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:
So why shouldn't it be used? Can you explain what those people are saying and why it isn't the same as fired casings? The bullet surely isn't important but the identical markings should be.
I went into a whole diatribe with a Cheerio about this. It makes no sense to me at all why finding the brand of bullet is more important than the bullet. Ya couldn't even know a brand if you didn't HAVE the bullet so that adds another level of "ridiculosity" to it.

The bullet was at the scene and matched to the gun, whether the brand or box of them, etc. was found many years later I think is small taters. If it was, that would certainly be somewhat big but if not, not a huge surprise and doesn't mean much. That certainly isn't MORE important than the bullet because you wouldn't even know brand without the bullet in the first place and it's the bullet that is at the scene, and is utmost important, not the box of branded ammo.

A bird making no sense and if this is direct info from Vinnie then I'd have to come down on Vinnie on how that is MORE important than the bullet itself.
 
What SHOW are ye talkin' 'bout, that you think Cuz & I should watch Gran? (name of show or linky linky?)
It's the one I linked a couple of days ago somewhere above in response to a post of @Imamazed I said they were reading the filings against Gull in it. Well it goes on after that to some hard hitting points on Gull and such. Yes they are YTers and yes they make money at it but they were pointing out a lot of things I did not know. The show just in their name isn't one I would normally watch as it is "defense" diaries and I am certainly not a person most would say is pro defense...Would anyone here say that about me lol? NEVER. I went in as they had the documents on the filings against Gull and were reading them. Nothing would have probably ever landed me on their show otherwise.

As I said they go on after the reading of the docs and I went back later and finished watching it, wasn't going to because I never went there for that reason to begin with, but did. I also am not saying I agree with all said but they had some really good points and info. Then something hit the docket while they were doing their show. Keep in mind this is a few days back now but still the things they were talking of that really doesn't change the relevance of. It was in large part about Gull and the things in this case re her, more than I'd heard talked of and looked at.

It isn't short but isn't the longest either ever seen but I think you'd enjoy the discussion in it and would be interested in your take on it. Even for future watches.

Maybe you will disagree but I think you will find it worthwhile (even for future watches maybe). He is all defense for the most part, she is but is more in balance. The other thing I liked about it is some attorney or cop Yters can be a bit too dry for me but they had a nice hits of not so dry and personality thrown in with their viewers.

They really dissected Gull--other things too but that was a large part.
 
It's not available in my area unfortunately.
Seeing his look may mean something but anything he said wasn't anything that was of interest if this is the one I am thinking of about speedy trials. Just a short thing about such in general, nothing impressive he had to say or even notable. I half remember his hair and I didn't like it. I didn't note the bun but the hair around the front of his face I did. Didn't like the overall "do", couldn't have told you he had a bun, I went in to see more what he had to say, how good this atty is or isn't, etc. and found it a nothing burger of the typical any atty talk of rules of speedy trial.
 
I think it was probably a rhetorical/sarcastic question because we really cannot do anything about it can we?
Maybe. I have no idea. Hard to keep up these days. I sometimes have to look back to even see what the convo was or the reply was to, etc. to figure out what is being referred to. That's on me. And that's with everything. Which video are they talking of? Which filing? Etc. Or if a reply to something of mine, which one was it again? Lol. I need life to slow down in pace a bit. Even a BIT. Keeps going the other way though :(
 
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:
Where in what you just said did I give permission for an assault?

Now we have the frying pan?? That needs to stay in the cabinet so I have access to it at all times for the emu! What would I do were it missing and I needed it??

But yes I can disagree and never feel unfriendly or say I no longer want to be friends. Anything I ever say or if get in a debate with anyone both strong in opinions, is it ever the end of any world for me, all is still fine between us imo and also I enjoy friendly debate and a good discussion.

You however are getting kind of aggressive and since you've now taken the pan, what do I have left to use on you? A limp asparagus spear?

Can't believe Cuz isn't having a fit you took "his" chair...
 
O.K. EVERYONE JUST COOL OUT ALRIGHT! O.K. Then. And I’M usually the one in the corner.
WHERE have you BEEN???

Careful, yes, it is very heated in here!

Don't tell me to cool it, he/she/they/everyone else started it! :nope:

Just taking a moment for lightness in what is turning into one big mess of a case sadly.
 
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.
Thank you! :hugs:

Also I get so little time I have to try to recall or backtrack as to what may be the subject being responded to, etc. or even talked of.

Where have you been Shorty?!
 
LOL. What are Heinz beans? I don't doubt they make one under some name but here I know of no "Heinz beans"... Talking baked beans, dried beans, green beans or...?
Baked beans. Don't tell me you don't have Heinz 57 varieties? I thought they were a US brand ????????

"Beanz meanz Heinz" was/is their slogan.

They have the Royal Warrant. Here's a link to their website and their "story" in a slideshow.

 
Last edited:
I went into a whole diatribe with a Cheerio about this. It makes no sense to me at all why finding the brand of bullet is more important than the bullet. Ya couldn't even know a brand if you didn't HAVE the bullet so that adds another level of "ridiculosity" to it.

The bullet was at the scene and matched to the gun, whether the brand or box of them, etc. was found many years later I think is small taters. If it was, that would certainly be somewhat big but if not, not a huge surprise and doesn't mean much. That certainly isn't MORE important than the bullet because you wouldn't even know brand without the bullet in the first place and it's the bullet that is at the scene, and is utmost important, not the box of branded ammo.

A bird making no sense and if this is direct info from Vinnie then I'd have to come down on Vinnie on how that is MORE important than the bullet itself.

They can tell the brand of bullet with just the jacket, better than they can with just a bullet. People usually buy the same brand of things and so it's not out of the question he'd have the same brand of bullets still.
 
Where in what you just said did I give permission for an assault?

Now we have the frying pan?? That needs to stay in the cabinet so I have access to it at all times for the emu! What would I do were it missing and I needed it??

But yes I can disagree and never feel unfriendly or say I no longer want to be friends. Anything I ever say or if get in a debate with anyone both strong in opinions, is it ever the end of any world for me, all is still fine between us imo and also I enjoy friendly debate and a good discussion.

You however are getting kind of aggressive and since you've now taken the pan, what do I have left to use on you? A limp asparagus spear?

Can't believe Cuz isn't having a fit you took "his" chair...

She used the chair on you. Anyone who uses the chair on you can have it anytime they want it! :tongue:
 
So why shouldn't it be used? Can you explain what those people are saying and why it isn't the same as fired casings? The bullet surely isn't important but the identical markings should be.

IIRC, the argument from Old Defense to disqualify the bullet included these objections:

a) every cop's gun takes that bullet and there were bunches of guns at the crime scene.
and
b) chain of custody; bullet discovered late and showed up without a proper chain of custody paperwork as to how it suddenly showed up.

Feel free to correct me on that one b/c I sped-read the D papers raising these objections ... but have heard these arguments consistently explained via a few podcasters
 
IIRC, the argument from Old Defense to disqualify the bullet included these objections:

a) every cop's gun takes that bullet and there were bunches of guns at the crime scene.
and
b) chain of custody; bullet discovered late and showed up without a proper chain of custody paperwork as to how it suddenly showed up.

Feel free to correct me on that one b/c I sped-read the D papers raising these objections ... but have heard these arguments consistently explained via a few podcasters
Everything I've read says ejector marks are not junk science. I'm just voting on the identification is valid side.
 
Everything I've read says ejector marks are not junk science. I'm just voting on the identification is valid side.

I've read the ejector marks tell you the weapon make/model etc, but as to the odds those marks can be definitively matched to one specific INDIVIDUAL weapon - leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The problem (I've read) is that LE uses the same weapon make/model. So do plenty of other folks.

Critical: Can the rest of the investigation overcome with more corroborating evidence, that considered together w/ the bullet casing, eliminates reasonable doubt. But I know we all know that. stating the obvious ... means ... I need a nap.
 
Baked beans. Don't tell me you don't have Heinz 57 varieties? I thought they were a US brand ????????

"Beanz meanz Heinz" was/is their slogan.

They have the Royal Warrant. Here's a link to their website and their "story" in a slideshow.

Well I'm not saying we don't but I'm not familiar with them and Heinz is a big brand so if they existed here I'd have seen them I'm sure. Our best known is Bush's Baked Beans and they are very good. We have Heiniz 57 Sauce of course, that's been know for decades on end and Heinz ketchup. Haven't had a chance to check website just got home. What's the "Royal Warrant"?
 
They can tell the brand of bullet with just the jacket, better than they can with just a bullet. People usually buy the same brand of things and so it's not out of the question he'd have the same brand of bullets still.
And maybe he does or did still have the same, who knows? We sure don't.

But you are concerned with them telling the brand from the jacket and whether he had any, which would be a bonus, but not more important than the markings imo and that it came from his gun and you said it was more important. I disagree.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,371
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom