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:
(Now, I haven't followed along with the court proceedings but) I actually wouldn't be surprised if video interviews were lost, why would I, why would you? I don't find it hinky, consistent maybe (lol!), inept but not suspicious, I mean, I have reasons to think the former but no reason to think the latter.

I want to know how many have been lost in the past? Were these guys interviewed together or separately? Oh yeah, it was a days long outage IIRC now.
 
I don't think it is suspicious either. These people were cleared based on alibis. It is only because defence have them in there hinky F memo. I don't understand why these people haven't sued them. Is it allowed to just pick brand new suspects and libel them like that? Is it protected or something?

They were cleared on alibis, but how was the questioning handled? Does the transcript really reflect the interview? What exactly was said.
 
They were cleared on alibis, but how was the questioning handled? Does the transcript really reflect the interview? What exactly was said.
It doesn't matter. They have not been charged with anything so they don't actually need an alibi. RA is the one who needs the alibi. Eg his wife saying he got home all neat, clean and tidy, at 2 pm for example.

Instead, he has to explain when he saw the girls, as they were on the trails at the same time, and he has to explain how his bullet came to be at the crime scene and matching one found at his house.
 
It doesn't matter. They have not been charged with anything so they don't actually need an alibi. RA is the one who needs the alibi. Eg his wife saying he got home all neat, clean and tidy, at 2 pm for example.

Instead, he has to explain when he saw the girls, as they were on the trails at the same time, and he has to explain how his bullet came to be at the crime scene and matching one found at his house.

What did his wife say?

Also, just because they were never charged doesn't mean they aren't guilty. There enough evidence in the WM3 case pointing to who actually did it, but the police aren't going to investigate.

If they were able to prove it was him rather than any of the WM3 then they'd look REALLY, REALLY stupid. Right now they just look REALLY stupid and corrupt. There are people who still believe the WM3 are guilty. Finding the right guy and admitting they made a mistake with the WM3 would cost them and the state a crapload of money and embarrassment.

In order to get Damien Echols released before they had a chance to kill him, Jason Baldwin agreed to accept an Alford plea. He wanted to take it all the way to proving they weren't guilty 100%. By accepting an Alford plea they were able to get out of jail, but they'll never be able to sue the state for railroading them and subjecting them to torture by the guards and other inmates because they were convicted child killers.


In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia,[1] an Alford guilty plea,[2][3][4] and the Alford doctrine,[5][6][7] is a guilty plea in criminal court,[8][9][10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence,[11][12][13] even if the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.[5][14][15][16][17] This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

Alford pleas are legally permissible in nearly all U.S. federal and state courts, except in the state courts of Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey, or in the courts of the United States Armed Forces.
 
What did his wife say?

Also, just because they were never charged doesn't mean they aren't guilty. There enough evidence in the WM3 case pointing to who actually did it, but the police aren't going to investigate.

If they were able to prove it was him rather than any of the WM3 then they'd look REALLY, REALLY stupid. Right now they just look REALLY stupid and corrupt. There are people who still believe the WM3 are guilty. Finding the right guy and admitting they made a mistake with the WM3 would cost them and the state a crapload of money and embarrassment.

In order to get Damien Echols released before they had a chance to kill him, Jason Baldwin agreed to accept an Alford plea. He wanted to take it all the way to proving they weren't guilty 100%. By accepting an Alford plea they were able to get out of jail, but they'll never be able to sue the state for railroading them and subjecting them to torture by the guards and other inmates because they were convicted child killers.


In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia,[1] an Alford guilty plea,[2][3][4] and the Alford doctrine,[5][6][7] is a guilty plea in criminal court,[8][9][10] whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence,[11][12][13] even if the evidence presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.[5][14][15][16][17] This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

Alford pleas are legally permissible in nearly all U.S. federal and state courts, except in the state courts of Indiana, Michigan, and New Jersey, or in the courts of the United States Armed Forces.
We don't know what his wife said, that's my point.

There is physical and video evidence against RA - it is not a circumstantial case. He even admits being at the bridge.

I don't see the relevance of the WM3 or an Alford plea in relation to this case. An Alford plea is not permissible in Indiana anyway.
 
Last edited:
We don't know what his wife said, that's my point.

There is physical and video evidence against RA - it is not a circumstantial case. He even admits being at the bridge.

I don't see the relevance of the WM3 or an Alford plea in relation to this case.

Watch the vids I posted. Other than the bullet showed up two days after the area was unsecured, it is circumstantial.
 
The confessions will be considered direct evidence. Depending on the rest of the video, that may be the only direct evidence.

Watch Grizzlie's video it's 22 minutes and breaks down the first Court TV video. There's a lot to back the theory he's innocent.
 
Watch Grizzlie's video it's 22 minutes and breaks down the first Court TV video. There's a lot to back the theory he's innocent.
I don't watch YT videos for case news, but thanks. I prefer news sites. I do follow a couple of people on Twitter to get updated paperwork so I can avoid the Google drive lol.

I'd rather dive into actual motions and law. Currently, I'd love to know the ins and outs of a contempt hearing. I've never witnessed or followed one.
 
I don't think it is suspicious either. These people were cleared based on alibis. It is only because defence have them in there hinky F memo. I don't understand why these people haven't sued them. Is it allowed to just pick brand new suspects and libel them like that? Is it protected or something?
I don't know how they get away with that but I find it highly unethical, to say the least.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,367
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom