Crime Weekly - S1 Ep30: The Snapchat Murders: Abigail Williams and Liberty German (Part 2)
Episode Date: July 2, 2021It is a story that we have all become familiar with. Two small girls in a small town go missing after a carefree day in the woods, a day that was supposed to have been filled with fun, and childhood m...emories, but turned darker than most of us even realize. Two friends, fourteen year old Libby German and thirteen year old Abby Williams, would be found murdered the next day, and the tight knit community of Delphi Indiana has never been the same. Over the years, this case has been analyzed by thousands of people, but even though video footage of the suspect was captured, as well as audio of what his voice sounds like, the murders of these two, innocent teenage girls have yet to be solved. Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod
Transcript
Discussion (0)
History's masterpieces wouldn't be the same without their most notable accents.
Neither would the Kia Sportage without its multiple drive modes.
The Kia Sorento without its expansive 12.3-inch panoramic display.
Or the Kia Telluride without its three rows of spacious seating.
The 2025 Kia SUVs.
Kia. Movement that inspires.
Call 800-333-4KIA for details. Always drive safely. Limited inventory available.
Hello, everybody. Welcome to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow.
And I'm Derek Levasseur.
So today we are diving into part two of the Delphi case. How are you feeling going into part two?
I feel like we're doing the best we can. And we talked about this a little earlier today.
There's a lot of information out there about this case. A lot of that information is misinformation.
So we have to be very careful to do what we do,
but not present it as fact. Because the benefit to having these one-on-one conversations with
Kelsey was, one of my big takeaways was there's not nearly as much out there as people think
there is. The investigators in this case have been very tight-lipped to the point where one
of the questions I saw in a lot of the comments where, you know, one of the questions I saw
in a lot of the comments that we got was, you know, what was the cause of death? And right from
Kelsey, they don't know. They don't know the cause or manner of death. And if they do, they're not
telling anyone, including us. But there's a lot of speculation out there about that. And the reality
is nobody knows. Nobody except the investigators and maybe a couple family members, but nobody in the
public that's not directly associated with the case knows about it.
So if something like that's not out there, you can only imagine what other information
hasn't been made public.
And there's a ton of stuff out there about the cause of death, because obviously it's
pretty common when you make something forbidden or secret, everyone wants to know it more.
And so there's been a lot
of speculation. There were people who were involved in the search parties who, I guess,
had pictures and started sharing them online and things like that. So that gets into a really
tricky position because for some reason, law enforcement wants to keep this very close to the vest. A lot of this information regarding this case has been kept secret.
Whether you or I or anybody out there understands why that is, is irrelevant.
It's not important because whoever is handling this case right now thinks that that's the best way to get it solved.
And I mean, this happened in 2017. It's 2021.
If you think about it, it seems like a long time
for it to be unsolved but it's not that long you know what is that six years yeah in the grand
scheme of what cold case investigations this case 2017 to 2021 five years six years yeah no it's
about yeah it's about five years but we they all knew what you were saying they got you
you're not here because you're a mathematician, right?
I'm not.
No, math's not my strong suit.
But as far as it relates to cold case investigations, one, it's not that old.
Two, it's active.
They're working a lot of different leads behind the scenes.
So this is not something that if you can identify someone in the picture or the video, yeah, they want your help.
But other than that, that's about the extent of it. As far as not sharing the manner of death,
you know, it goes back to what we talked about a couple episodes ago, as far as guilt knowledge.
They believe that when they find this person, that this individual, along with maybe only a few others,
people in law enforcement. And like, as you mentioned, the search party people,
they're the only ones that know how these two young girls were killed. And so if someone comes
in there, whether it's by, you know, whether it's voluntary or it's someone they interrogate and he,
they eventually break this person and they say, you know and they make a spontaneous utterance regarding their
deaths, they can use that in a court of law to show probable cause as it relates to this person's
arrest. So that's why they're not sharing. I also think, and I have thought since this
case first happened and I started looking into it, it has a lot to do with their ages, 13 and 14.
It's not necessary for us as the public. And I know we want to, I get it. I get that
desire to know everything about a case, believe me, but it's not necessary for us as the public
to know what happened to these girls. And if I was the mother or the father or a loved one of
one of these young girls, I wouldn't want that out there. So we do have to keep that in mind,
I think. Absolutely. It's a great point. Yes, there's an investigatory aspect to it.
There's also a respect aspect to it.
They're not going to put out there what happened to these girls.
We can assume it wasn't pleasant, regardless of the way it was.
And therefore, is it really important for the public or the media to have that information?
No, absolutely not.
And the cops who were on this case, they did describe it as like a horrific scene, things like that.
So we can assume it's not great.
And they don't usually stay this tight-lipped about most cases.
Like most cases, even when they involve children, we do know something about how they died or what happened.
In this case, they have kept it very, very close.
And I think that has a lot to do with it being a small town.
This is small town law enforcement. They've really taken on these two girls as their own. There
were several police officers, several detectives that I saw who said, you know, these are our
daughters now. So I think that they're closing ranks around their community and around these
families to protect them. And I respect that. 100%. I will say not to go down the speculation
trail too much because I have thought about it. And when it comes to the manner of death, originally, I thought that we could be
looking at something like a strangulation or something like that. But the question that
arises for me, which I don't have the answer to, we will eventually, when this case is solved and
it's opened up to the public, we'll understand more. But it's interesting to think that these
two girls, unless they were restrained, again, we don't have a lot of the details, but
if one girl was being killed while the other one was watching, at that point, why wouldn't the
second girl run, take off? And so that to me makes me believe that there might be more to the story
as far as if these girls were capable of running away, hence they might've been restrained prior to the killing. Um, because
I would think even though they were very close, human nature is, especially as a young girl,
if you're watching something happen to your friend, the natural reaction is to run.
I would think I would be for me, um, you know, as a, as a young person like that,
not knowing what to do.
So something in my gut tells me that whoever was first, they weren't capable of running away,
or I'm wrong in the assumption that it was strangulation and it might have been a weapon,
like an actual weapon. Was it a firearm? Was it something that was quick? And so therefore, the second person didn't have the opportunity to run away. I have no inside information on it. These are just some of the questions that run through my head.
I've always thought that the person had a gun and that's the way that he got them to even go
with them to begin with because they would have run, right? You know, if he's sitting there and
we're going to talk about this, you know, when we get into it, but he's sitting there saying down
the hill, they're like, screw you. And they take off. Not if he's got a gun though. Right?
Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's so, I think that's another reason why people are so fascinated by this quick,
this case because of those questions, right? We do this all the time every day and we're still
wanting to know because a lot of it doesn't make sense right now, but with one piece of information,
like whether or not he had a weapon is going to answer a lot of our questions.
We've all heard the tape, down the hill. Like you just said, these girls were young, but they were teenagers. They could have said, no, I'm not going down the hill. I'm going towards the cars.
But there was something that caused them to conform to what he was demanding.
And so you make a great point as far as, was he displaying a weapon? Was
he portraying like he had a weapon in his pocket? What did he do to get them down the hill so
willingly? Because that's what it is. It does sound like they went under their own power.
He was directing them to. Which means he had something that scared them enough to obey him.
Yeah. Which is horrible, horrible to think
of. No matter which way you slice it, right? It is horrible, but it is, I think that's human nature
to want to answer the unknown that relates to anything. You know, we talk about UFOs at the
report that just came out. Like we all want answers. It's not in our nature to leave things
unanswered. And so, you know, that's just some of the things I think that people really get
fixated on with this particular case, because we want to know, we want to understand what
happened that day. And in due time, I think we will, but I'm glad we can all admit for the most
of us can admit that what we think or what we know at this point isn't important.
It is pretty much nothing too. It's absolutely nothing. It's pretty much nothing.
But when it comes down to it, I think that you and I and everybody who's listening,
because you're into true crime, when we're looking at these cases, we're looking at them,
not just to hear a story and be entertained. It's like, we want to solve something. We're
the same people that like to do Where's Waldo puzzles and like find we want to like go towards something.
So when you're laying this case out like you would with any case, you're doing it in a way
where you're trying to find an end goal. Like, OK, this makes sense. It makes sense that it was
this person because this was his MO. This adds up with what he would normally do or this makes
sense with the time and the date and the place. But when you don't know when there's so many
question marks right at the beginning of the case,
I think that frustrates people
because they can't put that puzzle together.
And I get it.
It is incredibly frustrating
when you can't put the puzzle together.
But this puzzle is also people,
young girls and their families.
And I don't think at this point,
it's really going to do us any good
to fill in those blank spaces and those question marks.
No, but it is important.
We can all listen.
We can all hear the facts as we know them directly from Kelsey.
And if you're from the Delphi area or even the surrounding community or you've experienced something similar to this, maybe one person out there who hears this or watches it, hears or sees something that hasn't been
thought of before or has information. And by hearing Kelsey speak directly to them,
it incentivizes them to come forward with that information. It might be the one thing that tips
the scale. You don't know. The only way you know nothing will happen is if you do nothing in the
first place, which we're not going to do. We're going to tell the story. You guys can take it in, consume the content. And if there's
something you have to contribute by all means, uh, and we'll say this again, probably at the end,
but there's no need to contact us. You can contact, uh, the Indiana state police directly.
Um, and, and again, don't inundate their phones. If you're just wanting, if you have questions,
if you have something that's substantive that can actually help by all means, and, and again, don't inundate their phones. If you're just wanting, if you have questions, if you have something that's substantive that can actually help by all means, call,
call the Indiana state police and give them that information directly.
Yeah. And my hope when we're doing this podcast is that somebody hears it,
that has never heard of it before. And you think that's like insane. Like this is one of the most
prolific true crime cases of our time, but there's people I talk to every single day,
who've never heard of this case. You know, not everybody is living in the true crime cases of our time. But there's people I talk to every single day who've never
heard of this case. You know, not everybody is living in the true crime space like we are.
There are people who have never heard of this case. And it's my hope that we reach one of them
and maybe they have some new information because they're not seeking out this true crime content
every day. Maybe they don't watch the news. Maybe they don't know what's going on, but they
recognize something in this guy's face or his voice or the way he walks or something
about the area. That's really the hope. I agree. I agree. Yeah. So we had the search for Abby and
Libby that originally had taken place on the day they went missing, February 13th. This led to
nothing. And you do have to remember, these girls weren't reported missing until after 5 p.m. And in
February, the sun would be starting to go down just about an
hour later. So the bulk of the search, the main search, was conducted in the dark. Now, the next
morning, the search parties reconvened, and some of them went back out to the Monan High Bridge
area to see if they would have better luck with the sun up and fresh eyes.
We were all supposed to meet at the fire department at 7 30 the next morning
to form into groups so the fire department is actually who organized that and they created the
grid and some people say they signed a paper to say who they were and like what group they were
in but I don't remember ever doing that. So that was all formed that next morning. So it was formed about 7.30. I would say
people were out searching around 8. It wasn't until 12.30 that they were found though. They
had law enforcement and volunteers out there looking as well as members of Abby and Libby's
families. And they broke up into groups to do a grid search. Can you explain to us, because I'm
curious, why is it effective? What
is the grid search when you're searching for somebody or something? Why is it effective,
especially when you're dealing with a large area that needs to be searched?
So you don't want people just randomly going out there and just searching wherever they feel like
searching because one, you're going to miss areas. And two, you're going to have coverage in areas that have been searched
two or three times already. So it's important to create like a grid pattern where it has little
squares or quadrants, or depending on the size, if it's only, you know, in a big, large scale thing,
you'd have square, you know, small areas, but I've done searches where we just have four quadrants.
But you want to break them up into smaller areas,
assign teams or groups to those specific areas, and then mark them off one at a time as their
search. Because most of the time, if the area is big enough, you're not going to be able to
search it all at once. So you're going to say, hey, we're going to search sections one through
20 today. We're going to have groups A, B, C, and D do one through five,
group B do five through 10, group C do 10 through 15, and group D do 15 through 20.
If you're doing that and they're doing it in a uniform pattern, you can slowly mark off those
squares, which will ultimately result in the entire grid being checked off. And then you're ensuring that
each individual area, even though small, has been checked and it'll allow you to focus your search
when you go out the next time in more detail. So you're not basically double or tripling the
amount of work you need to do to ensure an area has been completely canvassed for anybody.
So using this system, let's say you found something like that was potentially evidence.
Would it be cataloged by the police as being found in like this specific grid by this specific group?
That way you can kind of keep track of where the evidence was.
Because when you're on the wilderness, you can't be putting down like evidence markers everywhere.
They're going to get blown away or like a wolf's going to run up and grab it in its mouth and run away.
Who knows? Like you can't do that. So you got to keep track of where this evidence is being found in some systematic sort of way. Yeah. And it's important. We even do it when it's a crime
scene inside of an apartment, right? It could be a small area. You still want to have some type of
diagram. It may not be in a grid form, but detectives are trained in our investigative
classes that we take that when you
go into an apartment or a house, you want to draw an illustration of the floor plan. It doesn't have
to be to scale initially, but just something where you mark all the furniture, you mark all the TV,
whatever it may be in that room, so that one, you can note where the evidence was found,
see if there's any patterns to maybe show
a trail of where this incident took place. But also at a later date, if you have to go back out
there again, whether it's an apartment or a field like this case, you can almost recreate the scene
for someone who comes in at a later date who wasn't originally involved in the investigation
and show them exactly where these items were found. Because although it didn't mean anything to you at the time, being able to replicate that
crime scene may mean something to this specialist or expert who can contribute more than the original
investigators. That's very interesting. I didn't know you would do that even inside in a small
area, but it makes sense why. Every murder, every case that's a felony. I mean, we're not doing it
for a simple larceny, but every case that I had, and it would usually just be in my notepad.
Like it could be in something small where you just draw out the room, maybe guesstimate,
oh, it's a 10 by 15 room, draw a square for a couch. It doesn't have to be beautiful. It's
more for your reference, but it allows you later if you want to transcribe that over to like one
of those grid papers where you
can actually, let's say it's a homicide. At that point, you're bringing in measurements, you're
actually taking everything down, you're drawing it by hand, and then you're going to retrace that
later with a ruler to make sure it's accurate. Because again, that information is there forever, right? So let's say that homicide investigator passes away or retires.
Another investigator who takes that case over can't go back out to the crime scene and see
the apartment the way it was.
But if you take a good drawing of that area, they can literally look at your illustration
and have a visual of what that room looked like that day by seeing the drawing, but also
comparing it to the photos.
It's a lot better for any future people who look at it.
Are they using like computer programs and stuff to make that like three dimensional?
And I mean, this is more your area and your forte than mine.
But if it feels like that would be so much faster and reduce human error and just be so much more easy to understand and like navigate.
It's absolutely possible.
It's expensive in our system, which was called IMC.
You could do a two dimensional drawing.
However, you could take that two dimensional drawing and give it to an outside source that can easily turn it into a three dimensional drawing.
We did it on the, um, or even like a, like a video, we did it on faith hedge path.
So there were photos, um, there were some drawings,
but mostly photos. And this company was able to recreate the outside apartment complex.
And then obviously her apartment by those drawings to give, not to scale, but a visual
representation of what her apartment looked like and where she was found. So it's absolutely
possible. It would be on a case by case basis. But there are definitely softwares out there that police departments can buy or you can
enlist the help of a third party to do it. That's really cool. Well, pretty early on in the search,
though, they did find something. So I believe they weren't out there more than an hour
when they found their first piece of evidence. So this guy, his name was J. Kyle Keener.
He's a newspaper reporter, and he was snapping pictures of the search and the searchers
on the morning of February 14th when a crew of people who were searching,
they were by the water by Deer Creek, and they yelled out that they had found something.
So Keener said that he was about 75 feet away,
and he could see girls' clothing in De Deer Creek east of the bridge. So I
guess how it went down is the people searching are in the water. Keener is sort of like above them
because it seemed like he was taking pictures from above. I saw his pictures on Facebook.
And then a little ways away, Kelsey and her group, they're searching under a bridge. So what happened is Keener heard somebody in the creek
say, hey, we found a shoe. And they asked him to call out to Kelsey to see what kind of shoes
Libby had been wearing the day before. So he shouted over to Kelsey, what kind of shoes did
Libby have on? She responded. And it turned out that this was Libby's shoe. Yeah. And that goes
back to what you just asked
a couple of minutes earlier, right? As far as the grid. So although Kelsey was out there searching,
this individual was out there searching, you're not allowed to deviate from your grid. And that's
the way you ensure that every spot is searched, but it doesn't mean you could be within 10 or 20
feet of the next grid spot. So Kelsey clearly was she was a grid over so without having her come run over he yelled to her and said hey just in case what's the shoe look like and as
you just mentioned it was her shoe but that's how you do it that's how you ensure that no no pun
intended but like no stone is left unturned that's how you do it to make sure that every area is
covered equally i just imagine though what she must have been feeling at that point you know
when somebody said we found a shoe and now she has to describe this shoe and you're just kind of
sitting there like in limbo, like, is it the shoe? Do you want them to find a shoe? Because at least
that's something, you know, you've been searching for so long and you've found nothing. So finding
a shoe would mean you found something, but finding the shoe also isn't a good sign. It just makes my heart like feel squeezed.
I don't, Oh, I feel bad. Yeah. It's, it's, it's interesting because at that point, like we all
know what happened. So it's easy for us to be like, Oh yeah, you want to, you want to find the
evidence. But at this point to them that, you know, I can only imagine they probably have a
million different, I, you know, scenarios running through their head. Are they hurt somewhere? Are
they even here? Did they leave and go to a friend's house and they're probably praying that's
the case, but did they leave without telling us and they're at a friend's house playing with their
friends? It's not a high probability, but I'm sure deep down they were hoping, even though they were
going to be infuriated with them, that that was the case. So I get what you're saying. It's like you want some new news, but you also don't want bad news.
You know what I mean?
It's like you want some indication as to where they are, but only if it means that they're
still alive.
Yeah.
And I don't feel like finding one shoe in the damn creek is ever going to lead to good
news.
Not good.
Not good. Not good. A lot of Delphi is flat cornfields,
but this particular area of our trail system is unusually hilly for the area, especially Delphi.
It's not like Tennessee mountains, but it's more hilly than any other part of Delphi. And so
the ground goes up and down. There's a creek that, creek that goes through Delphi, um, that is down
in the valley and that's why the bridge goes over the creek. And so on that end of the creek,
there is a woods, um, but it goes up and down like hills do. And just the point that they were
at was down in a valley in the woods that was just hidden enough that if it was dark
out, you wouldn't have seen them. Even if you really looked down and shined a light, you probably
wouldn't have noticed. I believe they were about half a mile away from where they were on the
bridge. It's actually a search party that found them. One guy in particular, his name's out there
in the group's pretty, pretty hard. I think that
the Facebook groups are calling him a suspect or they were before this new guy that's out there.
But I think law enforcement talked to him right after. He's, he's a mess. He's devastated. He,
I was actually really good friends with his daughter. And so me and Libby had been over
at their house and it broke him
to find Libby and Abby that day um I think him and his wife both had to delete their Facebook
accounts because they couldn't read it anymore um but he's he's so devastated that day forward
he's had to battle through this and his mental health has taken such a big toll because he did
find he found these two girls and he was close with, like not close with Libby, but Libby had been to his house.
He knew who she was.
He was friends with my grandpa.
So he had a connection to her.
And so finding them kind of, well, definitely broke him in a lot of ways.
Well, it looks like the shoe was found on the south side of the creek.
And then moments after this, a man, another man searching,
actually they say in articles, they don't know if the same man who found the shoe then saw this set
of footprints, but one of the searchers saw a set of footprints. He followed the footprints and those
footprints led him to the bodies of Abby and Libby. They were only about 50 feet away from the north
bank of Deer Creek in a wooded area
that was located on the private property of a Delphi residence. So the shoe was on the south
side. They were on the north side. What does that mean to you? Because when I read this,
again, maybe it's nothing, but if they were brought somewhere and they were too scared to leave or run,
how does their shoe get taken off? All of us have worn shoes in our lives. A shoe doesn't normally
just kick off very easily. And so to me, it suggests a possible indication of a sign of
struggle. Did one of them attempt to run at some point and were caught? Is it possible? How did
the shoe come off? They
weren't out there for a very long time. So I wouldn't contribute it to elements, right? I
wouldn't contribute it to animals or anything like that. They were found relatively quickly
in relation to when they were first reported missing. So how does a shoe, even though it's
only 50 feet, how does the shoe get off away from her body? It's a real question.
So here's my theory. And it's not good because I've thought a lot about this because I had always
thought that because they said they found girls clothes like around the creek. Right. And so I
always thought that was just one of those extraneous things because I never really heard
it reported anywhere. But today I actually found the dispatch call where somebody who was searching at the Monan Bridge called into 911 and said, you know, we see clothes here. So the clothes exist. From what I understand, the Monan Bridge was on the south side of the creek where the shoe was found, and then their bodies were found on the other side of the creek. So the creek would be down the hill, right, from the bridge. So I think there's two options. One, Libby tried to run and
lost her shoe, maybe got stuck in the mud, you know, whatever. I don't think that's the most
possible explanation or the most probable explanation. Because clothes were also found
and the shoe, I think that whoever did this to them
had an idea to sexually assault them
and their clothes were removed,
whether he had them do that themselves
or he did it for them
and then just tossed away, right?
Because the clothes were found tangled up
in branches on the side of the creek.
The shoe was found on the south side of the creek.
And their bodies were only about 50 feet away from the creek so i think he just took
their clothes and just started throwing them behind him because he was just an animal at this
point that is my theory and i know it's not good it's the is the worst possible scenario but it's
possible right it's not like you're pulling it out of left field it's possible and we have to be
why else would her shoe be there you know exactly. It's possible. And we have to be. Why else would her shoe be there? You know?
Exactly.
And again, also the clothes, right?
We have to be objective about it based on cases we've worked before.
That would be a reasonable explanation for it.
I also thought that maybe he was fleeing the area and was trying to take the clothes with
them and maybe dropped it.
But I think that's less likely.
I think what you just laid out is more likely. But again, it does suggest that they didn't just sit on a rock and
wait for this to happen. Something transpired. We don't know what right now, but clearly the
evidence being found in different locations is relevant to what happened that day. We don't know
yet, but hopefully we will. And I hope for their sake and for the family's sake, you and I are both wrong. I hope it was just that she tried to flee the area and
the shoe came off in the mud. That's what we're hoping for. But we have to acknowledge the other
possibilities as well. Yeah. And it's almost like this evidence. It's like a trail of breadcrumbs
from the bridge, the clothes, the shoe, the footprints. And then I don't think that it's
possible that he tried to take the clothes with
him because libby's cell phone was found near her body so why would he take the clothes and leave
leave the cell phone you know well he definitely wouldn't want the cell phone because that would
be tracked and led back to him unless he didn't know that that it was in there yeah yeah um kelsey
told us when when we talked to her that she was out there that morning right along with her
grandmother and grandfather and many family members.
They were all in different groups.
They were all searching different grids when the bodies of Abby and Libby were found.
So as we talked about in our introduction here, there has not been a lot released on what the scene looked like, what transpired there.
It's never been released how these two young girls died.
On February 14th, law enforcement gave a press conference
announcing that they'd found two bodies by Deer Creek,
but they had not made positive identification of the bodies.
However, you know, this is small town Delphi.
Everyone knew that there was only two people missing,
Abby and Libby, so everybody pretty much knew that it was them.
They'd known they'd been out by the bridge.
I don't know why law enforcement did that,
but when the media asked if there was any suspects,
an Indiana state police officer responded
that they had not gotten that far in the investigation yet.
The remainder of this press conference
was basically a lot of no comments.
I don't want to get into it at this point.
We're not going to discuss this at this point. And even when asked if the people of Delphi should be
worried, the media was essentially told that the people of Delphi are smart enough to draw their
own conclusions about how they should be feeling. And this was this what happened the day before,
too, because they gave a press conference and the media was like, well, should we be worried?
And they were like, no, no, it's
going to be okay. There's nothing to get like alarmed about. Do you think they do this to just
make sure people don't start panicking? But at the same time, like there kind of is something
to be alarmed about, right? Like you shouldn't really tell people that you're not going to answer
95% of their questions in the press conference and then say like, you guys should be smart enough to
draw your own conclusions about how you should be feeling, whether you should
be feeling scared or like anxious right now because they didn't give them enough information
to let them know what they were really dealing with.
So why wouldn't they just tell them like, yeah, you know, be vigilant, lock your doors
at night, like make sure you know where your kids are.
We don't know what we're dealing with yet.
It was just a really strange way that they handled the initial press conferences.
I'm not sure if you feel the same.
No, I agree with you.
I mean, it's one of those things where we don't know everything, but we know that these
two girls were killed and we know that as of right now, the person who killed them is
still at large.
End of story.
Nothing else.
These two young girls were killed and the person, their murderer is still amongst us.
So say like, yeah, hell yeah, you should be scared, man.
Yes.
Yeah, that's it.
Why can't they say that?
I think it's like, I don't have a justification for it, but I think it's wanting to keep people
from panicking too, too much where you have absolute anarchy, but I don't believe they
handled it the right way. Because here's the thing, you and I, we would hear that information have absolute anarchy, but I don't believe they handled it the right way.
Because here's the thing, you and I, we would hear that information and we would say, okay,
this is dangerous. I'm not going to let my kids out right now in this immediate area. I'm going
to be vigilant. I want to work in the buddy system. I want to make sure that if I'm going
out jogging or walk on a walk for exercise that I'm with someone else, that's what a reasonable
person would do. But we have to acknowledge that there are people out there that are going to be driving
around in the back of trucks with guns looking for this guy.
That's where your mind goes?
Vigilantes?
There are people that are like that.
Listen, you can't assume that everyone's going to act rational.
No, no, I don't.
Certainly not.
No.
Do you know what I mean?
So it's like-
I feel like the vigilantes would be out there
looking anyways, right?
Like knowing that
these two girls died
and somebody killed them.
Like if you're a vigilante
and you're not thinking logically,
like you're hopping
in the back of that pickup truck
with your shotgun regardless.
Yeah.
I think they could have been
more deliberate in their messaging.
And direct and transparent, right?
Yep.
And we talked about that
at a crime con.
We talked about how police do,
like obviously we know there's certain things you got to keep close to the chest for the integrity of the investigation. But when it comes to like, I live in this town, my family lives here, I have small children. I need you to be direct and transparent with me when you're communicating just tell me what to do then. I can't make an informed decision if
I don't have all the information. I know we're going to get into autopsies, but before we do,
let's take a quick break. All right, we're back. So as Derek said, autopsies were performed on the
girls shortly after they were found, but they have been sealed. They have not been unsealed since.
I mean, there hasn't even really been any leaked information,
which is very rare in cases like this
when there's such a huge public interest.
And there is obviously a lot of speculation out there
about how Abby and Libby died.
And like I said, I understand the curiosity.
People feel it might give a better indication
of who the killer is.
But I can't take those rumors and speculations and consider them anything but that.
You know, there's so much online and like Reddit and these forums where people are like,
oh, I think this is what happened to them because this, this and this.
And I think that they're very smart theories.
But I really can't talk about them in here because they're just theories.
And we have our own theories,
but at least, you know, they're coming from our brains. So I can tell them to you and round them
out. But other people's theories, I can't just start throwing them in here. And it's, you know,
I'm just trying to be respectful. There is also speculation and confusion about whether or not
DNA evidence was gathered during the investigation. The DNA thing has been highly debated, and a lot of it stems from a comment that Sheriff
Lesenby made that same year in February of 2017 when CBS4 claimed that Sheriff Lesenby had talked
to them. And he wouldn't go into specifics about the forensics of the case, but he said, you know, I can't give you details, but I've asked the investigators to fast track DNA evidence.
Now, later, after getting constant questions about this from the media and the public, the sheriff was like, no, no, that's not really what I said.
Like, I've never confirmed whether or not DNA evidence had been collected in the case.
And you and I did talk about this a bit.
We talked about it with Kelsey, too. And I think we both agree that there was probably DNA found at that
scene. Law enforcement has just kept a tight lid on the details, as they've done for really all of
the specifics in this case. However, in May of 2018, during a CrimeCon panel about this case,
Sergeant Coleman, who was working on the Delphi case,
he said, quote,
we will not deny or confirm whether or not we have DNA,
but I think the public realizes with a crime like this,
it's rare to not have DNA.
We will reach out to the genealogy websites,
any new technology that comes available,
we will use it, end quote,
which, I mean, I think that's pretty much an admission
that they do have
DNA.
We just don't know what kind or where it was found or if it's a partial DNA profile.
But I mean, the fact that they have DNA is encouraging, I think.
Yeah, I think seeing the video or the photo of this individual, he didn't look like he
was masked up or gloved up.
So you would assume there's a transmission of
of dna between him and the girls for one then if you take it a step further and we we kind of go
out on a limb and speculate that there might have been some type of crime committed that was sexual
in nature there's even more of a chance that there's a transmission of dna evidence then the
question becomes okay if that's the case if we're to assume that much, how haven't they found this guy yet?
Well, there's a lot of reasons, you know, contamination, not enough DNA. Um, there's
a small possibility that this person has never been arrested before and it's not entered into
any system currently. Um, that's possible as well. Um, there. There are reasons for it. And again, not many people
know this, but when you're testing DNA, you have a certain amount of it. You're able to develop a
profile off of it. I started doing some research on it. There's whole genome sequencing, and then
there's microarray. When you do whole genome sequencing, which is a more involved process, you're basically
able to create a digital print of this DNA profile.
It's not the DNA itself, but it's something that's way above my intelligence level that
you can actually visually see the DNA profile.
And so I'm hoping they did that and they're just waiting to find a match if they did get
a good sample of DNA.
Yo, you know, these scientists are like doing the dumbest things out there, like creating
viruses that are super dangerous and stuff just to see what happens.
They should take that.
They should take that technology and find a way to clone a DNA sample so that they have
like extra of the same DNA sample to test and sample and work on, because that is, I think, a helpful
byproduct of technology and science. Whereas just gain-of-function research and creating
crazy deadly viruses, probably not the best use of our time and resources. But that would be a
great idea. So essentially, what I didn't know, and we did talk about this during the
Faith Hedgepath case, is if they get some DNA, they may be like, oh, here, here's this little
bit of DNA. But every time they perform a test on it, it's degrading. It's destroying the DNA
that they've tested, correct? It's using it up. So what might be happening in this case is they
have maybe only a partial DNA profile or a very, very small amount of DNA. And they're like, let's wait until technology develops to the point where we only have to do single day, we may not have any left. So they're probably being very cautious about what they do. And he
said something about using genealogical websites. There's also privacy issues with that. That has
been, yeah, that has been called into question, you know, after the, after joe joseph d'angelo was caught the golden state killer
all of these people who run these um ancestry.com and like 23andme they were like hold on hold on
wait so what you're saying is you could like use my dna to like put my father in prison i don't
know how i feel about that like so now you have to opt in for that so he could have they could
have this profile and they could have put it in through
these sites and everything. But if if his family is on any of these sites and they haven't opted
in to to allow the police to use their DNA to compare against, you know, a rapist or a murderer's
DNA, then it won't matter. Yeah. And I think it's fair for us to say that based on what we do know about the case and these statements, that they do have DNA, which is a good thing. And we can only hope that it's a good enough sample that they were able to create this whole genome sequencing. And if they have a small amount, they can use this digital print they've now taken of that DNA and compare it to someone.
So for example, they may not have any more of the actual DNA, but if they have the whole genome sequencing, they have a digital file that tells them exactly the DNA makeup of
this person that they're looking for.
They can then take a DNA sample from me, create a whole genome sequence on me, and compare
the two to see if they match or not. So that would allow them to do continuous comparisons to potential suspects in the future.
And I think that's probably the case.
I think that's probably why they talked about the genealogical websites, because you would
need a decent profile to submit to those websites.
But as you mentioned, there's a lot of legal hurdles with that now.
So they have to be careful because, and I will tell you one more thing that I'm kind of taking out of
that comment. That to me suggests that they've ran the DNA profile against CODIS, right? And
they didn't have a match. So now they're thinking, so now they're thinking this person may have never
been arrested before. This might've been this person's first
offense or the first time they've been entered in the system because they didn't pop up in CODIS.
So now they're going to the second layer, which is we have to start comparing this person
to familial DNA. So this person may not be entered on 23andMe, but maybe a distant relative who has
a similar DNA makeup is. And that's how they found the
Golden State Killer. It wasn't his DNA that was entered into the service. It was a relative and
they were able to track them back that way. So him even mentioning the genealogical websites
suggests that this person may not be in CODIS and now they're looking for distant relatives
that may be related to this person that could ultimately lead them to someone new or somebody they already have in the crosshairs. They're just looking for that extra step before
they take a shot at them. Yeah. And it's crazy. I was reading something for another case the other
day. I forget the exact number, but you said maybe this person's never offended before. I think it's
more likely, right? The second thing that they just haven't gotten caught. Never been caught, right. Yeah, because especially with child predators, people who offend against children, I think
the number was something like that on average they commit these crimes or they offend 211
times before they get caught, which is incredibly scary if that's true.
And if you're to think, if you're right and this person had a weapon, that means they went there with these intentions.
They were looking for a victim of opportunity.
So are we to think this is the first time that they ever went out?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
This is probably, unfortunately, a habitual offender.
And this is the first time they might have left behind some type of DNA evidence that
they can compare because even if they didn't identify the person, if they had a previous
individual that had left behind DNA, they could have matches to those cases and start to develop
a pattern. Maybe they did. If they process the DNA yet, but we know that that's not something
that happens either. So this was a high profile case. So the DNA had like any forensics had a rush put on it. Okay. But you could have any other number of rapes or murders in the area that just didn't
get as much attention and the DNA kit still sitting there waiting to be processed and you
haven't matched it yet. So. Yeah. And that's a great point because maybe some of our, our,
our followers don't know this, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of rape kits where
a fee, uh, someone was kits where someone was raped, they take
a swab, they have a kit, and there's just not enough resources right now to completely
analyze all those kits.
So that's why there's so many different organizations out there and nonprofits.
We talked about this, talking to Ashley Flowers the other day.
She has a nonprofit that's specifically raising money for these causes, right? To
get the funds out there and get enough DNA labs up and running so that there's not a single rape kit
sitting in an evidence locker somewhere that hasn't been processed. Because to your point,
there could be one of those rape kits that match the individual in this case,
and maybe it shows a pattern of where they are located. Because usually if they're all happening
in the same area, that individual's residence is in that surrounding area.
So to your point, for anyone who doesn't know, there that her rapist is out there and that
her rape kit is sitting in cold storage and not being tested and so this person is not only not
caught but he's out there possibly offending again and she feels like she's being re-victimized every
single day so it makes me absolutely sick i think it's of all the money we're gonna we're gonna work
we're gonna work on that on that. We're not just
screaming from the rooftops and not doing anything about it. You and I have talked personally
about getting involved somehow with this and contributing to helping this situation because
it needs to be fixed. We know your friend and now my friend too, Sarah Turney is on the board
of Ashley Flowers' nonprofit. She's very passionate about it. So I think collectively,
if we all work together, especially the millions of people who listen or watch true crime,
it's one thing to take in this, consume this content, give back a little bit too.
I think if everyone gave something back who listens or watches to true crime,
we could probably financially solve this burden very easily.
On our own, yeah.
On our own, no doubt.
We're not going to wait for the police and the federal government or local and state governments
to give us money to save people's lives. We can do it on our own. We can do it on our own. It
can be grant set up where police departments can apply for these grants like they're doing with
Ashley Flowers and there's other nonprofits as well. Identifiers has some stuff too. We can work
on it. And I'm working on something as well. I'm not going to get into it right now, but you know this, that we're working
on something as far as genealogical services that we'll be offering soon through my company
that's kind of in line with whole genome sequencing. But we got some more details
I have to work out before I put it out there. Well, so we've already established there's a
lot about this case we don't know. There's things that we do know. It's a short
list, but hey, we know it. So let's start there. We're going to start with the pictures that were
sent from Libby's phone to her Snapchat story. So it's believed that after Kelsey dropped Abby
and Libby off, they walked up the trail to the bridge and then they began to cross the bridge.
The first Snapchat photo that Libby posted to her story was a black and white picture.
It just shows the Mona on High Bridge
stretching out in front of her.
There's no one else in the picture,
including Abby and Libby.
We assume at this point, everything's fine.
They don't feel threatened.
They're just having fun.
This was believed to have been sent
at around 2.05 in the afternoon.
And it's interesting the way that they figured out
how or when these pictures were posted because
there's no time stamps right on snapchat what you will just see when you get a snapchat when you
open up a snapchat story is how long ago it was posted so if you open it up at 305 and it says
three hours ago you know it was posted at like 1205 so they they went into the schools the FBI
and they interviewed students and like
friends of Abby and Libby's who would be having access to their Snapchat stories. And they said,
okay, so when did you open this picture? Like at what time and how many hours did it say
that it had been uploaded? So that's how they kind of got an average or an kind of honed in
time of when this happened. And I think we said it in
the first part, this was not a long time after they got dropped off.
No. No, it was not. And they probably will never admit it for business purposes,
but I'd be willing to bet a decent amount of money that off the record, someone at Snapchat,
they may not keep the photos themselves,
but someone at Snapchat can tell them exact minutes, hours, and seconds of when that photo
was posted. Oh yeah. If I had to guess, if I had to guess. Big brother, right? You know about that.
If I had to guess, the FBI makes a call and Snapchat, who wants to help find these girls,
because maybe even initially they didn't know what had happened to them, you know, find these girls because maybe even initially they
didn't know what had happened to him or even if it was after can probably give a wink and
a nod and say, well, I mean, if I had to guess, I would say it was at 205 37, but that's just
a guess.
We can't tell you that legally, but that would be our guess.
Yeah.
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
No, I'd put a, I'd put a, I'd put a good amount of money.
Allegedly.
Allegedly.
Yes, of course.
All right, so I'll tell you about the next picture
after we come back from a quick break.
All right, so we are back.
After the picture of the bridges posted,
two minutes after that,
Libby posted another picture to her Snapchat story.
This one was of Abby on the bridge.
You can see, you know, she seems to be feeling pretty laid back.
Like there doesn't seem to be any sense of urgency.
She's wearing jeans and like a zip-up hoodie.
She has her hands in her pocket.
She's looking down to keep her balance because this is a precarious bridge.
I do believe that this was the first time Abby had actually crossed it.
And of course, when you're crossing a bridge like this,
you're going to look down
to make sure that your feet are going in the right places.
Now, Erica Gibson, this is a friend of Abby's and Libby's,
she told the Down the Hill podcast, quote,
Abby was happy.
Like, you can't really see it.
She's trying to get like across the bridge
and you're a little terrified.
You can tell that they wouldn't have gone there and stuff unless they wanted to.
I don't know if Abby's ever been on the bridge before.
It could have been Abby's first time.
She gets a little scared sometimes, so she probably wouldn't have walked across the bridge.
So at that point, she was probably a little scared, but she was probably excited after she got off for herself.
And they were having fun.
Libby was taking photos and Abby was being a little model, end quote. So yeah, I think that this was Abby's first time and Libby wanted to, you know,
memorialize it. Like, yay, you did it. You know, you crossed it. You were scared because we talked
to Kelsey about this too. And most people said that Abby and Libby were best friends because
they had so much in common, but personality wise, they were very opposite. You know, Libby was the
let's get going, let's do this, let's have an adventure. Let's be brave. And Abby was more reserved and, you know, didn't have
as much bravery, had a little bit more fear. So Libby would push her to challenge herself and do
things that she normally wouldn't do like a good friend would. You know, I wouldn't cross that
bridge. No, we all we all we all have that friend. We all have that friend. No friend could get me to
cross that bridge. I tell you that. No, but i'm not young if i was 13 14 i would
probably do it but not now i think i think 14 year old stephanie's crossing the bridge 14 year
old stephanie would definitely have crossed you're the i think you might be the agitator you might be
the one like if you don't do it that would be me you're right do it, you're a chicken shit.
Just cross it.
Just cross it.
I'm the devil.
I was the devil on your shoulder.
No, I wouldn't have said that, Derek.
You would.
I see how much you make fun of me.
Yeah, that's fun.
Yeah.
Fun for you.
And fun for everybody else.
Now, there's also a video.
And we know about this video. We talked to Kelsey about this infamous
video because we didn't know
whether this was a video Olivia
had taken on her phone through her Snapchat
app or if it had been taken
using her cell phone camera
not through the Snapchat app because
if people who don't use Snapchat
out there, when you open it you
can like take a video in Snapchat
and then just post it to your
story from the Snapchat app. Or you can take a video from your camera roll and then upload it
to Snapchat. So we didn't know which kind of app had been used to take this video. And the answer
is still not clear. Kelsey wasn't sure either. But this video did have audio. And this is where we get our first glimpse of who they now
call Bridge Guy. And we're able to hear his voice as well. Now, the police, surprise, surprise,
have never released the full video or audio to the public. I don't even think that Abby and Libby's
families have seen or heard the whole thing. You know, we we did talk to Kelsey about it,
and she kind of confirmed that, like, no, they like, no, they haven't been shown the entire
video. Am I correct in remembering that? Yeah. Kelsey seemed very, again, we don't know
everything and maybe that's because Kelsey doesn't want us to, which we're fully on board with.
But our understanding is that it's only been clips that have been put out. Could Kelsey and
her family have seen the whole thing? Maybe. If they have, they haven't told that to anyone.
And again, it's none of our business.
And I mean, I don't think they have because she could have easily said, yes, we have,
but I'm not allowed to discuss what was contained in it.
I don't think that they have.
So that is exactly how very, very tight the police are hanging on to this information.
I have a question for you.
What is it?
And then I'm going to make a statement, but I want to clarify it first. So you're saying that the audio and video are the same,
it's the same file or whatever, but I had read something somewhere and maybe again,
it could have been a complete misinterpretation by me. I was under the impression that the down
the hill that you heard was definitely from a Snapchat story that Libby had posted where she had the phone
down and you hear the down the hill.
Right.
Is that, am I right?
So that was kind of what was released in the media.
They kept calling the Snapchat murderers, the Snapchat killers.
So you would go into this initially, especially in that first year of 2017, being like, oh
yeah, this stuff was all captured on Snapchat. But it doesn't look like
that's necessarily the case here because no one has that video. So if Libby had sent that out in
her Snapchat story, you would think that after she went missing, somebody would have opened up
her story and screen recorded it and then it would be all over right yeah i mean this is something i think i said it to kelsey when we spoke to her i i still don't see why it's not
possible that again you would think someone from the public would come out and say that's from the
area but the way this this this video is zoomed in on and how blurry it gets and even if you like
kind of like imagine in your head that video being zoomed back out the angle at which it shot at.
Like I would think if it was Libby, she would have been like a lower level in the angle of the camera.
You're good with cameras.
You know, it would have been like a upward angle towards this person, but it almost looks like it's coming down, which makes me think whoever took it was at a higher level.
Right.
I agree.
It's very strange. So why couldn't it be like a trail camera or a camera that the city or town had installed to monitor the bridge for an injury or something like that? Because it's a tourist area. didn't have they do now because of this but they said at that time they didn't have that but it is
hard to understand based on the pictures which are because we've never seen the video we have
never seen the video we only have screen not the video its entirety no yeah we only have screenshots
but the screenshots make it look like whoever took that video was like uphill or or at a higher angle
than bridge guy right so right i still i and i said this to kelsey because she said it she goes
oh we don't know if it's from her phone and i was like oh really that's a possibility because yes
just from the outside in looking at it when i watched the video i assumed it was automatically
from like a park camera or a trail cam that a hunter had put up.
And she was like, oh, no, you know, we don't know if it I think specifically she said like, oh, we don't know if she took it on her camera roll or it was taken on a Snapchat story.
Like, did she take it on her camera roll and it was saved?
And that's how the police got access to it.
I'm like, oh, that's interesting.
I was always under the assumption it was from an outside person but then you would say well then why wouldn't the
video contain libyan abby as well and my my response is how do we know it doesn't how do
we know it wasn't zoomed in past them to show a more magnified version of this person and they're
leaving my point is maybe there's more to this video that we haven't seen that might even show the viewer what happened in that moment where this bridge guy came in contact with Libby and Abby. Right. There could be a Libby's cell phone. I don't think it was with her Snapchat app.
It would be so much easier for me.
I'm a visual learner.
If I had physically myself been to the Monon Bridge, because he says later down the hill.
So after you cross the bridge, right?
If you're coming from the trails and you cross the bridge after the bridge ends, is there a hill that they walked up and they saw him following them down the bridge?
So that's when they got concerned and took the video and that would put them at a higher level.
That's what I would like to know.
That's a possibility, right? It was also something where Kelsey was telling us that, and she gave this scenario as far as could it have been a video that Libby was taking on her phone of Abby?
And I'm doing air quotes guys for you who can't see it.
But in reality, she was filming the guy walking up behind them because she didn't want him
to know she was filming him.
Because again, you can tell the camera view has been zoomed in.
So you ask yourself, what's outside of that if we zoom
back out? So to your point, did they run up a hill? Did they take the video? Was she taking a
shot of Abby or making it look like she was taking a shot of Abby walking across the bridge or
standing in front of it? It's just so fascinating. And I say that in the most respectful way,
because we're seeing these Snapchat videos or these, these screenshots of this person,
there's probably so much more information that they were able to capture from this information,
this data that we don't know about. And I really hope we get those answers at some point,
because it's going to make a lot of sense for you and I and everyone else, because we truly don't
know. But at one point when they catch this guy, I firmly believe they will.
We're going to get those answers. And I think it's going to be like an aha moment to realize what actually transpired.
I mean, I'm looking at it on Google Earth right now.
There doesn't appear to be like a significant up elevation.
There doesn't appear to be a significant incline after the bridge.
It's that video looks like a shot.
Again, it zoomed in and it still looks high.
So again, it's only going to get further higher. It's only going to get higher as you zoom out.
Right? I mean, that's common sense. It's not going to start going lower.
If it's a zoomed in video and it definitely looks like an upward angle, no doubt about it.
So I really wonder, man, I wonder where that video is from and again
nobody has said definitively it's from libby's phone yes they did no they they said it's from
they said definitively it's from libby's phone yes all of the all of really yes when the police
released it they said this is footage captured from libby's phone libby's phone could they be
throwing you off could there be video from libby's phone. Libby's phone. Could they be throwing you off?
Could there be video from Libby's phone and something else?
Like, okay, let me give you an example.
I don't think there's hunting in that area.
So I'm not saying this is the theory or it's plausible, but you know, you have someone
out there who puts trail cams up because they're bird watching or deer watching or whatever.
And they say, Hey, I had a camera out there that I had for my, my hobby of bird watching,
or I was following this family of deer.
I want to give you this video, but I don't want to be involved. I don't want to be connected.
And so they're portraying it as from... I mean, they could do that. It's trickery. It's fair play.
I'm not saying that's the case, but the video just seems really...
Why would they do that though? I mean, if somebody... There's a ton of people,
like the eyewitnesses in this case have remained anonymous. Nobody knows. Yeah. So why wouldn't you just say from an anonymous person's trail camera? Yeah, you're right. You know, you're right. You could definitively and and some of the things i was seeing there's so many um theories out there about that footage and i mean
people have made entire youtube videos where they break it down and take it frame by frame and show
that he might have a limp or something like that so much stuff i can't watch those videos you know
why because they're so long and it takes forever to get to the information. It'll be like, oh, new analysis of Delphi video.
And then it will be a straight up hour and 45 minutes
until they actually get to the analysis.
And then the rest of the time is just them talking,
like scrolling through their computer.
I can't do it.
And I know that I probably get a lot of information from those videos,
but I just, I don't have the attention span.
I have ADD.
No, definitely sound off in the comments about that because that's something where,
you know, we want to hear from you guys about it. Not necessarily if the video is from Libby's phone
or not. If the police are saying it's from Libby's phone, it's from Libby's phone. We have to take
them at their word for now, but we want you guys to weigh in as far as the angle, as far as what
would be the reasoning for taking it. Again, if this person went there with these intentions and they saw this little girl filming them, you would think his natural response first would be to take the phone and throw it in the river.
Why do you let her keep it on him?
He clearly didn't know.
We didn't know.
She didn't have it.
She didn't know she had her possession.
So she was doing something to throw up a decoy where he thought she was possibly filming her friend. I don't think she was standing at the end of the bridge intentionally filming him, you know,
for the purpose of, you know, sending it to someone
because he would have saw that, I would think,
and would have taken her phone from her.
Okay, so here's the thing.
Here's something interesting.
The police believe or have alluded to the fact
that they believe she did record this person
because she felt unsafe.
I believe that.
Okay, so now take it like this because
they've released what 10 seconds if of of audio video like hardly anything but when you first
when you first see him obviously you see his whole body so that tells you that there's some
distance between libby who's recording this and him yep but then you have him saying down the hill. Right. So she must have been recording the entire time, which is quite a long time.
So you've got a lot of audio and video that the police have access to that we don't.
And they said something like, oh, you know, they were talking about girl talk.
And, you know, at one point they did mention seeing a man near them.
And so they clearly were aware
of this gentleman yes i shouldn't call him a gentleman of this asshole they were clearly
aware of him yeah they clearly knew he was there and in in a couple articles i read it says that
um she was recording libya was recording but at some point she continued recording and then put her cell phone in her pocket, continuing to record.
I just had this chilling idea.
Finish your thought because you might be thinking what I'm thinking.
So they see him following them down the bridge, right?
She starts recording.
As he gets closer, she thinks, oh shit, I don't want him to know i'm recording him because he's going
to do exactly what you said right grab the phone throw it chuck it go into a rage getting mad that
that she's recording him to begin with it's going to make things worse it's going to escalate things
so she says okay i'm going to keep this recording but i'm going to put it in my pocket so if anything
happens i have it captured now do i think that libby and Abby sat there and said, this guy's coming to murder us?
No.
I think that they said something sketchy about this guy.
And if something goes down, we want to have proof because they were smart.
They knew they were alone.
They were vulnerable.
And they wanted to have some sort of defense.
And this is what she did.
But what's your chilling thought?
Coming to the realization that it's a high probability that their entire murder was recorded.
Well, the police say it was not.
If she had the recording in the pocket and the suspect didn't take the phone, maybe it stopped.
But we know iPhones and iPhones just don't randomly stop recording.
So we're to believe that it was recording when he was walking towards them, recording while it was in her pocket while they were going down the hill. And yet it just
suddenly shut off. All right. So it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. We'll never hear it. We'll
never hear it regardless. Maybe they're saying it for the sake of the family. Maybe they're not,
but it's just a terrible thought to even to have crossed my mind.
So here's the thing, because I kind of amend the same page with you.
When they gave the press conference saying that they had this, these images and this video and audio and stuff, the media was like, well, did the video or audio capture the attack?
The police said no.
However, in other articles, it mentions that whatever was on the video, whatever was on the audio, the police have it, they've seen it, and they're horrified by what's on it.
Or they said they're not going to be able to sleep or it's going to haunt them or it will never leave them, things like that.
Could that just be the fact that you see this interaction with these two girls and their murderer and you're witnessing the last moments of their life,
and that's something that's never going to leave you,
yes, could it be what you're saying,
that this attack was captured on video,
or at least audio, if it was in her pocket?
Audio.
And that's what they'll never get out of their heads?
That's possible.
Of course, yeah, they're not going to want to tell people that if that's the case,
if that was the case, this would be
something that's unheard of, unprecedented, that you've never seen, like an actual double murder
caught on camera. And I don't think that they want to turn it into any more of a sideshow than it's
already become. Well, we know, we don't know if the physical attack was caught on camera,
but we know the attack was caught on camera because the down the hill is part of it happens after he already tells them I have this or that he says something to them to indicate to them that they don't have the freedom to leave and that they have to do what he's saying.
And if we're right in the sense that it's a weapon being brandished, then there's something the attack is occurring and that is captured we know that
with a absolute degree of certainty that there was an initial interaction between this man and
these two girls that is 100 on audio at minimum and down the hill that's as they're going down
the hill it's still on audio i don't again she could have taken her phone out of her pocket but
if she did i would
believe this phone would have been taken or destroyed it was not so that leads me to believe
the phone was left in her pocket the entire time so unless her skin or something came in contact
with it it wouldn't have it wouldn't have stopped recording unless the battery died i guess i mean
that would be terrible timing that would be a while after. And it doesn't say that her phone was found in her pocket.
It says it was found near her body.
So.
I mean, so then maybe she did try to take it out.
Maybe.
I don't know.
Maybe once he had gotten them down the hill, she took it out,
stopped recording and tried to like call someone.
And that's when he attacked her.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just it's terrible. It's terrible to speculate. It's terrible to think that we could be right. And that's when he attacked her. Because at the end of the day, it's probably not going to lead to the killer. It's just going to really make a really terrible, awful situation as hard as this is to come to even worse.
So I don't agree with you on that.
No, you don't agree with me.
Go ahead.
Tell me why.
I think that I understand why they're keeping everything very secret. I don't think necessarily that speculating about what happened in a way that's like critical thinking is necessarily bad because you don't know
like our brains all work differently. You have a very small amount of people who know exactly
what's going on in this case. And don't you think that small amount of people have racked their
brains and gone through every possibility by now. So if you have
a wider net, you have more brains working and more brain cells like fizzing around, you might come up
with something that maybe, you know, the other, the people, the small amount of people who know
all the details haven't come up with yet. So I don't think that it's necessarily why they've
done this. I also don't think that they've kept everything quiet because of, you
know, they're hoping to get some guilt knowledge and things like that, like maybe to some extent.
But I really just think it's because it's Delphi. It's a small town. They've all become
really close to these families. They've all become really close to Abby and Libby, the law
enforcement professionals that are working on this case. They've taken them as their own daughters.
And I think that they're kind of behaving almost as if this was their family member
at this point, which isn't necessarily always the best thing in this case, because you wouldn't
want a police officer working on their own family member's murder, right?
No.
No, I definitely think there's some empathy, some sympathy with it where it's, you know,
they're trying to, you know, save to save them from this being even worse.
Yeah.
I will say that it's a small group in relation to how many people know about this case, but I'm fairly certain that the number of individuals who have taken a look at this video, at these photos, listened to the audio is probably in the hundreds.
And that doesn't seem like a lot.
Hundreds. I don't think it's in the hundreds. I mean, I know you're talking FBI, you're talking
ISP, you're talking, you know, Carroll County Sheriff, like I get it, but I still-
I'm talking experts, audio engineers, video experts. I think that there's been a group-
Yeah, but those audio engineers and video experts, they work with the FBI. They haven't
brought in any outside contractors.
I'm saying they could have. So we have guys that we brought in.
I don't think they did. It was a couple articles I read today, because I've been going through a lot of stuff today, where they pretty much said, we're keeping this all in-house. I don't think they hired any outside people. They don't want any leads. I mean, what I'm saying is, and we've done it on cases where we might bring someone in
who is an expert in entomology, right?
So one of the cases that I worked, we had someone who had fly larvae in their eyes,
and we wanted to figure out based on the stage of the fly larvae at the time the body was
found, how long was the body there?
This person had to go through the most extensive background check.
They had to sign NDAs, confidentiality agreements, all these things.
And we never put out publicly to this day that this person came in from another state
and they consulted on this case.
We paid for their flights, their hotel, all that, but they did it for free.
They just wanted to help.
We got this connection, even though they're not employed by the FBI, we got this connection
through the FBI.
We were talking about putting a pig out in the area where the body was found and recreating
the scene at the same time of year under the same weather conditions to see if we could
duplicate or replicate the fly larvae at that time.
This person, again, to this day, nobody knows about them.
So I do believe that they're probably keeping it in-house for the most of the part of it.
But I wouldn't be surprised if you came out a week later and told me, oh, Derek, actually, there's some rumors that they brought in someone in this specialty who's not a member of the FBI but is the best at what they do.
But I don't have anything to prove that, though. I'm just saying I'm speculating.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. I don't I don't think that they have just because of the popularity,
like the media exposure of this case. And you're the one that told me I think it was like literally
a week ago today. NDAs don't mean shit. They'll just leak it anonymously and you'll never be able
to like put it back to them when you're dealing with a case like this, I mean, I've seen people out
there advertising like, I'm willing to pay money for information about this case. If you were out
there on those trails, if you saw something, if you have pictures, I will pay you money
for those pictures for that information. There's like literal old school, early 2000 paparazzi
out there right now on this case, trying to get any information they can. So I think that they
probably kept it in house for the most part. It's just, I've never seen a case this locked down
before. Again, I'm not going to, I don't have a debate for it. I don't have any proof to dispute
you. I just, from my experience, I could see how there may be people brought in.
And if we found out there were, if they solve this case and they said, you know, we brought
in a person from California who's in the private sector and they were a huge contributor to
solving this case, I wouldn't be like, oh my God, I can't believe they didn't share
that with us.
If that comes out, Derek, I'll buy you a beer and I will say the words, you were right.
Here's your beer.
I'll take it.
Just give me an apple juice.
Oh, it's adorable.
I don't like beer.
I'm not a big beer guy.
Really?
You know what I drink.
I don't like beer either.
I'm just saying,
you seem like a beer guy.
Dude, what did I drink a beer with
when we were in CrimeCon at all?
No, no, you did not.
You drank alcohol from your room.
Jameson and ginger ale, baby. he comes to the bar with a glass already
it's cheaper i had some beers there i had some drinks there stop i think i'm like i was dying man
back to the story so what i do want to say is um I wouldn't put anything past them because they've kept this so like and then every so often they'll be like, actually, we have this and we've had this for the whole time.
And everybody's like, holy shit, what are you kidding me?
We haven't like said this.
So they're pretty good at the secret keeping game.
And Indiana State Police spokesman Dave Burstyn would later praise Libby for her quick thinking. He referred to her
as a hero for having the presence of mind to start recording someone she felt was suspicious.
And she's been referred to as a hero in many publications by many people. It's just somebody
that young. Somebody that young is usually still very naive to the dangers of the world. And
they're especially living in small town Delphi.
Like, they're not going to be suspicious of some guy walking on the bridge.
But maybe it was small town Delphi.
And maybe they didn't recognize this person, which is going to tie in later.
Because we all know that a lot of the comments that have come from law enforcement on this case are saying,
we think this person lives in Delphi. We think this person is a local. And that's what's most
terrifying about it, I think, is that these people have to continue living thinking that this guy is
amongst them still. But maybe because they thought they knew most people in Delphi, they saw somebody
they didn't recognize, and that's what made them suspicious. So there's always that option.
In late 2017,
Sergeant Holman, he was the lead investigator on the case at that time, he revealed that the police
had more audio from Libby's phone that had not been released, which I think we can all
agree that we kind of knew. That's the initial encounter, for sure.
We all kind of knew that. And in April of 2019, a somewhat longer version of the recording was
released. So in this one, you hear Bridge Guy
saying, guys, down the hill. And there's a ton of debate online as to whether the word guys
actually came right before he said down the hill. So he approached them and he's like,
guys down the hill. Or if he said guys, and then there was some conversation between himself and
Abby and Libby that was then later removed by law enforcement so that we wouldn't hear it.
And then they just kind of spliced in down the hill.
I think that they did this because they released the down the hill clip.
And obviously they were hoping that somebody would recognize this person's voice and say it's so quick, so quick.
And then say like, oh, you know, that's my neighbor's uncle, Fred.
But it never happened. So then they were like, well, you know, that's my neighbor's uncle Fred, but it never happened.
So then they were like, well, we'll give them more. But then they just gave us one extra word,
which how does that help? Like, how does that give us a better indication of how he sounds? Or,
you know, it's just, I'm not sure what the purpose of it was. There's a lot that happened
in this investigation. Not initially, like not during the search. I really respect how they pulled out all the stops for them they did the best they
could with what they had but afterwards like there's so much that happens that i'm like
make it make sense what why release longer audio this just has one additional word it doesn't help
us yeah i agree it doesn't didn't add too much to it i you know i don't know why they wouldn't
release more i could think that maybe it was really bad.
What he said.
And they're just doing it.
Yeah.
To what,
to what you said earlier to protect Kelsey and her family,
where he could have,
could have said something like,
guys,
if you make a move,
I'm going to kill you.
You know what I mean?
Something along those lines.
And they were just like,
we don't want her family hearing this or their family hearing this.
I,
again, it could be that where they're looking at them they're treating kelsey like their own daughter and abby and libby like their own daughter and they're they're doing
it to protect the family but again there is that balance of what's what's important here finding
this person or protecting the the feelings of the family members and both i think there is a balance yeah yeah yeah but i'm
sure what was said i think we can all reasonably assume that it wasn't a polite conversation
especially with down the hill he didn't ask them politely would you please go down the hill
at that point he was already he had already taken control of the situation he had he had
he had displayed his authority whether that was with physical force or with a
weapon. So they felt they no longer had the freedom to leave. And he was demanding that
they do certain things. And I'm assuming that wasn't the first thing he said in that manner.
And I'm going to play the clip of him saying, guys down the hill. And you guys let me know what you think. To me, he sounds like an
older guy. He's got kind of a gravelly voice. He definitely has that older guy sound to his voice.
And I just, I don't think that it adds a ton of perspective. If you're trying to figure out like who this guy is based on what he sounds like.
I think that they probably could have found other things he said and maybe like taken out the bad stuff.
At this point, it's going on six years, you know, five years.
They haven't found him.
Which leads me to believe they either know who he is, but they don't have enough to arrest him or they literally have no idea. And if that's the case, if it's option B,
then you do need to start releasing a little bit more because the public at this point is your
greatest asset. It'd be interesting. And it could be what you just said, the first thing,
they might already have their guy. And for for a while um i just can't imagine especially
they're so insistent that he's like local they they even sort of like and you'll see in later
press conferences they sort of like parry with him like you know we know you're watching like
we we you want to know what we know it's just you, it's kind of like they're trying to like draw him out.
And so it makes me think that they probably have a strong hunch of who he is, but we don't know.
So after this, the main focus of the investigation became this bridge guy individual, and the police
released a composite sketch, which was created by an artist. But this is a tough one because the only images we have of this guy
are, like you said, from kind of far away.
It's zoomed in, so it makes it grainy.
He's got his hands in his pockets,
his head's down as he walks over the high bridge
in a very similar posture that Abby had
when Libby snapped a photo of her walking over the bridge.
So you can't really see his face.
He's wearing this little jolly cap,
you know, and the man in the first sketch released, he looks to be like kind of older.
You know, I'm going to jump around a little bit in the timeline because I want to have a
conversation about two different composite sketches, because as we know, there's two
sketches released. And so it seemed like the first sketch had been created with the help of eyewitnesses
who believed they may have seen Bridge Guy that day. So we don't really have a lot of eyewitnesses
either. We have two that I know of. The first one on Reddit and stuff, they call him Flannel
Shirt Guy because, you know, on Reddit and these forums, they use like acronyms. So BG is Bridge
Guy and FSG is Flannel Shirt Guy. And I tell you what, it takes me straight up longer to figure out what these acronyms mean
than it does for me to actually get the conversation and the actual tone of what's happening
because I'm not on Reddit and stuff in my everyday life.
So I don't know these acronyms.
But flannel shirt guy is the older man that Libby's father, Derek, had spoken to
when he was searching for the girls after they hadn't met him at the entrance to the trails on February 13th.
So if you remember, Derek didn't see Abby and Libby.
He didn't know where they were.
Libby wasn't answering her phone.
So he starts walking towards the bridge.
He comes across an older gentleman.
He's like, hey, did you see two young girls over there?
And Flannelshirt Guy was like, no, I didn't see anyone over by the
bridge, but I did see some people down by the creek. And he sent Derek off in like a completely
different direction. So it seems that he's officially considered like an eyewitness by
law enforcement, but many people online, they haven't missed the fact that flannel shirt guy
told Derek that he'd just come from the bridge. No one was there.
And then he sent Derek off like in a different direction. Now, apparently this man, he would go
to this area and walk the trails almost every day. He was kind of known to do that. He was very
familiar with the area. And as we know, law enforcement has been very vocal about the fact
that they believe bridge guy could be local to Delphi. So a lot of people speculate whether
flannel shirt guy was bridge guy. Like
maybe he had the hat on, maybe he had the coat on. And then after he killed Abby and Libby,
because if you think about it, Derek was out there, you know, shortly after 3.30, right?
So if this had happened and bridge guy took off his coat, took off his hat, threw it in the bushes somewhere, planning to come back for it,
and then just started strolling back towards the street like he was just a regular guy.
And then he meets Derek and Derek's looking for these two little girls that this guy just murdered.
And he's going to be like, oh, no, no, no, they're not up there.
I think they're down there somewhere.
I don't personally buy this.
I'm sure he's been looked into thoroughly since he was one of the people that's known to be at the Monon High Bridge area that day. So I'm sure the of Abby and Libby. And she said that she'd been on the trail that day just shortly after Abby and Libby
were there. And she said, quote, I even walked all the way across the bridge and back. I only
saw a guy when I first got there and another couple once I got on the bridge. I didn't see
the girls at all. I also didn't take the trail that leads to the right only took the trail that leads to the bridge, end quote.
So the first police sketch, which had been made, you know, what we thought early on in the investigation, but it wasn't released until July of 2017, this sketch is apparently based on the
testimony of eyewitnesses who saw a man at the bridge that day. He looks to be in his 40s or 50s,
he's kind of heavyset, know he's wearing he's wearing that little
jaunty cap he has some stubble like it looks like he's unshaven you know kind of like a goatee's
forming and his hair appears to be a little unkempt and it's shoulder length i think that we
knew before then um but i don't think i wanted to believe it until they released the picture of him
from libby's phone and that's when it became more real
for me that's when I realized wow this man this is who did this this is why my sister's not here
anymore yeah so before that was released we had no idea who it was we didn't have any idea what
he looked like we didn't know if it was a man or a woman or people or a person. At that time, we didn't really know.
But I was sitting in my Spanish class and my teacher shut the door and said, are you
guys okay if we watch this?
I think she knew that I was going to watch it, whether they watched it with me or not.
And so she turned it on.
And as soon as he came on the screen, my face just kind of like I remember this feeling of sadness that hit me all over again. Like I had just been able to go back to school. I was able to live again. And all of a sudden I have to see this person, this guy that doesn't even really have a face. It has a sketch, but that's not a picture. Like that might not be what he looks like. But this person that Libby took a video of took her life. And I, it was
a moment of realization for me that this really is what happened. Like it, I can't deny it anymore.
Their lives were taken by this man. Um, I couldn't be in denial anymore. So I think at that point, that's when it became
so real. And that's really when I had all of my emotions and struggled with my mental health the
most, I think, because it became more real. But then another sketch was released during
a press conference in April of 2019. And it looks like a completely different person,
like a completely different person. like a completely different person.
And that's because according to the police, it is a completely different person.
And we didn't really understand that when the sketch first came out. I remember
we had this bridge guy sketch and like it's emblazoned in my mind. Like I can close my
eyes right now and see this first sketch. And then this random other sketch comes out and
they're like, this is Bridge Guy. And everyone was like, seriously, what is happening here?
This new sketch dude is clearly like 20 years younger than the old sketch dude. He looks
completely different. He looks to be in his 20s. He's clean cut. He's shaven, you know,
just completely different. And so everybody, rightly so, was like, what the heck? Man,
we've been looking for this dude for like two years and now you show us a picture of a completely
different dude. What the hell's going on here? So law enforcement tried to clear things up by
stating that the man in the initial sketch, first bridge guy, he's no longer
a person of interest. And the sketch of the man that was released in April of 2019 is actually
representative of the face of the person captured on Libby's phone as he walked over the bridge.
I don't know how they know that because looking at those pictures, I can't see his face. I'm not
sure. But actually, we might get some insight into that
because trooper Taylor Bryant he's a sketch artist with the Indiana State Police he was actually the
one who did this second sketch not the first one and he told Indy Star that he basically made
this sketch not from the photograph of Bridge Guy necessarily, but from eyewitness descriptions of him.
And he was like, you know,
the sketch is going to be based on how a particular witness describes the suspect.
And if there's more than one witness, then I'll draw more than one sketch.
However, he didn't draw the first sketch.
This was the only sketch that he drew.
And so he only drew one sketch, which leads you to wonder, was there only one legitimate eyewitness who potentially saw a bridge guy?
Yeah. And it's unfortunate because you said something earlier, the first sketch,
bridge guy one, right? We'll just call him very distinct face. It's someone that is very
distinguishable from most people. And then we were talking about this with
kelsey who were kind of joking about it but that second sketch looks like me it looks yeah kelsey
said kelsey said that i mean it was like it could be anybody it's so like bland and vague and it's
it it doesn't even have the hat on that we know the suspect had on it so it doesn't it just it
completely throws you off because it looks like it could be a college kid and we know from the video from the short little video we have this
guy doesn't appear to be a college kid the way he's dressed the clothes he's wearing could he
have been wearing those clothes to throw people off of course but in the sketch itself the first
sketch looks like the guy in a little irish sc, the little cap that you're like, okay, that fits. The second guy, nothing like that photo.
At least what your mind wants to create.
That's not the visual you have.
That's what I'm saying, man.
Now forever, when I see that picture, that faraway picture of Bridge Guy, I will always
see him with the face of sketch number one.
Because, I mean, it looks like that's what he should look like.
It fits.
It works.
Then they bring out the second sketch.
Yeah, he looks like a frat boy, you know?
He's got like gray bone structure
and this nice curly hair
looking like Corey Matthews from Boy Meets World.
And there's no hat, you know?
There's, he doesn't look like the guy
who's wearing like the Carhartt jacket
and, you know, kind of doesn't look like the guy who's wearing like the carhartt jacket and
you know kind of shuffling along the bridge it just doesn't fit for me however the police are
saying listen no this number one sketch nothing to do nothing to do with it like that's not the guy
on libby's phone this guy is and it doesn't add up. Well, something must've come up that
they're not releasing because here's the thing. You know what's worse than releasing a sketch of
someone who's not the suspect? What's worse than that? Ruling out a sketch that is of the suspect,
ruling out a sketch of the suspect when you're not sure if it's him or not. So there's something for them to come out
confidently in 2019 and say, the first sketch, we can tell you with 100% certainty he is no longer
a person of interest. They got to be pretty damn sure because if they're wrong, it's one of the
all-time F-ups of investigations in the history of investigation. So I would assume something
came forward or they
found this person whatever it may be there's a reason they're so confident and i would even say
this and kelsey didn't say anything but it felt like kelsey was pretty confident about it as well
because i remember her saying one of my only regrets is that they released that sketch so
quickly all right so here's here's my conspiracy theory, right? Roll with it. Roll with it. It turns out that frat boy Corey Matthews' sketch was actually the first sketch created.
That's right.
Just three days after.
So February 17th was when this sketch was made.
So this was the first sketch.
I think the bridge guy little jaunty cap sketch was completely just a random red herring.
I think the police wanted a bridge guy, the real bridge guy, Corey Matthews, to think they are looking in the wrong direction.
They're looking for somebody who doesn't exist.
They're looking for somebody who's definitely not me.
But it was like two years, man, two years before they released the real sketch so i just don't see how
they thought that that would be productive now you're the one giving cops too much credit
no i i 100 million percent and and okay if you come up with something that will disprove that
i think because we just said it like bridge guy sketch number one which ended up being
number two it looks as if like if you looked at that dude on the bridge that is the face and
that's kind of how you would expect him to look based on how he's dressed and based on like his
like hunched shoulders and how he's kind of looking down like that is how you would expect
that guy to look so i think they were, just draw up like a sketch of this
guy that kind of looks kind of scummy and, you know, kind of looks like he'd be wearing this
big bulky jacket and this little cap. And what do you think he would look like? Make that and
we'll put that out to throw the real suspect off so he gets comfortable. He makes a mistake or he
talks to somebody or he starts bragging like, oh, haha, the police like think that they, you know,
they know what the suspect looks like,
but they have no idea. Like that sketch doesn't even look anything like the suspect, even if they
didn't come out and confess and say, I did it and they don't have me. If they said something like,
that doesn't look anything like the suspect, somebody might say, well, how would you know?
What does the suspect look like? And this is going to raise a red flag. I think they were
hoping that would happen, but then it didn't. And then they were like, shit, this didn't work. And now we have to release the real sketch two
years later and everybody's going to be super suspicious about it, which we all were. We were
like, what the heck? So you're telling us we've been looking for the wrong guy. We've been
comparing this sketch to potential suspects for two years and it's not even the person?
Because they've never said who this
person even was or like if they were a person of interest or if they picked them up and cleared
them and that's why they're no longer like an issue it's just so i don't know i know i know
it doesn't it sounds kind of crazy but crazier things have happened hey it's an it's an interesting
theory i think you and you even point us out the two years the duration is the one thing that that's a long time to put up with this
to put out this false sketch you know because now all these people that are looking for this poor
man who looks nothing like you know this that does look like that sketch and there was a few of them
um are being implicated in these murders and and if it was used as a decoy man they they definitely
they sold that one for that's a lot.
That's some dedication to which is why they'll never admit it.
Conspiracy theory.
They'll never admit it because, you know, how many people got like falsely accused and like harassed on social media?
They looked like this this sketch, which I think is a fake sketch at this point.
The police are never going to be like, yeah, we're just psych.
No, they're never going to admit it.
Oops.
Well, once this new sketch came out, though, law enforcement continued asking for tips.
And they were like, hey, if you see this, this guy, let us know.
Even though every time I close my eyes, I still see that first sketch.
And they told the public that the age range of the suspect could be anywhere from 18 to 40 and he might be or he might appear to be
younger than his actual age which i don't get it man that kid in that picture doesn't look
much more than 25 years old what do you think yeah no i agree i you know i just don't know
how good of a description it is because the artist isn't going to put anything in there
that's not supportive of what the witness you know is. So they can only put what they have.
And it's based on how good of a look this person or persons got at this individual.
And if it wasn't that good, that's why the photo's vague.
And again, I don't know how...
The only way that person would be identified through that sketch is if there's a family
member out there who knows that someone they know was not around at this time
when this occurred kind of sounds like the recording has done some weird shit in the past
and then you see the photo and it's like that's jimmy that's jimmy you know but other than that
if you don't know this person very well i don't think someone passing them in a convenience store
is going to look at that person and go that looks like the sketch sketch because it's so, I mean, it could be anyone.
It's so nondescript, man.
I'm looking at it right now.
I'm about to call the police and phone in a tip because this guy looks like my nine-year-old
son, okay?
This could be my son, Aiden.
I'm going to call in the police and be like, I mean, it looks like my son, Aiden, so we
got to do something here.
It's real bad.
I don't know what they expect to gain from this, but the police also said, like, listen, this happened in 2017.
We're releasing this sketch in 2019.
Obviously, this guy could look completely different at this point because he knows that, you know, he was involved in this and maybe he changed his appearance.
Maybe he, like, shaved his head or dyed his hair.
Maybe he tried growing some facial hair, even though I don't know if he could because he looks to be about 12. And he was described as a white male between 5'6
and 5'10 with reddish hair, weighing between 180 and 220 pounds, which once again, that's a pretty
big gap. Okay, that's 40 pounds, man. And I think they had a tough time distinguishing his actual
weight because of the way that he was dressed on February 13th. You know, he's got this big coat on, possibly multiple layers underneath that.
I personally have always felt that what we do see of Bridge Guy in these pictures is not what he
actually looks like body type wise. I think he purposely dressed that way in layers and with
that little hat so he'd be disguised in some way because remember we were talking about in part one,
like this was an unseasonably warm day
to the point where Abby and Libby didn't even think
that they would need to bring sweatshirts or jackets.
And this guy's got like this big Carhartt like work coat on.
Those things are warm, man, okay?
Real warm.
And it looks like he's got a couple of shirts on underneath.
So like why you dress so warmly
when it's a
beautiful, sunny, like unseasonably warm day in February? Why do you have so many clothes on? I
think he was trying to disguise himself, which goes back to what you were saying earlier and
what I've always believed that this was premeditated and that he went there that day to commit this
crime. And I've had arguments with people where they're like, no, I don't think it was premeditated.
Like he would have to know that somebody would be there.
I don't think that,
and you probably have a better indication of this
to clarify for me,
but I don't think that people like this,
who go out searching for somebody to hurt or murder,
I'm not sure that they're like,
oh, what if there's nobody out there?
They're kind of just like have an impulse to go and find somebody to attack, to victimize, and they'll go
to one spot. Maybe he was like, let me go to the Monon High Bridge. School's off for the day. I
know that this is an area where young kids hang out because there's not much else to do in Delphi,
as Kelsey told us in part one.
So if there's going to be kids out and about on this very nice day, there'll probably be a Monon High Bridge. And if I don't find any kids there, I'll go to another location until I find
my victim. And he happened to stumble across Abby and Libby. And I don't even know necessarily
if he was hoping to find two young girls together, but I think that there probably
weren't many other options and it probably wasn't his ideal way of it going because now you have to
deal with two girls instead of one. So you have more to manage and you have more to keep track of.
But he probably saw them and he was like, okay, I have this impulse. I'm here to do this.
I don't want to go someplace else.
So I'm going to take my chances here.
Yeah, I would even go as far as saying this might not be the first or second or even third
time he's been to this area in the last month or two.
He might have gone there on numerous occasions, casing out the place, looking for the right
victim of opportunity.
And then everything else you just laid out where he saw Abby and Libby and said, hey, this is it. This is what I'm going to go for. Because he
could have been casing out this place with these types of clothes, throwing off his look on
numerous occasions. And that day was just the day. So in your experience, what would somebody
like this be looking for as far as a victim of opportunity? Young kids without parents around? Yeah. Young kids, small in size, someone that they could physically subdue if they needed to.
If you have a gun or a knife, then obviously you have a lot more flexibility. I think also
looking at the surrounding area, not just the two victims, but also are there other people in the
area that could intervene or be good witnesses are there
people that could identify him he's going to know as he's walking up that trail and as he's walking
you know around that area how many potential people could be in the area that may hear the
girl scream or something like that so he was probably looking at the moment he's crossing
the bridge he sees there's nowhere for them to escape as kelsey laid out to us where once you
cross that bridge there's only one way back out and that's going back across. So once they cross,
they're now funneled in essentially where he's going to walk towards them and there's nowhere
for them to go. So he's got them in the right location. They fit the right age, the right size,
whatever he was looking for in a victim, they fit that description. And again, to your point,
you're probably right. He didn't suspect that there would be two, but he saw that it fit most of the parameters he was
looking for. And he decided that because there was no one else around, he was going to take the risk.
Yeah. And I almost feel like he was watching them for maybe a little bit longer,
waited for them to step-
He might've saw them come in.
Yeah. Waited for them to step onto that bridge. And then he was like, all right. He's got them. Yeah. Yeah. Because if they're, if they're on the
other side of the bridge for everyone else, because again, I didn't know this until Kelsey
explained it to me. If they're on the opposite side of the bridge from where they were,
there's so many areas they can run to the left. They can run to the right. They can run past him.
There's so many areas to escape where they can run in the opposite direction of him.
But once you cross over
that bridge, there's only really one place to go and that's down the hill. And he knew that. And,
and, and that's what Kelsey was explaining to us because I did, I wasn't aware. So she said,
once you go across that bridge, it's, you know, a lot of the times out of courtesy,
people will wait for one person to cross before the other one crosses the opposite way.
Cause it's so narrow. So by him crossing, even if they didn't have a complete suspicion that he was up
to something, so no good, they wouldn't have tried to cross with him because that wasn't the,
that wasn't the common practice there. So he knew by him making that walk,
they were more than likely going to wait on the other side for him to cross over.
And then once he did that, there's nowhere for them to go,
especially if he shows a weapon of some sort.
I just have this ongoing fantasy for the past several years
where bridge guy's like,
He falls off the bridge.
I'm going to get them, right?
And he follows them and he's like, down the hill.
And then Abby and Libby just pull out these crazy martial arts techniques
and they're just flying around him, crouching tiger, hidden dragon,
and they just kick him off the bridge and he goes flying.
And then they're like, not today.
I just wish that that's the way it would have ended.
Because people like this that that prey on the vulnerable, that prey on children specifically
because they know they don't have these self-defense techniques, they just make me disgusted. And I just want to see this different ending for it.
I think that's why a lot of times with people like this, you see that they usually start by
harming animals because they're cowards, right? I'm not saying that because it's the easy thing.
They're cowards. They know they have no power over someone their own size so they have they get gratification and in hurting
defenseless animals or young children they're the worst of the worst of the worst and so they start
off with you know little you know harmless animals and they escalate to small children and that's a
common story we hear a lot with these sickos i almost i almost made this episode uh all right but um sickos
i definitely saw most of it but um but yeah so it's it doesn't he saw an opportunity he saw two
young girls that he felt he could overpower and that's that's the gratification in it for him
right is is is taking control of these girls and doing what he wants with them and yeah i would love to see him get mule kicked off a bridge onto his head you know how did you
know i was thinking mule kick it's like you're in my head i didn't say mule kick man you got that
from my brain mule kicks are real mule kicks hurt yeah that's real it's a little bit more than just
kicking it's it's powerful it's like some tomb raider tomb raider stuff there yeah reminds me
of that movie like 300 where he boots the guy into the hole into in the beginning of the movie
i just want to make a whole i want to make a whole movie where bridge guy just gets the shit kicked
out of him by like every young teenage girl where he's just sitting there and like all the teenage
girls of the world come up and like kick him in the nuts a million times but the fact that this
guy like you said people like this they start off with animals and you
know children and stuff because they know they have power over them any individual right any
individual period whether you're trying to exert your power or will against an animal or a small
child or any other human being you're screwed up in the head okay you don't get to exert your power
over anybody nobody is like your minion or under your control or entitled or,
you know, has to do what you say. So anybody who feels the need to like exert their power,
show their power over another individual, in my opinion, is just two steps away from being a
murderer. So let's cut that shit out. We can't do this anymore. All right. You got to live and let
live. And people like this, they want to exert their power over somebody who's weaker or somebody who's smaller or somebody that they can easily
control. You shouldn't want to control anybody. So you need to get some help if that's you.
I'm going to hit this quick because I know we're running long in this episode, but I think it's
important to put it out there because maybe one day it helps someone else. And this is nothing
against Abby or Libby at all, because 99% of the people that are in this
exact situation would do this exact same thing. But I hope if you take anything from this episode,
you take this. If you're ever in a situation, whether it's at a food market or a trail,
and you have someone approach you, whether they have a gun, whether they have a knife,
whatever it may be, if they direct you to get in a car or go down a hill into the woods,
whatever it may be, please don't do it. I know it sounds crazy, but statistically speaking,
they're going to kill you. So once you go with them, it's over for you at that point. You're
better off taking the chance, whether they have a gun or a knife and running in the opposite
direction, do zigzag patterns. There's so many rumors, so many theories about their, how to get away from someone with a gun,
pull their punk card, make them shoot you in the back. Don't go with them voluntarily.
Even if they have a gun, even if you're saying to yourself, statistically speaking,
they're going to be able to shoot me as soon as I run, make them do that. Because in many cases,
and it's probably in this one, if he had a gun, it doesn't sound
like anyone heard gunshots or anything.
So even though he might have had a gun, it doesn't appear he used it.
So make them, because they don't want to draw attention to themselves.
Make them do that.
Cause a scene, start screaming, run away as fast as you can, but by no means conform to
what they want.
Because if they're telling you to go somewhere that's
off the beaten path or in a vehicle, it's because they intend on doing something that they don't
want others to see. That's the one thing I would say. But now you're a 14, 13-year-old girl,
I can see how you would freeze. And I think a lot of people, even as adults, would freeze.
But I'm here to tell you, please, if you remember anything from this, I hope nobody is ever in this situation.
But don't conform or do what they ask because they're only doing that to try to prevent them from being caught from what they're about to do.
That's a tough one.
I feel like it's situationally based.
They were already kind of in this isolated area.
I don't know.
Like sometimes they say, like, just go along with them to buy yourself some time.
Maybe you can find like an escape method.
I always say just just do the Charlie charlie manson method and just act completely insane confused that's what
he did like because he was smaller and then the other guys in prison and they beat up on him
so he just started acting completely bananas and then they were like what is going on with this guy
and as they're like trying to process what the hell you're doing, you bum rush them or run away
or honestly jump into the creek at that point.
But you've got to throw them off.
I'm not ever going to tell a 13 or 14 year old
like run away and make them shoot you in the back.
I am.
I am.
I would tell my own kids.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
This is information.
I actually just had this conversation with tenley
over if she was lost at a park not to this extreme but it was about something else i won't go there
because again it's a whole different conversation i would rather you take the chance because
there's a there's a possibility i'm not saying this is guaranteed that they're not going to
pull the trigger there's a guarantee there's not there's a possibility the gun isn't even real
there's a possibility that there may't even real. There's a possibility
that there may be someone in the immediate area that if they fire a shot and miss, now they're
going to run because they know that they're now being detected by other people in the area and
that they may flee the area themselves. Again, you may not agree with me. Others out there may
not agree with me. I'm only telling you what I will tell my own daughters, because from a historical perspective, seeing these cases and how they play out,
when someone tells you to go somewhere with them, whether it's in a vehicle, like on a carjacking
or in a parking lot, it usually doesn't end well. And so I'd rather you take your fate in your own
hand and make a run for it and hope that the person's a bad shot. Um, cause I can tell you
right now, if there was a guy who approached me while I was sitting
in the driver's seat and he said, hey, move over, I'm taking your car.
On everything I love, I would hop over to the passenger seat and immediately roll out
the passenger side door.
Let him shoot me in the back.
I'm not going with you because where we go, it's not going to end well for me.
So I'm going to take my fate in my own hand and hope that you hit me in the ass or in the leg and I'm going to get out of there.
And I'm not saying that to be funny, but that's what I would do. You choose to do what you want,
but that's what I'm doing. I don't disagree with you necessarily. I think it's easier said than
done when you're faced with a gun. Of course, you freeze.
When you're faced with a gun because then you're- Yep. When you're faced with a gun. Because then you're. Yep. That's why I prefaced it.
That's why I prefaced that.
You're faced with your own mortality at that point.
So you're thinking like, okay, I don't want to die this second.
So let me see if I can buy some time.
Let me see if I just go along with this.
Because they say that like when you're getting carjacked or when you're getting robbed, like
just give them what they want.
Right.
Which I.
Yep.
Oh, and I would do that.
Yeah.
I would do that.
You want my wallet? You want my keys?
Take it all. But I'm not going with you. You can have whatever you want, but I'm not going with
you. Here's my wallet. Here's my pants. Here's my belt buckle. You have it all, buddy. But if you
ask me to go with you, you're going to have to kill me. And to your point, just to reiterate it,
I am no way, shape, or form saying that they did anything wrong because most people would freeze but maybe god forbid someone who's watching this or listening
to this is faced with a situation like that maybe not even as extreme maybe this they remember this
maybe and that's the decision helps them make their decision and we did do a live on my channel
months almost a year ago at this point where we talked about certain tools that you personally have to help yourself in these situations.
And I think that we should probably do a Crime Weekly special about that because, you know, a quote unquote weapons on us that we think we can
use against someone who's trying to hurt us, we might feel a little bit more brave when defending
our own lives. So we probably should do an episode on that, like techniques that can be done,
tools that can be used to get yourself out of these situations because none of us want to be
sitting ducks. So let us know in the comments if you would like to see something like that.
Absolutely. That's a physical preparation side of it. And what we've been talking about for the
last five minutes is the mental preparation, putting yourself in that situation before you're
in it and contemplating what you would do in that situation so that if it does happen,
you have an idea. As much as you could be, I guess.
So in the 2019 press conference where they released this new picture, ISP, which stands for Indiana State
Police, in case anybody didn't know, ISP Superintendent Doug Carter addressed the
killer directly. I really like Doug Carter. In my opinion, this is one of the most moving and
powerful speeches I've ever heard in a press conference. He said, quote, to the killer who
may be in this room, we believe you are hiding in plain sight. In more than two years,
you never thought we would shift gears to a different investigative strategy, but we have.
We know this is about power to you. You want to know what we know, and one day you will. We have likely interviewed you or someone close to you. A question to you, what will those closest to you
think when they find out that you brutally murdered two little girls? Only a coward would do such a thing, end quote. Just like with the new sketch that was released
later, they don't tell us that these press conferences are going to happen the day before.
They tell us that morning. I think in the case of the newer sketch, we did know the day before,
but they don't tell you
what they don't tell you what it is they just say hey we're having a press conference so like i said
kind of something he said in here made me think that this first sketch was released to make the
suspect think the police were following the wrong carrot you know he said you never thought we would
switch gears and we would never switch gears to a different investigative strategy, but we have. And he also says, only a coward would brutally
murder two little girls, which makes me think that this was a very horrible attack. But do you
see what I mean now when I'm saying I think that they maybe released that sketch as a red herring,
how that might be possible based on what Doug said? Yeah, I agree with you. And that's some of the things that I've even pointed out. Who am I to
disagree with you? It's plausible because we just don't know. A lot of the things we talked about
today, we just don't know the answer. And that's what we're doing. That's what a lot of other
people have done. You speculate. Well, Superintendent Carter also told the
killer that he believed they might have a little bit of a conscience left, saying, quote, I can assure you that how you left them in the woods is not what they're experiencing today. And I want the family to know that when I take my last breath on this earth, I'll be thinking of them, end quote. real close to these girls. It's going to follow these law enforcement officers until the day that they die.
Literally. And then Carter went on to
say that he believed the suspect was either from
the area, had visited before,
or had lived in Delphi for a number
of years. And he felt
this way due to new information
that suggested the killer was local
and he either still lived
and or worked in
Delphi or visited frequently. They never tell us
what this new information is that makes them think this, but that's what they think. As to whether or
not police were looking for one suspect or more, Sergeant Kim Riley of the ISP said, quote,
we're not ruling out anything at this point in time. There's still a possibility of a second
person involved in this case. We don't want to say the old sketch is not involved. We just want to say that this new
sketch is more indicative of what we're looking for at this time, end quote. Locals around Delphi
did not find their worries eased after this press conference. It made them more afraid that a killer
could and possibly would be hiding amongst them. Local business owner John McKean told Inside Edition,
quote,
It's not something the community hasn't been thinking of for two years, really.
It's unsettling to think that somebody like that is amongst us.
You feel like you know everyone,
but maybe you don't know them quite as well as you think you do.
End quote.
So the FBI, they were involved from the beginning.
They put together a list of behavioral clues that could help lead to the killer,
such as, like, this person might have a change in their daily routines, including modified sleep patterns or increased use of alcohol or drugs.
The suspect may have cleaned or disposed of clothing or shoes that may have been worn on February 13th.
He may have missed work or other engagements.
He might be anxious, nervous or irritable.
He may be paying excessive attention to the investigation media coverage. He might want to have these lengthy conversations and debates
related to the murders. Now, John Douglas, who needs no introduction, I hope, because he is
Mindhunter. You know, he's a legend. He sat down with Inside Edition and he gave his own take on
the case. He said that the use of the word guys in the extended audio led him to believe that
the killer might have known Abby and Libby, you know, because he kind of approached them and he,
I don't, I don't agree with that. Yeah, I just said he's a legend. I don't agree with this. But
Douglas also theorized that the killer would probably have some kind of criminal history
saying, quote, you don't wake up one day and commit a double homicide like this. There has to be some kind of trail, end quote. Douglas had some advice for the investigators working on the
case, and he kind of threw some shade. I'm not going to lie. He definitely threw some shade.
So he talked about the April 2019 press conference where Carter addressed the killer as if you were
like in the room or at least watching. And John Douglas said, quote, that tactic, if they're going to do it,
they should have done it two years ago. They should also be checking and looking to see
people who were here. Now they came up with some reason to leave town, end quote. So I don't think
that Abby and Libby knew their killer because if they had, they probably wouldn't have felt
unsafe and they wouldn't have been recording him, in my opinion. But I don't know. John Douglas is
the GOAT. It's so hard. I don't want to disagree with him, but I don't think
that's the case. What do you think? I'll disagree with him. I don't think it's the case. I have no
problem disagreeing with him. I don't think it's the case. But I will say in his defense,
I think it's good to throw out different theories. And as you've said numerous times,
if you're,
if you're constantly focusing on the idea that this person didn't know him, you may be missing
the fact that he did. And so to think outside the box is how you solve cases that appear to
be unsolvable. So I don't have a problem with it. Um, but I don't agree with them. You know,
I think, I think it's someone that, you know, again, to your point, there's numerous reasons, but
that being one of them, that they wouldn't have been recording him. He would have had to have
gotten to the park after them knowing they were going to be there. So it would have to be someone
with direct knowledge that they were going to the park, which is a very small group of potential
suspects. So you know it's a person that is a small group of individuals who would have known
they were going to the park at that time on that date.
And then even a smaller group of because it appears the person was a male.
So any females that would have known that they were going there ruled out.
So it's a really small pool of potential suspects that would fit the idea that this person knew these girls.
But again, he's throwing out an idea.
He's throwing out a theory.
Maybe the police
department hadn't thought of it i would like to think they had of course they did man of course
they did and if and if abby and libby knew this dude then don't you think by default like their
families would know this dude i mean there's not many 13 14 year old girls who know grown-ass men
that their family aren't aware of they would know the voice they would know
the voice or recognize him in some way and that's not the case yeah that's uncle that's uncle derrick
or that's uncle todd you know they would have known they wouldn't know who it was yeah so john
douglas i gotta disagree with you there so does derrick uh crime weekly is not on your side with
that one but we love you however i do agree with him that if they if the police were gonna pull
this kind of tactic or they're gonna like speak to the killer directly and be like we
know and we think you know we're closer
than you think we are and like show this
confidence like we're on to you
and he showed that confidence when he said
you want to know what we know and one day you will
basically like I'm going to see you dude
I'm going to see you okay you're
going to know everything we know if they were going to show this confidence
and kind of like try to draw him out they should
have done it kind of early on I I do agree there. I'm not sure
why they waited. And when they released this list of behavioral clues, in my opinion,
this is not for us, right? This is not for the general public. This is for somebody
who may be close to the killer, somebody who's sleeping in their bed, somebody who would see, hey, my husband,
he stays up all night now and he seems to be having bad dreams. And all of a sudden he's,
you know, drinking more at night and he's like obsessed with this case and he can't stop
watching news coverage about Delphi. That's for those people. But that's just my opinion.
I don't know what you think about it. Yeah. I mean, this is always the tough area for
me because just like John, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback other investigators who are
trying to do the best they can. I've never hid the fact that I don't have a ton of homicide
solves under my belt. I was only a police officer for 13 years. We didn't have a high homicide rate.
So who am I to question their tactics and how they approach things? I have an opinion like
everybody else. Well, they didn't have a high homicide rate either.
Right. Exactly. Exactly. So I would say this, I feel that they're doing the best they can.
And sometimes the best they can do isn't the best that everyone else can do. And so
everyone has different approaches. Some work, some don't. If they end up solving the case and
we find out all the information, we might be saying they're geniuses. Yeah, I agree. I agree.
But until then, we just don't know. So it's not that I don't want to critique them. It's just,
who am I to critique them? I critique everyone. I don't need to be anybody to critique them.
No, I mean, you critique, but you more give your opinions on it. I mean, you're not sitting here
saying what they did is wrong all the time. You don't necessarily agree with them on everything.
But I think the things that you don't agree on, you have a place to come from where you're stating why you don't agree with them, whether it's because you're a parent or
whatever it may be. But you're not sitting here like, oh, this investigatory tactic I wouldn't
have used most of the time. I mean, because you're really transparent about what you know and what
you don't know, I think. Yeah, I can't say that until I know what they know. That's what's frustrating.
Exactly. You're making the point, how do we critique them when we literally have
10% of the case in front of us? If that.
Yeah. No, it's a fascinating case. As we said last episode, we know why it's garnered so much
attention, not only because of what's involved, but because of what we don't know.
So it's actually been a really interesting episode for me personally.
Like I've enjoyed the conversation and I've learned a lot, which I always like to do.
So I really, I think that this episode, I had a lot of information in it and some theories,
some speculation.
So I really, you know, I think I
speak for Derek as well. We can't wait to hear what you guys think about what we've talked about
in this episode. So make sure to leave us some feedback. Let us know what you're thinking.
Social media, Instagram, Twitter. We have the website. You can leave us a speak pipe.
Next episode is going to be the last Delphi part. And in this episode, we're going to go over
some of the most popular suspects and
persons of interest in this case, as well as the most popular theories and what people out there
are thinking. And some of these people that we're going to go over who have theories are, you know,
some people that are pretty well known in the true crime community, some people who are well-known
investigators, and they all have their different theories.
I think everybody's got their theory about this case, but we're going to go over that in the last part of the Delphi case.
Yeah.
Looking forward to it.
I like your shirt, by the way.
Oh, everything's back in stock.
Crime Weekly merch.
And we also did settle on our undercover pineapple design finally, didn't we?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
We're doing some minor alterations to it to make it more
fitting but yeah it was pretty cool but we appreciate everyone who submitted them we're
going to be sharing those i've been sharing them on instagram as you post them on your stories
but it's uh there's a lot of talented artists out there i was incredibly impressed because it
looked like every almost like every design we got looked like it came from a professional
artist and i'm just really impressed because I'm so bad with artists.
Like as far as art goes, drawing, computer design, I cannot do it.
So I'm very impressed when somebody can do something that I can't.
And I'm a little envious.
But you guys did great.
So when we announce which design we chose, we're also going to take some time at the end of that episode as far as YouTube goes,
because that's where you can visually see things on our YouTube platform. We're going to show off
all the designs that were sent to us so that everyone else out there can see how incredibly
talented Crime Weekly listeners are. We really appreciated it, guys.
Yep, absolutely. If you guys want to pick up your Day One is merch, like Stephanie said,
it's back in stock. The link's right here. You can check it out. It's crimeweeklypodcast.com slash shop.
I really like this t-shirt.
Go check it out.
It's super comfortable.
It's super soft.
It's good material.
It's really good material.
I like the sleeve length.
I like that it kind of gets, it's not super fitted because I have the unisex one.
So it's not super fitted, but it's also not making me look like I'm swimming in it.
I really like these shirts in general, as well as the design, obviously.
Yeah, it's good material and they appears to hold up in the wash.
They do shrink slightly.
I know mine shrunk slightly.
So probably guys want to go a size up if you order the t-shirts or the long sleeve shirts,
or even the hoodie.
They are all pre-shrunken, but I can tell you from personal experience,
it definitely shrunk a little bit more.
But the mugs, the stickers, they're back in stock. But there is going to come a point,
and it's probably not going to be too much of a heads up where we're going to say, okay,
the sales are starting to slow down. We're going to stop the Day One-er logo, and then we're going
to take it off the site and you won't be able to get it. So if you want to get the Day One-er
t-shirt in white, get it. We might be doing a run in black.
I was actually having conversations about that,
but there's no promises.
I love that.
Cause I tell you me and white,
we don't get,
we don't get along.
That's what a lot of people saying.
So we've been hearing you guys,
cause you've been saying it a lot on social media.
So you want to get this in white,
you know,
it looks so sharp and it looks so clean.
I love the look,
but like me and white,
we don't,
we don't get along.
Now black's black's definitely going to come.
So, uh, if you want to pick up your day one is merch, grab it now, pick it up, let us know, post it on your social media.
We've been posting everything.
Um, and again, we appreciate all the love and support stuff's been going and, um, not
mad about it.
Thank you guys so much.
And we will see you next week.
Have a great week until then.
Bye.
Later.