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:
I want to bring this out from your article for purposes of discussion about the conditions. That said, I have got to go to work, sorry. :) Talk later.

To determine whether a suspect was in custody, courts consider several factors (Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995)). First, was there a formal arrest? Second, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not free to end the questioning and walk away? Third, was the suspect’s movement restrained or curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest? The custody determination is measured objectively by looking at these factors. Neither the officer’s nor the suspect’s subjective belief about custody figure significantly in the analysis (Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994)).
Exactly - so he wasnt under arrest.
 
I want to bring this out from your article for purposes of discussion about the conditions. That said, I have got to go to work, sorry. :) Talk later.

To determine whether a suspect was in custody, courts consider several factors (Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (1995)). First, was there a formal arrest? Second, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not free to end the questioning and walk away? Third, was the suspect’s movement restrained or curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest? The custody determination is measured objectively by looking at these factors. Neither the officer’s nor the suspect’s subjective belief about custody figure significantly in the analysis (Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994)).
Cursory glance at the motion claims items 2 and 3 are yes and yes.
 
Our perp willingly talked several times, every time officers asked both in standard interrogation rooms, at the hospital when OUR baby was on life support and brain dead (I will never say HIS) and more. They carefully did not overdo it over the four months we waited for the evidence needed from a more detailed autopsy. We were advised to keep our mouths shut and try not to lose it because he was not lawyered up and they did not want him to as he was still willing to try to look innocent and help and talk to them.

This is all entirely legal. Next it will be his wife's willing interviews are not admissible because she was not mirandized and was "held' for hours, give me a break. I am now talking RA and wife, not ours.

I'd also add something that I think @Guess Who and I always agree on and that's that ALL should always be recorded by officers, body cams worn and on, etc. and THEN there can be no dispute can there?

This is ridiculously late in the game for the bozos B & R to do and at best it makes them worthless lawyers yet again or why wasn't this brought up right out of the gate to save their client?

Seriously how anyone can take them seriously any longer I just don't get. It's like they did nothing and one day when their nothing defense and ignoring their client blew up then they woke up and have been trying to do damage control to save themselves ever since. THAT is how I SEE IT and always have and everything just continually confirms it.

Jmo and a separate one and not a response to a single soul.
 
Last edited:
But he wasn't technically in custody yet, so I think Miranda wasn't needed

Motion asserts that RA was, in fact per definition of custodial interview - and legal experts do agree. RA was arrested immediately after interview, the car-pick-up was a ruse. That's a custodial interview; requires informing RA of his rights.

My view: I'd not be surprised that Holeman will have a witness for this interview, who can affirm the Miranda portion - the interview was just too important; biggest day for the Delphi investigation = the arrest of RA. I have to think there are witness(s) of this critical interview - and the part that wasn't recorded. It's sloppy that there is no tape and no paperwork. But LE's recordkeeping sloppiness in this case is already a matter of record - nothing new.

JMHO
 
So pray tell the sloppiness of the attorneys in not immediately being on this then and getting him out of what they have complained about for conditions instead of leaving them there for a year and a half or whatever it is?

Where were they with this long before now?

This is nothing but last minute desperation imo.

I guess we shall see though.
 
Motion asserts that RA was, in fact per definition of custodial interview - and legal experts do agree. RA was arrested immediately after interview, the car-pick-up was a ruse. That's a custodial interview; requires informing RA of his rights.

My view: I'd not be surprised that Holeman will have a witness for this interview, who can affirm the Miranda portion - the interview was just too important; biggest day for the Delphi investigation = the arrest of RA. I have to think there are witness(s) of this critical interview - and the part that wasn't recorded. It's sloppy that there is no tape and no paperwork. But LE's recordkeeping sloppiness in this case is already a matter of record - nothing new.

JMHO
That I agree with. It's the timing I am concerned with. If this attorney was worth anything that would have been the first thing he would have asked his client. This months and months later, after his client has been jailed this entire time, is my concern with the attorney.
 
That I agree with. It's the timing I am concerned with. If this attorney was worth anything that would have been the first thing he would have asked his client. This months and months later, after his client has been jailed this entire time, is my concern with the attorney.
The ruse of him there on false pretense should have been another clue to the attorney immediately about the Miranda issue.
 
So how come it has taken the defence 18 months to actually mention this missing Mirandarisation? If in fact it is true

Don't get me started adjusting your 18 months for reality. LOL.

We can all agree this is a critical interview ... it's not getting thrown out ... b/c Holeman will find witnesses (moo).

Thoughts I've had:

- Holeman is a major witness. The D (not just this case - all cases) hit the big witnesses hard when they see opportunities. This D has already started on Holeman - back in Oct. w/ the Franks and they've really never let up on Holeman, far as I can tell. Applying pressure on Holeman. Probably not a surprise to Holeman or anyone else.

- The D has a laundry list of evidence they'd like thrown out/suppressed ... (confessions, Holeman interview) ... they're rolling out that list ... because it is time to roll out their objections to evidence and have hearings on these things. These motions are for Gull's consideration/decision making. She's the audience and the decider. Gull has the power to make all of this evidentiary stuff not available to the public, but that's not how she's rolling. Both sides need to get the rules of evidence for this case settled. On the docket recently, there are some things withheld from public; they seem to be psych stuff, they're holding back witness lists and exhibits ... but there may be other sensitive things being withheld from public docket.

- The P should be doing same soon ... not asking for suppression, but motioning to block the SODDI or object to other stuff the D brings into evidence.

What a relief it will be to get down to the real facts rather than all the nonsense that's been conjured up out of nothing on youtube channels.

JMHO
 
So pray tell the sloppiness of the attorneys in not immediately being on this then and getting him out of what they have complained about for conditions instead of leaving them there for a year and a half or whatever it is?

Where were they with this long before now?

This is nothing but last minute desperation imo.

I guess we shall see though.

LOL.
you're sloppy, no, you're sloppy. Good one. :sneaky:

Looks like they're bringing motions to suppress evidence b/c it's time to do that... THANK GOODNESS it's time to do that! :)
 
That I agree with. It's the timing I am concerned with. If this attorney was worth anything that would have been the first thing he would have asked his client. This months and months later, after his client has been jailed this entire time, is my concern with the attorney.
Exactly. It would have been long before all their other motions and the Franks memo, it would be first and foremost. It's either entirely bogus or as has always seemed the case they are only know looking at what they always should have been reading and looking through way late in the game.
 
Plus yes, you talk to your client, ask and he tells you he was detained but not allowed an atty, asked for one etc. Never been ONE HINT of that here.
 
That I agree with. It's the timing I am concerned with. If this attorney was worth anything that would have been the first thing he would have asked his client. This months and months later, after his client has been jailed this entire time, is my concern with the attorney.

Yeah, I'm one of the nutjobs that has a problem thinking that in 70 years (joint experience) of these 2 criminal defense attorneys have learned nothing and have no strategy for every motion. :geek: Also, I'm pretty sure it's their job to poke poke poke red herring obfuscate and bring that doubt. A good case will overcome all of that stuff. JMHO
 
Motion asserts that RA was, in fact per definition of custodial interview - and legal experts do agree. RA was arrested immediately after interview, the car-pick-up was a ruse. That's a custodial interview; requires informing RA of his rights.

My view: I'd not be surprised that Holeman will have a witness for this interview, who can affirm the Miranda portion - the interview was just too important; biggest day for the Delphi investigation = the arrest of RA. I have to think there are witness(s) of this critical interview - and the part that wasn't recorded. It's sloppy that there is no tape and no paperwork. But LE's recordkeeping sloppiness in this case is already a matter of record - nothing new.

JMHO
One other thing. This interview was in Lafayette but he was booked into Carroll County so how did that work?
 
Don't get me started adjusting your 18 months for reality. LOL.

We can all agree this is a critical interview ... it's not getting thrown out ... b/c Holeman will find witnesses (moo).

Thoughts I've had:

- Holeman is a major witness. The D (not just this case - all cases) hit the big witnesses hard when they see opportunities. This D has already started on Holeman - back in Oct. w/ the Franks and they've really never let up on Holeman, far as I can tell. Applying pressure on Holeman. Probably not a surprise to Holeman or anyone else.

- The D has a laundry list of evidence they'd like thrown out/suppressed ... (confessions, Holeman interview) ... they're rolling out that list ... because it is time to roll out their objections to evidence and have hearings on these things. These motions are for Gull's consideration/decision making. She's the audience and the decider. Gull has the power to make all of this evidentiary stuff not available to the public, but that's not how she's rolling. Both sides need to get the rules of evidence for this case settled. On the docket recently, there are some things withheld from public; they seem to be psych stuff, they're holding back witness lists and exhibits ... but there may be other sensitive things being withheld from public docket.

- The P should be doing same soon ... not asking for suppression, but motioning to block the SODDI or object to other stuff the D brings into evidence.

What a relief it will be to get down to the real facts rather than all the nonsense that's been conjured up out of nothing on youtube channels.

JMHO
Lol, I took someone else's recent post with the 18 months. I didn't do the math and don't have the time to. I know he was been in custody for well over a year and so it seemed likely. I can admit I didn't math it or look back. I don't have a problem admitting that or anything lol.

You know as far as I can tell you only follow this case. At least on this site. I follow many. And I can tell you this is a bit of a thing lately and B & R seem to see or defenses are aligning with the same kinds of efforts or see another pull it and then they copycat it. Here though I don't care if it is 18 months or 12, they are WAY LATE in the game. It IS one of the first things you look at or do. Everything they do is like they are working backwards. And boy do I get that. When I can't keep up on cases and come into a thread that has been busy and land on the last post instead of go back to where I was and read backwards it doesn't work so great. THAT is what it seems they do. However, I doubt they have sh*t with this anyhow and I also don't doubt wife and RA were in at about the same time at least on one occasion. Was she illegally questioned too?

Of course the D would like all thrown out or suppressed. So? And I don't doubt thins filed that some is withheld. Yes, the med and psych records for starters. also don't disagree there is much we don't know, like the entire prosecution case for one.

Yes they will likely file on the SODDI (prosecution) just as as tried in Read.

I agree it will be a relief to see this tried and get away from the b.s. Honestly though I can't picture B & R not going all over the place in a trial from the taste and bits we have seen so far. There are plenty of serious YTers by the way who are far better than some some call real news channels. And almost ever news channel and reporter if that is what you think is better are on it now as well. Plenty of big time retired LE, retired attorneys, active attorneys and more. So not sure where you are going with that one or what you consider better sourcing as anything one watches is also on there for the most part.

Many get all records and go through every bit of them and pay to get them.

Anywhooo...

I don't have faith yet this trial will go off on time without a hitch but I do believe with the judge and prosecution it will. Who knows what these silly defense team will do. Anyone's guess.

As far as Holman or is it Holeman? Not real sure where you are going with that either. Yeah he is a big witness, not the only.

I guess you'd have to explain further.

Like I said I don't follow just one case and lack a lot of time on top of it. What others do you follow? I follow almost all new and current although there are some types I tend to stay away from in those but that makes for a lot of cases. Lately I have been trying not to do that or take on every new one but habits die hard lol.
 
Don't get me started adjusting your 18 months for reality. LOL.

We can all agree this is a critical interview ... it's not getting thrown out ... b/c Holeman will find witnesses (moo).

Thoughts I've had:

- Holeman is a major witness. The D (not just this case - all cases) hit the big witnesses hard when they see opportunities. This D has already started on Holeman - back in Oct. w/ the Franks and they've really never let up on Holeman, far as I can tell. Applying pressure on Holeman. Probably not a surprise to Holeman or anyone else.

- The D has a laundry list of evidence they'd like thrown out/suppressed ... (confessions, Holeman interview) ... they're rolling out that list ... because it is time to roll out their objections to evidence and have hearings on these things. These motions are for Gull's consideration/decision making. She's the audience and the decider. Gull has the power to make all of this evidentiary stuff not available to the public, but that's not how she's rolling. Both sides need to get the rules of evidence for this case settled. On the docket recently, there are some things withheld from public; they seem to be psych stuff, they're holding back witness lists and exhibits ... but there may be other sensitive things being withheld from public docket.

- The P should be doing same soon ... not asking for suppression, but motioning to block the SODDI or object to other stuff the D brings into evidence.

What a relief it will be to get down to the real facts rather than all the nonsense that's been conjured up out of nothing on youtube channels.

JMHO
I don't go by what's on YouTube. Their client has been in jail for 18 months. They should have raised this long, long ago if it has any validity.
 
Yeah, I'm one of the nutjobs that has a problem thinking that in 70 years (joint experience) of these 2 criminal defense attorneys have learned nothing and have no strategy for every motion. :geek: Also, I'm pretty sure it's their job to poke poke poke red herring obfuscate and bring that doubt. A good case will overcome all of that stuff. JMHO
Yeah and leak and have people that didn't pass the bar working for them and have four different stories on that.

I have seen plenty of worthless attorneys with more experience than these two. And I've seen stellar ones as well. And have worked for some. I know the difference and both exist.

Let's contrast Read's case. I don't agree in it necessarily but that defense has done an outstanding job of their play to the public and use of corrupt power to create doubt. These two dont' measure up to that at all. And in both cases I am talking criiminal defense attorneys. I'm not taking prosecution side in this remark over defense attorneys--I am contrasting the abilities of the two defense teams. These two are in kindergarten in comparison.

Love the debate. No offense. Lol. Just don't agree.
 
It's what they would call an interview room where they interview everybody on a case.
Do you have the layout of the building per chance? Do they have designated interview and different interrogation rooms?

I ask because I've never been inside an interview room or interrogation room in my life. I dont know how to tell the difference.

If you know the differences, then wow ha ha. I'm kidding. :)
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,321
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom