LIBBY GERMAN & ABBY WILLIAMS: Indiana vs. Richard Allen for 2017 murder of two Delphi girls *GUILTY*

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams and Liberty German were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders have received significant media coverage because a photo and audio recording of an individual believed to be the girls' murderer was found on German's smartphone. Despite the audio and video recordings of the suspect that have been circulated and the more than 26,000 tips that police have received, no arrest in the case has been made.[1][2][3]

1581272168478.png

Police have not publicly stated nor released details of how the girls were murdered.[6] As early as February 15, 2017, Indiana State Police began circulating a still image of an individual reportedly seen on the Monon High Bridge Trail near where the two friends were slain; the grainy photograph appearing to capture a Caucasian male, with hands in pockets, walking on the rail bridge, head down, toward the girls.[4] A few days later, the person in the photograph was named the prime suspect in the double-homicide.[5]

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant,[7] though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." It was at this news conference that officials credited the source of the audio and imagery to German's smartphone, and, further, regarded her as a hero for having had the uncanny foresight and fortitude to record the exchange in secret. Police indicated that additional evidence from the phone had been secured, but that they did not release it so as not to "compromise any future trial." By this time, the reward offered in the case was set at $41,000.[5]


1581272119747.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abby was also redressed and the clothing had to go over arms, head, etc, hands. I think true context and the order of things and what is actually true and not just form the D, the P has NEVER shared such, is going to be what is needed, and I still don't believe this sh*t was allowed.
 

Delphi murders trial: Defense claims hair found with victim didn’t match Richard Allen​

Defense lawyers for Richard Allen made a startling admission during Tuesday’s jury selection.
Allen’s defense team revealed that hair was found in Abby Williams’ hand that didn’t match Richard Allen. That’s the first time that information has been made public. Attorney Andrew Baldwin made the comments during “mini opening statements” preceding jury selection.
Allen is charged with four counts of murder in connection with the deaths of Abby and her friend Libby German in February 2017. Indiana State Police announced his arrest in October 2022.
All I'm going to say and it is at the reporting is this was not a startling admission as if it was something they were loathe to admit, it was something they wanted heard as if fact and reported on. Imo of course. With "prospective" unseated jurors.
 

Jury selection finalized in Delphi murders trial; Trial set to begin Friday​

And in this article, it says Gull will consider the D's motion to block the sketches on Thursday. It's the P's motion, not the D's.

All I'm saying is I hope they do better than this. It isn't even trial yet. To someone not up on it, they would read that and wonder why the D wants the sketches bllocked...

Might sound nitpicky but it is the entirely incorrect side's motion per them.
 
I'll bet they do!

Delphi murders: State wants to keep widely circulated composite sketches out of trial​

The state doesn’t want a pair of composite sketches that were highly publicized early in the investigation to be part of the Delphi murders trial.

On Monday, Carroll County Prosecutor Nick McLeland filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit the admission of the sketches or any reference to them during the trial.

Oh, no! They are very important evidence. Neither look like RA.

TBH the sketches are irrelevant once they got their man - he was the only adult male and admitted being there.

How can you say that? It's not irrelevant. They don't match him. That's HUGELY important.
 
Oh, no! They are very important evidence. Neither look like RA.



How can you say that? It's not irrelevant. They don't match him. That's HUGELY important.
The first one looks very much like him when taken for what it was. Hey the local station claimed the D wants it blocked, lol, poor reporting.

Sketches go on in many a case as a tool. What do you think broke the Morin case, the sketch?

That said, I'm not sure it should be blocked, I am not even going to go that far, thek P can have witnesses explain the reasons for the second sketch for instance. I trust juries for the most part. The jury can decide on the confessons and explanations and the jury can decide on the sketches and so, believe it or not, I'm not necessarily with blocking them. I bet you are astounded no?

The P will just have to explain that they are a tool and based on MAYBES and why they put the second one out, etc. And let the jury decide.

I will even go so far, and it may surprise you as well, that it isn't a good look for the P wanting them blocked.

I'm not unfair and again, explain it, and let the jury decide.

As far as your response to Tresir and the second part of this, I dont' think it really is either. It was a tool, the second likely put out as why not, the first had not resulted in answers, and the witness was insistent is the way I recall it but I could have that wrong. So why not give both descriptions and see what results from tips? That's all it was. First sketch is BG imo and BG is RA. You don't agree there but that's fine. A sketch artist is different than likely L's video and a witness and the artist getting it right. The voice is going to do him in imo. As will his confessions. And more.
 
The first one looks very much like him when taken for what it was. Hey the local station claimed the D wants it blocked, lol, poor reporting.

Sketches go on in many a case as a tool. What do you think broke the Morin case, the sketch?

That said, I'm not sure it should be blocked, I am not even going to go that far, thek P can have witnesses explain the reasons for the second sketch for instance. I trust juries for the most part. The jury can decide on the confessons and explanations and the jury can decide on the sketches and so, believe it or not, I'm not necessarily with blocking them. I bet you are astounded no?

The P will just have to explain that they are a tool and based on MAYBES and why they put the second one out, etc. And let the jury decide.

I will even go so far, and it may surprise you as well, that it isn't a good look for the P wanting them blocked.

I'm not unfair and again, explain it, and let the jury decide.

As far as your response to Tresir and the second part of this, I dont' think it really is either. It was a tool, the second likely put out as why not, the first had not resulted in answers, and the witness was insistent is the way I recall it but I could have that wrong. So why not give both descriptions and see what results from tips? That's all it was. First sketch is BG imo and BG is RA. You don't agree there but that's fine. A sketch artist is different than likely L's video and a witness and the artist getting it right. The voice is going to do him in imo. As will his confessions. And more.

If it looks like him, then why do they want it excluded. My guess is when both pictures are presented, it enables the defense to ask about the second picture and that would allow them to get testimony from KK.
 
If it looks like him, then why do they want it excluded. My guess is when both pictures are presented, it enables the defense to ask about the second picture and that would allow them to get testimony from KK.
If you didn't notice I largely agreed on some of this, surprisingly right? I don't think they were ever keen on or wanted the second sketch out. That's the reason and that's just speculation but it fits all. This is all in my opinion the one witness who claims it was a younger guy and yet it could not have been anyone else. If there is one thing that may become a sticking point it will be that witness. I'm going to guess you never have but watching Tom you will hear this and the explanation many a time.

I ALSO said, did I not, let them come in and let the jury decide and let it be explained by the P.

I think I was more than fair on that.

Plus I said it isn't a good look to try to have such excluded not that the jury should be seeing or at least letting any such motion influence them if they did see it...

I am just wondering, did you miss my overall agreement on a lot of it?

I personally don't think it is a big deal and can be explained and let the jury decides so I'm not nuts either about them asking to have it blocked. I don't think the sketches mean much in the overall picture BUT I also said, don't cut the defense off at the knees. Yes, it should come in, it should be questioned, argued, explained and let the jury decides.

I really don't like that the P asked for this but I get why they did. That witness needs to really be questioned hard by both sides for the reasons of both.

And I don't think it is going to matter overall. There's enough without that being something the D tries to use. More than enough and we don't know the half of it.

But you know what unless it derails now or during trial, we are going to be finding out are we not? Maybe not where one can count on the reporting being right but in the long run...
 
And if you missed my agreement and overall not what some would expect two or three times now with a lot of it, towards the D actually, not necessarily thinking it is big or agreeing with them, but they didn't file this (despite what the one article said), let the jury decide. Both sketches were out and a part of this case. Again such is a tool, but still, then what is your fear (the P), just explain it. Let the jury decide. You didn't miss I've said this have you? And just did again....?
 
And if you missed my agreement and overall not what some would expect two or three times now with a lot of it, towards the D actually, not necessarily thinking it is big or agreeing with them, but they didn't file this (despite what the one article said), let the jury decide. Both sketches were out and a part of this case. Again such is a tool, but still, then what is your fear (the P), just explain it. Let the jury decide. You didn't miss I've said this have you? And just did again....?

I missed it. I don't read some of your posts.
 
Agree as well. In cases they put out sketches in some that don't even turn out being THE person, they are just looking for anyone that saw anyone, etc. I don't know that Gull will exclude it though, I mean I have to be fair here, and the sketches were put out, and the defense can't be totally cut off at the knees. Just because he turned out to be the one and not the other means nothing imo. They were two different sketches but based on someone's faulty vision or judgment of age or some darned thing... I believe I heard back when she insisted. Do I have that right, anyone recall that? Wanted to know why that one was never put out? Well, I think the reason is clear. And they probably figured at that point what did they have to lose. Been how many years with the first sketch and video and unsolved...
I think it was probably because they had the video of BG and he clearly wasn't a youngster.
 
I came home to refresh YT and saw Court TV with a headline about the hair. Went in, wasn't really wanting to, and the whole show was little about it and was all Barb McDonald confused about why they needed two jurors but then had to get three more today, and other things, and when the hair was finally mentioned, it was like a sentence or two.

First of all what is this mini opening statements b.s. and why are there alleged "facts" being said to prospective jurors anyhow? Why Gull allowed it I don't know. To throw the D a bone? Here's what they say, this is what happened on this day to two girls. Period. A man has been charged and one side, the prosecution, believes him to be guilty and will present evidence. The other side, the D, says not so, and they will be mounting a defense and trying to show otherwise.

PERIOD.

And either side if each gives one can do some version of that but what is it with claimed facts in front of prospective jurors or what they are calling a "mini" opening statement? Why is the jury being courted as if they are all seated jurors yet?

Anyhow I suffered that worthless in my opinion, MacDonald, to hear one sentence or two on the hair to see what they were talking about, which didn't come until the end sadly as I listened to all her other stuff. Nothing of significance. Just number of jurors, those dismissed, not understanding why three more, showing a notebook and how they have to take handwritten notes and a bit nothing burger.

The hair means little to me even IF true. From all we know mostly from defense leaks, ABby never moved or fought back, etc. I wonder if after determining I was not his if it was tried to determine whose it was. Also the defense never gives the specific truth with anything they have ever said, was it in her hand, on her hand, caught partly under a nail, etc.?

This tweet says "in her hand" but I never count on reporters, does that mean she had clutched hands...?

Means nothing until there's more and context as well.

We had a hair on A LISK victim that traced back to a woman he had lived with (possibly first wife) and it was determined she was not still living there then. It came from where the victiim had been.

But what I want to know is why is this being allowed anyhow? So now with a gag order, some alleged fact is being reported on. In the media and on Twitter, and I thought they were not wanting a tainted jury pool. Hey these people are not SEATED YET. They are not sequestered yet. They can still GO HOME YET.
The thing with the number of jurors needed being 2 then 3 was probably just that one more must have needed to be excluded by something, so that is no biggie and doesnt need rocket science to work that one out but clearly some reporters are confused by it.
 
And in this article, it says Gull will consider the D's motion to block the sketches on Thursday. It's the P's motion, not the D's.

All I'm saying is I hope they do better than this. It isn't even trial yet. To someone not up on it, they would read that and wonder why the D wants the sketches bllocked...

Might sound nitpicky but it is the entirely incorrect side's motion per them.
I have often wondered if RA was put in an identity parade ? Maybe not, as he admitted being there?
 
If it looks like him, then why do they want it excluded. My guess is when both pictures are presented, it enables the defense to ask about the second picture and that would allow them to get testimony from KK.
The sketches were OBE once they had a man who actually admitted being there and seeing the young witnesses at Freedom bridge. The only male on the trail at that time.
 
Oh, no! They are very important evidence. Neither look like RA.



How can you say that? It's not irrelevant. They don't match him. That's HUGELY important.
"A sketch, is a sketch, is a sketch."

The first one - old BG - looks just like him.

Also, that YBG sketch was done on the 17th Feb, i believe, and by then they already had the video and audio and could clearly see he was middle aged and packing a gun. So they didn't release it for years.
 
Last edited:
If it looks like him, then why do they want it excluded. My guess is when both pictures are presented, it enables the defense to ask about the second picture and that would allow them to get testimony from KK.
BG is quite clearly  not KK ( or RL if that is where you are going next. )
 
Last edited:
Some J&C links - first one is old, regarding the PC when the new sketch was released and the other two are recent.



 
The thing with the number of jurors needed being 2 then 3 was probably just that one more must have needed to be excluded by something, so that is no biggie and doesnt need rocket science to work that one out but clearly some reporters are confused by it.
True. Some are definitely confused by it as if there was a miscount lol. Someone must have been let go after hours or some such with no explanation or reason given to viewers at trial. OR they missed it. I'm not real impressed with the reporting thus far and it's not even underway yet. Hopefully I'm just being too nitpicky but at least get the P and D straight... As for dwelling on needing three jurors instead of two that was McDonald filling air time imo with little else to talk of. Most are just going back over old stuff and that's mostly what they did with her.

I'm going to do Tom's nightly shows, not live of course, with my schedule. I'm hoping whatever his sources, they will be worth it, I know he'll do it well. If he doesn't have anything but traditional media he covers, I may look to MS or Aspen, do you know if they are going to try to do nightly ones? I know he didn't I don't think during the hearings, not until after so not sure he/they will.

This is going to have a slow start, just one day of trial and then the weekend. It will be interesting to see how traditional news does with covering only one day and whether they do anything over the weekend (doubtful), but the others I'd think would (MS and Aspen) if they can't do nightly as Tom is. He's not attending of course (I don't think, one never knows with him....)

I'm not real optimistic about it as the hearings coverage was abysmal. Imo. I am still steamed Gull could not have given all some noninternet recording option. It isn't just because I want to see it, etc. either, I think it's wrong to go that far.

This trial should definitely have some recording other than a human court reporter and as far as I can tell, it does not, not even for the court/record. The times have got to change regardiing this. Imo. This is an awful and imo archaic decision. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an older school voice recorder with no internet capabilities. Any reporter that can attend can report on breaks, in morning, at night, etc. so long as not in the courthouse the way I would understand it, they just can't bring devices in so if they go out at lunch across the street etc. and grab their equipment or meet another from the pool that is ready with it they can report per what they saw and notes, and what's the difference if they have it on recording to refer to.

Honestly it goes too far, it's one thing to ban cameras, tablets, phones, etc. during proceedings but quite another to go this far.

Yet she allows mini opening statements to prospective, not seated, jurors where the D is already spouting about an alleged hair and reporters have run with it. That really stopped anything didn't it, and trial hasn't even started yet...

Just still steamed over the no recording of any kind.

It's just like when nothing is shared over the course of a case, it's the way with many these days and always has been as far as a P, but it just causes a lot more speculaton and so I don't think it's always the wisest choice. Not these days.

Time for the courts to get with the times and change rules and do it wisely and even employ such for other reasons, including protection of all.

Jmo.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,664
Members
966
Latest member
pizzalover
Back
Top Bottom