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

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:
Lebrato is representing on some serious felony charges, including murder. Im not going to try to link results because I'm not dragging anyone else's name on here. But, you can search by attorney name here:

Well it can't be said then he was intentionally given some loser or inexperienced attorney. They have to get them one who has tried murder cases, never knew that until ours, and some other requirements. Of course different state. He should have qualified and good attorneys and hopefully they will have some ethics.

You know I have to wonder who wrote the O thing for them? Because the filings on Gull didn't seem nearly as high schoolish or unprofessional. I'm not even talking about the O subject, I am talking of what was so far from normal "speak" in any legal filing that even the average person can see that. This is a thought I had the other day when watching a show where they read the docs. It isn't directed at you, I recalled it when responding to this post so put it down as a thought to see if anyone has any thoughts on it?

You know OF these attys (former) ones better than I and their reputations. I know little other than the opinion I have of these shenanigans and all throughout this case. I did see your post where you couldn't get over they'd do this as they have good reps or something like that. People can come down on Gull but it doesn't excuse them and even with her, what I watched the other night was really good and I did link it and yes, now I see some things or have some thoughts I didn't and am now questioning some. Still each is responsible for their own sh*t. If both sides are bad, one doesn't cancel out the behavior of the other.

Again, not directing this towards you specifically but am "talking" to you, I just am "jotting" down thoughts that I've had and talking as well to all.

That O filing (and again I am not talking about whether Os did it or their claim they did) and the way it was done does not seem that of a lawyer. Again who really drafted it?
 
I am guessing first they'd have to have some facts and reasons of their own since they haven't been there, present, or on the case. I guess they could just try to pick p the other defense's case but they haven't been there, talked to Allen, etc. YET I imagine anyhow. I also doubt seriously if they go there to see Allen or check for themselves, they won't see any such thing, we KNOW the guards have been told to take the patches off and more changes IF all true have likely went on. OR a lot of it was NEVER TRUE so what are they going to have that is of their OWN personal knowledge?

if they find he same or check out the facts and say so then we have two more people who see or believe the same which would likely add weight at least for me DEPENDING on WHAT they have and WHY they think so, etc.

I assume you mean like a foul prison and not a foul like a "foul ball". Hard to be sure. As in he shouldn't have been sent there and that's a "foul" that was made in this case? I'm thinking though you mean the prison is a "foul" place.

I am always open to changing my opinion, may not do it easily but I go back and forth depending on what comes out my meter goes up and down. I am NOT open in Morphew and freely admit it, well it would take a LOT.

But you said "we" so what do you mean there? What are we going to do? About what exactly? Do you mean as far as how it affects the case? That it means there are Os? That the case would be done for?

I admit I am not following, I figured you directed it at me (despite the "we") because I was not buying into all the defense claims even BEFORE the O stuff.

What can we do if you mean it another way? We have no power. We can yell online which to my knowledge is about all any of us can do or do do. Call the senator, the governor, the clerk in Carroll County?

I guess I am just unclear on what you mean or are asking so I answered anything I can figure your question means.

And I'm not being a smartarse or anything, I truly don't know which thing you meant nor who "we" are. The people here? The entire public? You and I?
I think it was probably a rhetorical/sarcastic question because we really cannot do anything about it can we?
 
Well it can't be said then he was intentionally given some loser or inexperienced attorney. They have to get them one who has tried murder cases, never knew that until ours, and some other requirements. Of course different state. He should have qualified and good attorneys and hopefully they will have some ethics.

You know I have to wonder who wrote the O thing for them? Because the filings on Gull didn't seem nearly as high schoolish or unprofessional. I'm not even talking about the O subject, I am talking of what was so far from normal "speak" in any legal filing that even the average person can see that. This is a thought I had the other day when watching a show where they read the docs. It isn't directed at you, I recalled it when responding to this post so put it down as a thought to see if anyone has any thoughts on it?

You know OF these attys (former) ones better than I and their reputations. I know little other than the opinion I have of these shenanigans and all throughout this case. I did see your post where you couldn't get over they'd do this as they have good reps or something like that. People can come down on Gull but it doesn't excuse them and even with her, what I watched the other night was really good and I did link it and yes, now I see some things or have some thoughts I didn't and am now questioning some. Still each is responsible for their own sh*t. If both sides are bad, one doesn't cancel out the behavior of the other.

Again, not directing this towards you specifically but am "talking" to you, I just am "jotting" down thoughts that I've had and talking as well to all.

That O filing (and again I am not talking about whether Os did it or their claim they did) and the way it was done does not seem that of a lawyer. Again who really drafted it?
A school kid on work experience in the defence lawyer's office?
 
He. Has. A. Manbun. I'm sorry. I just personally cannot take manbuns on attorneys seriously. Call me judgmental because I am. :)
Kind of really tickled not to be the only judgmental one on this site ;) Lol. Well there is Mel... And...

I actually like them on some/the young but on some they DO NOT BELONG. I don't know the attorney's ages and call that judgmental but depending that would color my judgment and if they wore it well. I'm of the school even as an attendee you do not wear a tshirt to court, sandals, and many other things BUT yeah attorneys are another thing altogether, they are representing in a very serious position...

However there is the old stuffy and good ol boys thing and thoughts many are still that way and corrupt (uhm I can tell ya it exists and is alive and well)... And maybe things need to change...

I judge it in women attys too... Skye Lazarro is an attractive woman (Kouri Richins case) but first that, makeup and heels is going to have people judging and criticizing. And old men's club I am not even going to go there as to what she'd deal with.

I take it you are talking of the new defense atty. I saw one pic and didn't like the hair, if the one I saw was a man bun with the rest of his hair the way it was, yes he should give it up.
 
How is it you go from your last post where you hit me with a chair to your very next post including me in a group hug??!!! HUH?

Ohhhh playing innocent so no one figures out you were the chair wielder/assaulter! Your name was on the chair post though, it won't work! That is like the guy who robbed a gas station who had his work shirt on with his name tag and company or the one who went to the bank and wrote a stick up note on his own deposit slip with his name on it! Nice try but you just STRUCK me down with a CHAIR lady! :nope:
 
Racking a bullet in a gun is far, far and away from a bullet match. Vinnie Politan had people talking about that. How it shouldn't be used to identify a weapon because it's such weak evidence. People here are treating it like a bullet match, and it's not. Did they find the same brand of bullet at RA's house? That I don't know. If they did then it's strong for the prosecution, if they didn't, it looks good for the defense.
I am not knocking him and I watch Vinnie enough but not a fan of all of his guests plus I doubt he is any expert in this. He may be an attorney but one that is a newscaster. The brand wouldn't matter NEAR as much as the marks and match. It anyone with any smarts was going to commit a murder you'd buy a different brand and you wouldn't keep the box after. And this search of his home was YEARS after. Maybe they found the same brand maybe they didn't. Be great if they did in a full on match of that end of fit but if not it wouldn't be surprising or mean it still wasn't a match as to marks. They HAVE the gun.

Here: You found what looks like a Cheerio at a crime scene. You test it and it is actually the Aldi "dupe". The Aldi "cheerio" though has marks on it though matched up to the cereal weapon it was shot from and you know who owns the cereal shooter because you searched his home five or so years later and those weapon marks matched. BUT LO and behold, there was no box of Aldi dupe Cheerios in the home, ONLY brand name CHEERIOS. Of COURSE THERE isn't. Although in the case of someone not worried, there may have been but Cheerios are a bad example as they would have expired by then and been thrown out by most but I still think the point is clear. And they MAY have such in this case, or may NOT, the brand, so what and how is that more important than then that the Cheerio dupe was KNOWN to be shot from the cereal shooter that the same individual owns AND you found the shooter /GUN I mean (I guess I should have called it a cereal gun but I'm tired, not shooter--I keep thinking of a pea shooter for my story here...)

Sounds ridiculous to me and I'm not actually liking what they are doing with this... People can knock other sources and YTers and all else and some of them are doing it too but TV also is right in there and of course for them it is controversy and views.

I find this ridiculous. The Aldi cereal is long gone or ate up this many years later. And if a box of ammo is too, why would that be a surprise? BUT you put that higher than marks on the AMMO found at a a crime scene that matches the gun of the person who owned the gun? Or on the Aldi Cheerio and feel the box of cereal gone is MORE important. And we don't even KNOW that they don't have the box of cereal for goodness sakes and he kept it, hoarded it or was just cheap.

I probably am not entirely clear here but what you are saying or if this is what Vinnie is saying isn't worth a hill of beans.

No offense of course. I personally love there is some good debate going on here in these cases and only wish I had more time to engage in it.
 
Last edited:
How is it you go from your last post where you hit me with a chair to your very next post including me in a group hug??!!! HUH?

Ohhhh playing innocent so no one figures out you were the chair wielder/assaulter! Your name was on the chair post though, it won't work! That is like the guy who robbed a gas station who had his work shirt on with his name tag and company or the one who went to the bank and wrote a stick up note on his own deposit slip with his name on it! Nice try but you just STRUCK me down with a CHAIR lady! :nope:
You gave me permission; you specifically said that even if we might disagree on case points (that's the chair action), we are all still friends. And I am glad you feel that way. :fryingpan:
:loveu:
 
How is it you go from your last post where you hit me with a chair to your very next post including me in a group hug??!!! HUH?

Ohhhh playing innocent so no one figures out you were the chair wielder/assaulter! Your name was on the chair post though, it won't work! That is like the guy who robbed a gas station who had his work shirt on with his name tag and company or the one who went to the bank and wrote a stick up note on his own deposit slip with his name on it! Nice try but you just STRUCK me down with a CHAIR lady! :nope:
O.K. EVERYONE JUST COOL OUT ALRIGHT! O.K. Then. And I’M usually the one in the corner.
 
I am guessing first they'd have to have some facts and reasons of their own since they haven't been there, present, or on the case. I guess they could just try to pick p the other defense's case but they haven't been there, talked to Allen, etc. YET I imagine anyhow. I also doubt seriously if they go there to see Allen or check for themselves, they won't see any such thing, we KNOW the guards have been told to take the patches off and more changes IF all true have likely went on. OR a lot of it was NEVER TRUE so what are they going to have that is of their OWN personal knowledge?

if they find he same or check out the facts and say so then we have two more people who see or believe the same which would likely add weight at least for me DEPENDING on WHAT they have and WHY they think so, etc.

I assume you mean like a foul prison and not a foul like a "foul ball". Hard to be sure. As in he shouldn't have been sent there and that's a "foul" that was made in this case? I'm thinking though you mean the prison is a "foul" place.

I am always open to changing my opinion, may not do it easily but I go back and forth depending on what comes out my meter goes up and down. I am NOT open in Morphew and freely admit it, well it would take a LOT.

But you said "we" so what do you mean there? What are we going to do? About what exactly? Do you mean as far as how it affects the case? That it means there are Os? That the case would be done for?

I admit I am not following, I figured you directed it at me (despite the "we") because I was not buying into all the defense claims even BEFORE the O stuff.

What can we do if you mean it another way? We have no power. We can yell online which to my knowledge is about all any of us can do or do do. Call the senator, the governor, the clerk in Carroll County?

I guess I am just unclear on what you mean or are asking so I answered anything I can figure your question means.

And I'm not being a smartarse or anything, I truly don't know which thing you meant nor who "we" are. The people here? The entire public? You and I?
I’ll back you up my friend. You aren’t trying to be a smart azz. I’m great at spotting that. I think all of us here are just trying to understand what the other person is saying. This case in particular is so complicated. it’s been clouded by reaching speculation, And ridiculous rumors.
 
How is it you go from your last post where you hit me with a chair to your very next post including me in a group hug??!!! HUH?

Ohhhh playing innocent so no one figures out you were the chair wielder/assaulter! Your name was on the chair post though, it won't work! That is like the guy who robbed a gas station who had his work shirt on with his name tag and company or the one who went to the bank and wrote a stick up note on his own deposit slip with his name on it! Nice try but you just STRUCK me down with a CHAIR lady! :nope:

Let the grown woman :chair:
 
I am not knocking him and I watch Vinnie enough but not a fan of all of his guests plus I doubt he is any expert in this. He may be an attorney but one that is a newscaster. The brand wouldn't matter NEAR as much as the marks and match. It anyone with any smarts was going to commit a murder you'd buy a different brand and you wouldn't keep the box after. And this search of his home was YEARS after. Maybe they found the same brand maybe they didn't. Be great if they did in a full on match of that end of fit but if not it wouldn't be surprising or mean it still wasn't a match as to marks. They HAVE the gun.

Here: You found what looks like a Cheerio at a crime scene. You test it and it is actually the Aldi "dupe". The Aldi "cheerio" though has marks on it though matched up to the cereal weapon it was shot from and you know who owns the cereal shooter because you searched his home five or so years later and those weapon marks matched. BUT LO and behold, there was no box of Aldi dupe Cheerios in the home, ONLY brand name CHEERIOS. Of COURSE THERE isn't. Although in the case of someone not worried, there may have been but Cheerios are a bad example as they would have expired by then and been thrown out by most but I still think the point is clear. And they MAY have such in this case, or may NOT, the brand, so what and how is that more important than then that the Cheerio dupe was KNOWN to be shot from the cereal shooter that the same individual owns AND you found the shooter /GUN I mean (I guess I should have called it a cereal gun but I'm tired, not shooter--I keep thinking of a pea shooter for my story here...)

Sounds ridiculous to me and I'm not actually liking what they are doing with this... People can knock other sources and YTers and all else and some of them are doing it too but TV also is right in there and of course for them it is controversy and views.

I find this ridiculous. The Aldi cereal is long gone or ate up this many years later. And if a box of ammo is too, why would that be a surprise? BUT you put that higher than marks on the AMMO found at a a crime scene that matches the gun of the person who owned the gun? Or on the Aldi Cheerio and feel the box of cereal gone is more important. And we don't even KNOW that they don't have the box of cereal for goodness sakes and he kept it, hoarded it or was cheap.

I probably am not entirely clear here but what you are saying or if this is what Vinnie is saying isn't worth a hill of beans.

No offense of course. I personally love there is some good debate going on here in these cases and only wish I had more time to engage in it.
Well said. Aldi beans or Heinz? Love the cereal analogy LOL.
 
Anvato Universal Player

See Video:
New Defense Attny - Scremin - TV interview - bullet casings

ALERT !! MAN-BUN MISSING !!
So he was talking of the case before he was on it....

He doesn't knock the science.

He also points out all of the evidence is never in the initial docs.

He talks casings and bullet which is a bit confusing.

Nothing about him of note here imo, just kind of a bland interview that could have been just about anyone they had on as a talking head re the same developments.

Biggest takeaway for me I guess is that he doesn't knock the science but I'm sure he will now that he is RA's defense atty.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,374
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom