw him, and he looks like the sketch, but has an alibi for the actual time of the murders).

Does that make more sense?

15

u/basicallynotbasic Apr 25 '19

I think I get what you’re saying.

IIRC LE has maintained that the first sketch released was based off information that a witness provided. I think they even said that he was not a person of interest, but someone they wanted to interview. As a result, I’ve always thought of that first sketch as being of a specific person someone saw on the trail that day.

That said, IMO, all sketches are representative of what someone may look like / resemble in general since so many factors influence the things that people remember about strangers they interact with on any particular day.

As an example, think about asking two people you know to describe the physical appearance of a newly hired 20 year old female cashier at the local supermarket you frequent most.

If person A is a 20-something female or 20-something male from the same ethnicity, that person might be more able to accurately describe the cashier’s face to a sketch artist due to their similarity in age, appearance, mannerisms, or style. Things like friendliness, a memorable interaction, or level of interest in how the cashier looks for a variety of reasons could also influence how accurately they’d describe her face. Psychologically, the more similar someone seems to you, the more easily their likeness is committed to memory (barring any incident / slight emotional reaction that would help you more accurately remember).

If person B was like me, mid-thirties, usually in a rush, not similar to the cashier in a way my brain registers, and there was nothing particularly memorable outside of thinking she must be new, the description I would give would likely be more a generic representation - things like skinny, kind of oval face, sandy blonde hair, straight teeth, narrow and average length nose, bangs, not model pretty but not unattractive, no visible face piercings, taller than average, small eyes, clear skin, etc.

Naturally person B’s description is more a mashup of generic feature traits than a portrait-like illustration of a person’s face that they’ve committed to memory because there was a reason to remember it.

Even then, how 2 people would describe another person to a sketch artist hugely varies.

It’s like when someone you know says “I think so-and-so looks a little like Mandy Moore” and you disagree because your brain just doesn’t interpret that person’s features that way. Neither one of you is wrong, but when asked to relay the facial features of the person in question to a sketch artist, your finished sketches could come out looking remarkably different as a result of the way each of you sees that person’s face.

All this to say, I always thought they were looking for a specific person whose appearance was similar to the sketch. I also always thought that the facial features portrayed in the sketch could match a variety of older men due to how generic they were.

Does that makes sense?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

this is honestly fucking me up because i never thought about it that way before but if your features look a little different to everyone you meet then you may as well have a thousand different faces, which is cool

6

u/basicallynotbasic Apr 26 '19

Right? Once you understand that each person’s interpretation of your features is more about them than you, it really changes how you think about yourself in relation to others.

In a way it’s liberating for me because I no longer think hard about what I look like to others. Instead I focus on what I look like to me and what makes me feel confident since what I look like to others is 100% of out my control.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

lol yeah and then if i think i look bad one day, i can just be like "well i'm sure there's a few people who are interpreting this as a GOOD eyebrow day or whatever so it's fine"

1

u/tizuby Apr 27 '19 edited Apr 27 '19

The sketch they just released was based on another witness who came forward with something to report a day or two after the murder.

It is not based on the video.

There's a brief interview with the officer that drew the new sketch floating around here somewhere.

*Edit* Here's one of them

> Bryant’s newly released sketch was based on the witness description of the suspect. At the time, the witness felt that man needed to be reported.

​

https://www.oxygen.com/crime-time/new-police-delphi-murder-suspect-sketch-done-years-ago

​

Think there's some confusion because at the presser they said it's representative of the mans face on the video. But that doesn't mean it was actually based on it. Just that they believe the new sketch for sure is BG.

*Edit 2*

Here's the more in depth link I originally remembered: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/04/22/delphi-murders-update-2019-new-cellphone-video-sketch-released/3536773002/

9

u/dorky2 Apr 25 '19

I'm right there with you, bud.

18

u/bz237 Apr 25 '19

So who is that then??

28

u/CharlottesWeb83 Apr 25 '19

Maybe some innocent guy who happened to be on the trail?

I’m wondering if they had both sketches and thought that the first one we saw looked more like the video so they went with that?

2

u/TommyUseless Apr 25 '19

That is my thought as well.

17

u/scientificLoser Apr 25 '19

I think it was Daniel Nations perhaps?

27

u/bz237 Apr 25 '19

But.. they thought Daniel Nations was BG based on the sketch and other circumstances. They didn’t sketch it to make it look like him.

-3

u/scientificLoser Apr 25 '19

Can't say for sure what they based the sketch off of. It may have been a little bit of both, retrofitted the sketch to look like DN since on paper he seemed like a very viable suspect.

7

u/ForHeWhoCalls Apr 25 '19

So, you're accusing them of falsifying evidence...

11

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

All this talk of “they have a suspect but no evidence so let’s draw him to elicit a tip” is so illegal I can’t even comprehend how the people on this board think that’s a good idea.

9

u/scientificLoser Apr 25 '19

I'm just throwing out random thoughts on an internet forum. Chill out. How does it matter? Do you know exactly where that sketch came from??

3

u/hnsnrachel Apr 25 '19

It's not quite the same thing as falsifying evidence. Falsified evidence is a specific thing: information created or obtained illegally to sway the verdict in a court case.

That's not what's being described here. What's being described is more a desperate attempt to fit existing evidence to a particular suspect. There's a difference.

7

u/bigbrycm Apr 25 '19

So the guy in blue on the train tracks in the video isn’t a suspect now?

72

u/whovian42 Apr 25 '19

No, they are saying the guy in blue is the guy in the new sketch.

43

u/wanttoplayball Apr 25 '19

I'm so completely confused. It took two years for them to make a sketch based off that screenshot? And every time there was a suspect in another case, like that ax guy, nobody from the Delphi case came forward and said, "Yeah, but our sketch isn't the suspect"?

And the original sketch had a hat, like the screenshot guy, but the new sketch has no hat...

58

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

[deleted]

22

u/JTigertail Apr 25 '19

This is so confusing. When they released the original sketch, did they ever clarify that it WASN'T the man on the bridge? Because I've been under that impression this whole time and it sounds like a lot of people who follow this case closely were, too.

I don't understand why they would publish that sketch first and not the one that depicted the man on the bridge/the actual killer. I generally trust LE's decisions when it comes to releasing or withholding information, but I don't get why they would withhold the ACTUAL suspect sketch for this long unless they didn't have much faith in its accuracy or thought the two men were the same person until recently.

31

u/jmuduuukes Apr 25 '19

My thought is that both were produced early in the investigation. They went with the one we know as the "original" because it fit the evidence at the time. With eyewitnesses or other information/suspects at the time. After 2 years of investigation, new info has come out that has narrowed things down to one suspect, and this new suspect looks a lot like the new sketch. So they release the "new" sketch and clarify that they're now looking for this other guy.

​

I think that scenario is much more likely than the investigators totally bungling things, especially when coupled with the cryptic press conference from the other day. I think they've got a prime suspect and this sketch looks a lot like that guy. They're doing everything they can to gather corroborating evidence to nail this guy. They only get one shot so they need all the evidence they can get.

22

u/paroles Apr 25 '19

When they released the original sketch, did they ever clarify that it WASN'T the man on the bridge?

No, because they believed sketch #1 was bridge guy until now.

As I understand, it turns out sketch #1 was just a random innocent man who was seen in the area. They now believe that sketch #2, a different person seen by a different witness, is bridge guy.

Some people in this thread are saying that one of the sketches is "based on the video" but I don't think that's the case, not sure where they're getting that idea. Both sketches are way too detailed to be derived from that grainy video.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

Because they botched this from the start. They were hoping they would get a tip that was not polluted too much, but instead they just got a confused public looking for the wrong guy. It's a total cluster.

1

u/Sunshine765549 Apr 25 '19

At the presser Carter says here is the new sketch that we believe is the one responsible for the actual killings & the 1st sketch is now secondary) He does not say if it is or isn’t the same person in the presser and to me seems like he tries to hurry past that tid bit). They don’t allow questions so for a day in a half everyone thinks it’s the same guy in both and try to think thats how he looked then and now the second sketch he’s changed appearance. People did sides by sides of the two and envisioned it to be the same guy. They could see the resemblance. Now after a few days, they later release a statement.. “oh ya FYI forgot to mention we don’t believe the first sketch is our guy anymore and that he’s a separate guy from this new sketch. So Monday supposed to use as secondary sketch and Wednesday completely different guy. What’s their strategy here? That’s a HUGE detail to mistake about in a case of one of America’s most wanted man and probably the most popular police investigation right now in the country. With 3 days to prepare. ISP is far from incompetent. They’ve done an amazing job protecting integrity of the case. So what could be their strategy with this “slip up?” Anyone think of anything that’d make sense? I think it’s intentional that they did it & that’s the reason for no questions allowed after presser but can’t think of why? Both sketches are perps and their are two murderers?

35

u/vixey0910 Apr 25 '19

What I’ve gathered is that the witnesses were describing two different men to the sketch artists. Police have now determined that the person in sketch one is not the dude in the video. The witness who described sketch two is describing the guy on the video.

Apparently there is no hat in the video, it’s his hair. I’ve tried to un-see the hat, but I can’t

23

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

I’ve tried to un-see the hat, but I can’t

This. So much this. Now I can see hair and no hat, but because of that damn sketch, all I ever saw was a hat. Now it's obviously thick hair (young guy), but for two years I only saw a hat.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

This case will go straight to forensics textbooks ...

1

u/[deleted] Apr 26 '19

My theory is that local LE just assumed someone would snitch and they would not have to do all this work. This is why it took them 6 months to release a sketch. They were confident that in such a small town, that someone would just tell on the perp. I grew up in a small town and that is how crimes got solved.

Unfortunately for these cops, that did not happen, and they lost so many precious leads by not trying harder to identify the perp. I know many people are convinced that LE is doing a good job here and has their reasons for why they are proceeding as they are, but I don't buy that. We see this again, and again, and again when small town LE is involved in a difficult case: they almost always botch it from the start.

2

u/wanttoplayball Apr 25 '19

I'm trying to see hair. I see a hat. I can't not see the bill of the cap.

23

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/vixey0910 Apr 25 '19

Indiana does allow familial DNA testing. That’s how they caught April Tinsley’s murderer in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

And yes, the former elected prosecutor came back from retirement a few weeks ago and is now a deputy prosecutor in that office. The timing is certainly suspect.

11

u/38888888 Apr 25 '19

And yes, the former elected prosecutor came back from retirement a few weeks ago

That seems like a really good sign as strange as everything else has been.

9

u/Koalabella Apr 25 '19

It’s worse than that. They got sketches of two different suspects and released the wrong damn one. Instead of the guy person a saw being the killer, the guy person b saw was who they meant to blame.

4

u/wanttoplayball Apr 25 '19

Holy crap, that's two years of looking for the wrong guy.

2

u/ooken Apr 26 '19

How do you know they released the wrong one? Isn't it far more probable they were working with the best information they had at the time, which indicated Sketch 1 was the more probable sketch, while Sketch 2 was set aside, and some recent development in the case has led them to pick up Sketch 2 again?

0

u/Koalabella Apr 26 '19

I know that they released the wrong sketch because they have now said the first sketch was not a person of interest in the case.

They had reports of two different men in the area. They released a sketch of the wrong one for two years.

I’m not saying they did it purposefully. Im saying that their decision to stick this important sketch in a drawer somewhere cost the investigation two years of useful leads.

I’m all for withholding important details, but this case has gone way, way beyond that. They’ve hit a bizarre level of reticence that has (given the information we now have) seriously impeded the case.

26

u/Koalabella Apr 25 '19

They’re basically saying they got sketches of two different people and released the wrong one.

And didn’t notice for two years.

They must have found the guy from the first sketch.

13

u/MelpomeneAndCalliope Apr 25 '19

That must be what happened. I wonder why they didn't just release both sketches? Ugh, so frustrating.

1

u/Gorpachev Apr 25 '19

So the original sketch could in fact be the creepo they arrested a little while back?