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:
I wonder if it bothers RA at all to see the people of his community, both men and women crying and the victims' family members.

I guess though upon thought, that it's not completely new to him because he probably watched every bit of coverage and the family members speak over all the years.
 
Well the two biggest things of note here to me are, the protection says they are going to have witnesses who heard RA say he was on the bridge that day to which he and his wife furiously shook their heads. I can tell you flat out, all of us were warned about doing such in the courtroom, you are to do no such things, not the defendant, not the viewers, no one. It's an attempt quite honestly I guess to influence the jury and it is a no-no. At least it sure was in ours. I'd want to roll my eyes among other things and when I felt I couldn' control it, I'd put my head down or make myself look up at the ceiling before I did so. Tears as well. NOT EASY. Wouldn't you expect tears from a victims' family during an awful trial with details. I can't recall whether we couldn't quietly cry or not, but I know no disruptions, etc. or noise and so on.

But this is RA AND his wife trying to give their info without being on the stand. I mean I doubt he will take the stand but he is sitting there in a way saying things to the jury as in no, that's not true... And SO IS SHE and she may not have to take the stand due to spousal privilege so they're both getting things like this in there. I do NOT think much of it at all.

And then we have the D saying they have witnesses who will say RA was not on the bridge. Who, his WIFE? Friends? Relatives? And with any proof? Video? He was looking at the fish as I recall.

So clearly this is going to be a contested issue but no alibi was ever put forth or attempted at all to try to get him out of jail that way was it....?? I mean they tried all else in this case...

The other thing is not really of note I guess but the first courtroom sketch was out on Friday night. Has anyone run into that as I'd like to see it since we have little else and no live coverage, etc.

Of course all testimony and witnesses were of note, but I'd read that already in several links.
 
This is so sad. Knowing one of the family members must’ve made it even harder.
My heart is with all of them, going to be a very tough number of weeks for them. AND for the friends and the one that found the bodies in particular and what he has had to live with re images and will have to for the rest of time.
 
Just finally watching one of Tom's. Never did get to it. HE IS THERE. And attending!! I figured he MIGHT do this but he never gave a HINT but he didn't really with the hearings either... Of course the time he went for them they ended up not happening...

Pretty sure I've found my nightly watch based on this...
 
Perhaps but some will take longer, like the experts probably. They only had a 1/2 day today because they said the next one up is going to be a long witness. So I take that to mean more than 1/2 day just for that one.

Didn't they originally want a three week trial with 2 wks for the prosecution and one week for the defense if I recall correctly? Defense argued that of course and insisted on more time.
I was just extrapolating and going by how many we have had in only one and a bit days. Will also have more idea after the first week is over.
 
Well the two biggest things of note here to me are, the protection says they are going to have witnesses who heard RA say he was on the bridge that day to which he and his wife furiously shook their heads. I can tell you flat out, all of us were warned about doing such in the courtroom, you are to do no such things, not the defendant, not the viewers, no one. It's an attempt quite honestly I guess to influence the jury and it is a no-no. At least it sure was in ours. I'd want to roll my eyes among other things and when I felt I couldn' control it, I'd put my head down or make myself look up at the ceiling before I did so. Tears as well. NOT EASY. Wouldn't you expect tears from a victims' family during an awful trial with details. I can't recall whether we couldn't quietly cry or not, but I know no disruptions, etc. or noise and so on.

But this is RA AND his wife trying to give their info without being on the stand. I mean I doubt he will take the stand but he is sitting there in a way saying things to the jury as in no, that's not true... And SO IS SHE and she may not have to take the stand due to spousal privilege so they're both getting things like this in there. I do NOT think much of it at all.

And then we have the D saying they have witnesses who will say RA was not on the bridge. Who, his WIFE? Friends? Relatives? And with any proof? Video? He was looking at the fish as I recall.

So clearly this is going to be a contested issue but no alibi was ever put forth or attempted at all to try to get him out of jail that way was it....?? I mean they tried all else in this case...

The other thing is not really of note I guess but the first courtroom sketch was out on Friday night. Has anyone run into that as I'd like to see it since we have little else and no live coverage, etc.

Of course all testimony and witnesses were of note, but I'd read that already in several links.
I have only seen one courtroom sketch. It is not very good - I'll find it. It looks like a cartoon.

ETA



Trying to work out who these are I am guessing L to R - RA in blue shirt and glasses on his head looking back (at the jury?) then attorney, KA, mum, daughter and husband? (or more likely more attorneys).
 
Last edited:
How do you see the 13? I went in and only saw the #1. Tried to look further but there was nothing more that I found.
I did the same and clicked on the thread icon but still only saw number 1. I"m probably doing something wrong.
 
Last edited:
Well the two biggest things of note here to me are, the protection says they are going to have witnesses who heard RA say he was on the bridge that day to which he and his wife furiously shook their heads. I can tell you flat out, all of us were warned about doing such in the courtroom, you are to do no such things, not the defendant, not the viewers, no one. It's an attempt quite honestly I guess to influence the jury and it is a no-no. At least it sure was in ours. I'd want to roll my eyes among other things and when I felt I couldn' control it, I'd put my head down or make myself look up at the ceiling before I did so. Tears as well. NOT EASY. Wouldn't you expect tears from a victims' family during an awful trial with details. I can't recall whether we couldn't quietly cry or not, but I know no disruptions, etc. or noise and so on.

But this is RA AND his wife trying to give their info without being on the stand. I mean I doubt he will take the stand but he is sitting there in a way saying things to the jury as in no, that's not true... And SO IS SHE and she may not have to take the stand due to spousal privilege so they're both getting things like this in there. I do NOT think much of it at all.

And then we have the D saying they have witnesses who will say RA was not on the bridge. Who, his WIFE? Friends? Relatives? And with any proof? Video? He was looking at the fish as I recall.

So clearly this is going to be a contested issue but no alibi was ever put forth or attempted at all to try to get him out of jail that way was it....?? I mean they tried all else in this case...

The other thing is not really of note I guess but the first courtroom sketch was out on Friday night. Has anyone run into that as I'd like to see it since we have little else and no live coverage, etc.

Of course all testimony and witnesses were of note, but I'd read that already in several links.
Presumably those witnesses will be Dan Dulin and Lt Holeman.
 
I am interested in learning again about Harshman and Wala re the confessions.

This is an article from August that has some detail from that testimony. Clearly D are going to claim these are false confessions so we especially need to hear about specifics only RA would know.

 
I was just extrapolating and going by how many we have had in only one and a bit days. Will also have more idea after the first week is over.
Yeah, I know, and some will likely be shorter which will average out the longe ones so quite possibly they will be able to rest sometime around that time. Of course though, also, the D it doesn't sound like is going hard at cross with these witnesses but I think they will go harder and llonger at the experts and probably some LE, etc.
 
I have only seen one courtroom sketch. It is not very good - I'll find it. It looks like a cartoon.

ETA



Trying to work out who these are I am guessing L to R - RA in blue shirt and glasses on his head looking back (at the jury?) then attorney, KA, mum, daughter and husband? (or more likely more attorneys).

Thank you for showing it. Yeah that's not very good, Not very impressed. I guess it's meant to be showing RA looking constantly at his wife and mom. They make it look as if he's in the same row as them and we know that's not the case. I guess he's meant to be slightly ahead looking back.

So not only do we not have video, we have a not very good sketch artist lol. I wonder if they are allowed to sketch witnesses on the stand... Knowing Gull, probably not even though it would be typical to usually do so...
 
I am interested in learning again about Harshman and Wala re the confessions.

This is an article from August that has some detail from that testimony. Clearly D are going to claim these are false confessions so we especially need to hear about specifics only RA would know.

Also the dates are important. I have a feeling any of the confessions RA put false facts into were done AFTER he regretted confessions and was trying to do damage control by making up confessions with false facts to make it look as if he was mentally confused and "not" the killer of course.
 
How do you see the 13? I went in and only saw the #1. Tried to look further but there was nothing more that I found.
Try this:

 
I am interested in learning again about Harshman and Wala re the confessions.

This is an article from August that has some detail from that testimony. Clearly D are going to claim these are false confessions so we especially need to hear about specifics only RA would know.

Me too. Yeah, we haven't heard any of the big things yet, or anything related to RA yet, they are still jus setting the stage and did the family personal witnesses, and of course they weren't witnesses to anything really, other than like Kelsey dropping them off, and where, and how dressed I'm sure, dad not being able to find them when he arrived, etc. Then we have the search members and the finding of the clothing and the girls.

This week being a full six days is going to really have the bigger things coming, the confessions being one of those bigger things. I imagine going to be a lot to unpack and a lot for reporters to keep up with.

I'm listening to Tom right now. I started with his Saturday because not sure I can catch up on both of his but can go back if I get a chance to Friday's.

He gives more detail on coutroom actions and on testimony I guess because articles are going to be made more concise and edited. He has trouble a few times interpreting his notes but mostly recalls all--lol, I imagine every reporters is going through this as well but they are comparing notes to get filled in if one remembers something others don't, etc... But Tom gets picking/anal about details and that's sometimes a real plus.

I'm tickled he is attending and I now have someone I count on re coverage and he is actually there taking his own notes and seeing it for us because we sure can't. if he ever shared ahead he was going, I sure missed it and I don't think so but I did wonder how he was going to do a nightly and what he was going to use for coverage. He's never been one to use news articles, EVER basically. It's the filings and nothing else and maybe reference at times to what MS or someone has due to their own access to something, or to someone, etc. Not even much of that though really, just the docs. Now he is in attendance and covering actual testimony.

Hey on another note, after two days of testimony, I finally let out a sigh of relief that this trial IS truly UNDERWAY. FINALLY.
 
Try this:

Thank you! That worked perfectly and can see all now. And easy to follow synopsis of the day. I'd agree that number 10 stands out and personally I like juror questions being allowed and I think they always should be. Of interest in our county, it depends on the judge. We did't have them. We were told that during ours, one judge goes with such, the others do not. So I don't think itk's even always "law" but up to the judge.

On thing of not case importance, said activities planned for the juror. Unsure if they mean at hotel (games, books, cards, movies) or trips outside but if outside or any "planned activities", I hope they all have the choice of whether to participate. I think as this trial gets tougher and longer, some may want time alone just to process and get over the week or day, and some may want just the opposite and to be with other people and have distraction from it.

I did read somewhere in the last days or week that they will get contact with family but of course all supervised as it should be imo. Weekly contact I think but perhaps daily, not sure.
 
Trying to figure out how to post these. Bear with me.








Also interesting. Most seem very caricaturist and I guess many do have that quality sometimes but I think the adding of color maybe and then the scale seems pretty off. It makes them seem cartoonish which, I don't know, just doesn't fit the air of seriousness of a murder trial. I guess they are adequate and the person could well be self appointed and just attending.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,642
Members
966
Latest member
pizzalover
Back
Top Bottom