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:
The other side of this is If he can raise money for his defence, why should his lawyers be paid from the public purse? He will have $25k in a day or so and could just up the amount and let the donations keep coming in.
Because it isnt his money. An attorney is raising it for expert witnesses.

On the other side, why should any prosecution be allowed a couple of million dollars to prosecute an indigent defendant? Should it be unfair in every case?

Am I the only one that sees the obvious problem with this?
 
The girls had their lives cut short while he has been free and now it is time for justice. You don't know if his fingerprints and DNA are there - they are probably on the bullets.

Donations are already over $15k so they should have their $25k by tomorrow even though the deadline date is not until May 10th.

You're assuming he did it. I'm not. Again, who's fingerprints and DNA is it. It's not his.

I don't want some guy convicted of this. I want THE guy(s) convicted of this. Just because he was there, doesn't mean he did it.

If I go to Wegmans and find a dead body next to my car when I come out, I guess that means I'm guilty.
 
Neither do you. I forget who said it, probably the defense, but his story never changed. If that's true it's odd for someone who was lying at the beginning.
He knew he was seen by those three girls leaving but he didnt see the witness who saw him on the platform on the bridge or the muddy bloody witness who saw him walking back to his car.
 
Because it isnt his money. An attorney is raising it for expert witnesses.

On the other side, why should any prosecution be allowed a couple of million dollars to prosecute an indigent defendant? Should it be unfair in every case?

Am I the only one that sees the obvious problem with this?
I disagree that it is not his money. Hennessy is raising it on his behalf. That's what it says anyway. It's not Hennessy's money is it? Hennessy is raising the money to pay for expert witnesses for RA who he believes are not going to be funded by the court right? Yet Hennessy doesn't even represent RA does he?

Prosecution is publicly funded to perform that function. As are public defenders funded for those who cannot pay.

It's not a system I fully understand but as RA was a home owner, I don't really see him as indigent.
 
Last edited:
He knew he was seen by those three girls leaving but he didnt see the witness who saw him on the platform on the bridge or the muddy bloody witness who saw him walking back to his car.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable testimony. I know he said he saw the girls, but that still doesn't mean much.

Tell me who the DNA and fingerprints belong to first, then we'll be closer to solving the whole story. Problem is, you and the police can't tell me.
 
I disagree that it is not his money. Hennessy is raising it on his behalf. That's what it says anyway. It's not Hennessy's money is it? Hennessy is raising the money to pay for expert witnesses for RA who he believes are not going to be funded by the court right?

He KNOWS won't be funded by the court, Gull has already refused it.
 
You're assuming he did it. I'm not. Again, who's fingerprints and DNA is it. It's not his.

I don't want some guy convicted of this. I want THE guy(s) convicted of this. Just because he was there, doesn't mean he did it.

If I go to Wegmans and find a dead body next to my car when I come out, I guess that means I'm guilty.
Where am I assuming he did it? He was there and admitted he was there. No other male was on the trail at the time. Plus he later confessed. His bullet was there. There was probable cause for his arrest and for his charges. Now the court takes over.

Maybe you backed into that guy when you were reversing into your parking spot and didn't spot him?
 
Last edited:
I disagree that it is not his money. Hennessy is raising it on his behalf. That's what it says anyway. It's not Hennessy's money is it? Hennessy is raising the money to pay for expert witnesses for RA who he believes are not going to be funded by the court right? Yet Hennessy doesn't even represent RA does he?

Prosecution is publicly funded to perform that function. As are public defenders funded for those who cannot pay.

It's not a system I fully understand but as RA was a home owner, I don't really see him as indigent.
I'm attaching a link which goes over how disposable income is figured for the defendant in the state of Indiana. It looks to be up to date.

 
The girls had their lives cut short while he has been free and now it is time for justice. You don't know if his fingerprints and DNA are there - they are probably on the bullets.

Donations are already over $15k so they should have their $25k by tomorrow even though the deadline date is not until May 10th.
They are now two thirds of the way to their target. When they reach it they will raise the target amount.
 
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable testimony. I know he said he saw the girls, but that still doesn't mean much.

Tell me who the DNA and fingerprints belong to first, then we'll be closer to solving the whole story. Problem is, you and the police can't tell me.
He admitted he saw them and they said they saw him. You seem sure the DNA/prints are not his - I don't know why you think that. I believe the bullet will have his fingerprints and DNA on it and It will be presented as the evidence in court presumably. They have probable cause from the evidence they do have which is enough for his arrest, charge and prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Because it isnt his money. An attorney is raising it for expert witnesses.

On the other side, why should any prosecution be allowed a couple of million dollars to prosecute an indigent defendant? Should it be unfair in every case?

Am I the only one that sees the obvious problem with this?
I agree and that's always been a problem.
 
Here's another strange twist. Another IU law professor speaks out, too.

 
Last edited:
Where am I assuming he did it? He was there and admitted he was there. No other male was on the trail at the time. Plus he later confessed. His bullet was there. There was probable cause for his arrest and for his charges. Now the court takes over.

Maybe you backed into that guy when you were reversing into your parking spot and didn't spot him?

How do you know no other male was there? Is if just possible they were hiding? You are basing your conviction of him on little evidence. AGAIN, Who's DNA and fingerprints are at the scene. Obviously that doesn't bother you. Well, it's pretty important to me to find that out.

He's recanted his confessions. We don't know why he confessed yet. He could have been forced to do so. I have no proof of that, but you don't have proof the other way either.

What does the final paragraph have to do with anything?
 
How do you know no other male was there? Is if just possible they were hiding? You are basing your conviction of him on little evidence. AGAIN, Who's DNA and fingerprints are at the scene. Obviously that doesn't bother you. Well, it's pretty important to me to find that out.

He's recanted his confessions. We don't know why he confessed yet. He could have been forced to do so. I have no proof of that, but you don't have proof the other way either.

What does the final paragraph have to do with anything?
How do I know? Because there is proof - Libby caught him on video and audio, that's how. Look upthread, it's been posted.

I am happy to wait for the trial for the DNA/fingerprint confirmation.

I am giving an opinion, I haven't convicted anyone but am discussing the volume of evidence that we know about. I am unaware he recanted and have not seen that stated. Did he recant on a recorded call, like with the confessions?

My final paragraph is explaining the improbable situation you cited.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,245
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom