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:
You replied to the dup one that I deleted, but you're right, no biggie.
Well apparently I didn't notice but then I've seen a few repeat articles and different things OR they have enough similarities some of them in the reporting that I feel like I'm seeing the same one again. No biggie either way I'd say. At least imho.
 
That account I quoted was misleading and just shows the differences regarding the reporting. It was someone called Melissa anyway.

It's just annoying that after waiting all this time for the case to come to court, we have to rely on piecemeal reporting, rather than follow the court proceedings ourselves. Sorry for any wrong interpretations I made there.
It's very annoying, and you know, each reporter has their own perspective as to what they think is remarkable to report.
It's happened plenty of times where I've wondered whether they were watching the same trial.
Indeed, in cases where cameras aren't allowed, it's very nice if eventually the trial transcript is available.
 
Possibly, but I interpret it that they want to limit the playing of it because it was not used to id RA.
In the probable cause affidavit, it's stated that one of the victims mentions "gun" and so I think that's probably what the defense is bothering about.
 
Lol! It sounds to me like that reporter's focus is elsewhere but the courtroom.
And she's doing what for why and for whom?
Sounds to me like she needs to get over herself. Lol!
 
It's very annoying, and you know, each reporter has their own perspective as to what they think is remarkable to report.
It's happened plenty of times where I've wondered whether they were watching the same trial.
Indeed, in cases where cameras aren't allowed, it's very nice if eventually the trial transcript is available.
Everything had better be available or almost all after this is over.

Transcripts are only as good as the court reporter. I've seen errors in my lifetime and been told of some as well.

All trials should be recorded if even only by a court camera. Imo.

And yes to avoid what you are talking of happening, is anyone even attending the same trial?
 
In the probable cause affidavit, it's stated that one of the victims mentions "gun" and so I think that's probably what the defense is bothering about.
That's one thing I think but I think even bigger is his voice but they are trying to not mention that... Jmo. Gun is big though too because from all we know the only things relating to a gun is Abby (think it was) saying that and the bullet...

I think they want it gone though for a lot more reasons than just the mention of gun. The entire thing is damning to RA. Imo.
 
You said the reporter needs to "get over herself".

Their job has been made incredibly difficult by the Court. There is no way any reporter can stay up 24/7 reporting. I had just made the comment people need to have some grace considering the circumstances.
They have made it hard for any of them. I sure don't see many even trying to do what she is trying to do.
 
Lol! It sounds to me like that reporter's focus is elsewhere but the courtroom.
And she's doing what for why and for whom?
Sounds to me like she needs to get over herself. Lol!
So only single people with no outside interests or life should apply?
 
Typical.

I'm only going to say there has been some really p*ss poor reporting here and in the hearings even more so. However, I don't mean all and believe most are trying.

Gull's rules haven't made it easy on ANYONE.

And I can see both sides in some of this.

As a traditional news reporter though, you're called to go or used to be and do, and like most of our jobs, at least under big corp or big umbrellas, the employer gives a sh*t about your personal life. But on the other hand that traditional big news corporate umbrella picks what they want covered and puts the deadlines on the reporter, or time restrictions too, as in TV channels. Wrap it up you have one minute til break or an ad or another case.

Now with alternative sources, they can do as they like, they are employed by no one. And can attend, not attend, see it for themselves or not, be responsible or not. If they want to cover it or anyone does, even traditional news, who have requirements I'd guess from the big employer, yeah you need to put life aside and do it. With alternatives that's a choice, and they may get or lose viewers, etc. But they're not working for anyone...

One article said it itself a week or so back, despite the bulk of our focus right now is politics, this is a local cases and we are going to see to it it is covered like expecting kudos. What news org was that, I forget but it was like look at our commitment, wow.

They all are almost all politics these days.

And I'm not talking of any individual reporter. But I am saying it is different and they work for the beast and not with crime as the focus whatsoever or trials or cases. I'd better rephrase that, I don't mean a particular beast, I mean all on either side, it's almost all politics. There aren't even budgets any longer to send reporters into the field on cases, with expense accounts and hotel stays almost ever.

And we can take it back to Gull's rules on this. It isn't going to be perfect, the reporting, but by looking at a variety of sources, we can piece together I'd hope the overall truth of what has went on in court.

And if I am thinking on whether the remark was about the one reporter and doing whatever with her son, then yeah I get it. I also know from my years of raising kids that even back when many emploiyers are you do your job, you be here when we need you and if your personal life interferes and you have a family well then that's a choice... It's why I settled most of my life for a smaller office and employer as they understood such a lot better.

apologize and a bit of a slight sidetrack but not really.

here comes the typical expected jumping in.

makes one wonder.

and other than that, i'm out of it. I am here to talk cases, period.

and this is arguably or has gotten to be one of the few heated threads.

i'd like to think we are all on the same page as to justice, even if we aren't always on the same page as to who or other things.

it's interesting though who always comes in at times out of the blue.

I will leave it at that.

I think we all want the same thing, or hope we do, whether we agree on every little thing, the who in each case or the decisions, etc.

I though am seeing a pattern at least with a couple. I feel with some I am back at that other place.

There's nothing wrong with respectful debate and disagreement. IMO. IMO. IMO. IMO.

I will end with saying that this case out in the real world is one that is of course FULL of emotion and debate then take what the D has tried to do, so then all think the judge unfair, I think the D attorneys a joke, the appeals, the even traditional media running with the b.s.., yes it is going to be this way... I'd like to believe though that none of us are really wanting anything but a fair thing and justice. But been long enough I think some just have their thing and pop in to cause something...

Maybe I shouldn't say it. But let the two trying to get the other's post figure it out. And discuss what was meant. Or agree to disagree.

This has possibly a month to go.
 
Anyhow to go back to the actual case, the one witness said 50 something was he high he thought and 34 the low. And in Feb mos tof us know that live in at least the northern half or further of the US that in Feb that's not enough in short day of day light to thaw everthing for good or melt it all depending on amount for good. It takes days or weeks of such. And depending on frozen ground or ground cover it can take weeks to a month of such temps in the day time to get there and that's if no more sh*t weather in between.

Tom is onto his afternoon attendance now and his recollections and notes.

So IF this witness has it right, 34 is not solid freezing but it is going to be crunchy ground, leaves, sn*w etc. maybe mixed with a bit of wet in some areas. But it is also going to preserve versus a body out in Florida and this wasn't days later either when they found them.

So when the D asks about flies, scavengers, etc. I mean come on. These bodies were found in less than 24 hours city boys. Couldn't help it. and for most of them period of time they were in cooler temps by far. It's February, there aren't going to be "flies" and so forth.

Anyhow, I'm getting back to the case.

The reporting is what it is. The rules are what they are. And they suck. Some can go on yes that they have a life and it isn't that easy and others can claim they gave up all their hours or you name it (hven't heard anyone do that) but whatever.

I know so far I've seen some really good ones here people have linked and others not as detailed or stellar. And I'm definitely going to fill in myself with Tom because it is his ONLY case.

But to say some sympathy for all, it is an effort for him as well much less anyone trying to cover this one and how much else for news. But then that's the job and that's the employer too...

So both sides to that.

Sticking to other stuff. The case. Although I will talk of the bad ruling on coverage here and how unfair it is. LOL.
 
You said the reporter needs to "get over herself".

Their job has been made incredibly difficult by the Court. There is no way any reporter can stay up 24/7 reporting. I had just made the comment people need to have some grace considering the circumstances.
It was a good question but her response was all about her.
 
It was a good question but her response was all about her.
You know, this response of yours just got me seeing something I didn't. That's a fair response and view. Her response was all about what it is doing to her life and how sh ecan't do it all and not about how she wants to cover it all, the families, and that she just can't do it with her life, schedule, family and lack of having days or weeks of recordings or staff to go through to give her things to report...

She has a life and she's stressed which was a fair point on her end. But her response was totally all about her.

Maybe she needs to become a Nate... Or a Tom. Heck even Nacy and Vinnie are realizing they are behind the eight ball...

However, I still get what the woman was saying. Can't drink water, can't leave the courtroom. And that is bullSH*T. Do you disagree on that?
 
However, I still get what the woman was saying. Can't drink water, can't leave the courtroom. And that is bullSH*T. Do you disagree on that?
No, I think that's just the way it is and if there's a reporter who can't deal with it and/or complains about it, then they should get the hell out and let someone else in.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,637
Members
966
Latest member
pizzalover
Back
Top Bottom