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:
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.
The motion narrative describes how the D has been asking for the miranda evidence for a while and the P went and looked for it and had to acknowledge they didn't have the paper record, nor the first part of the interview. Maybe the P's response will provide a timeline of their response etc...
 
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.
I know it has been about a year and a half. Uncertain when they were put on but not long after if I recall. I went by your 18 months. Doesn't really matter, this is lesson A or 1 for an attorney isn't it?
 
LOL interview versus interrogation rooms now. Well I guess it is new discussion I am laughing out loud.

Do they need a two way mirror and to have recording to be one or the other. If you talk to them at a hospital and it is a conference room or visitor's room does that mean it is not an interrogation if they are not allowed to leave? Oh my where this could go.

Still chuckling.
 
The motion narrative describes how the D has been asking for the miranda evidence for a while and the P went and looked for it and had to acknowledge they didn't have the paper record, nor the first part of the interview. Maybe the P's response will provide a timeline of their response etc...
What did Allen tell them this past year and one half? And when did they first ask for it also? So they haven't had it or talked to client about it for these 18 months or whatever time you would correct that to? What did they do about it? Complain to Gull and she denied it? When? How far back?

I am serious and not sarcastic. I haven't even finished Tom's last one, had a heckuva week etc. and follow more than this case so you likely do know more than I do as this seems to be your only case.

I am open, tell me? Not opinion but fact.
 
Well we know they don't like travelling to see their client, as it is a 10 hour round trip.
Yes and spent their first large amount of time complaining about such and using it as an excuse to their client and his family instead of doing their job and left him alone without counsel seeing him, etc. That is one thing I have seen and thought from the beginning.
 
I know it has been about a year and a half. Uncertain when they were put on but not long after if I recall. I went by your 18 months. Doesn't really matter, this is lesson A or 1 for an attorney isn't it?
Depends if we count the bit where they withdrew and then had to go to appeal to get back. How many months was that? Plus the Franks motion debacle.

Yes he has been in jail for 18 months so far. 19 months once the trial begins.
 
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! :)
I almost missed this one lol.

You broke it, I did not, you did. I'm telling mom you did it. I did not, you DID and you KNOW IT!

They are the sloppiest defense I maybe have ever seen. They can't even write a sentence. Sorry but true. At times though I do feel it is intentional but then I look at their messes and think uhm no...
 
Depends if we count the bit where they withdrew and then had to go to appeal to get back. How many months was that? Plus the Franks motion debacle.

Yes he has been in jail for 18 months so far. 19 months once the trial begins.
yeah I am unsure what Olenna was going to correct my stating that amount of time to unless the part where they weren't on it or until they were appointed after his arrest. either way It wouldn't be much when talking a year, year and a half.

whatever point is this would be an early thing to address and file no something way way down the line at the last minute.
 
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. :)
Interview rooms have a one way mirror don't they and there is always a uniformed officer in there too, right. And a video recorder (unless someone left it on for months and it recorded over itself LOL). This was Lafayette so they should have better facilities hopefully.
 
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
Oh well then he was mirandized after all ???????
 
What did Allen tell them this past year and one half? And when did they first ask for it also? So they haven't had it or talked to client about it for these 18 months or whatever time you would correct that to? What did they do about it? Complain to Gull and she denied it? When? How far back?

I am serious and not sarcastic. I haven't even finished Tom's last one, had a heckuva week etc. and follow more than this case so you likely do know more than I do as this seems to be your only case.

I am open, tell me? Not opinion but fact.

Big picture: Motion to suppress critical interview w/ Holeman. (IMO, it will not be suppressed.)
Relevant question: What's the purpose/strategy of the motion? Why now?

So ... that is a question I have that matches your questions: "Why now?"

The difference is, my "why now" question is brought from the point of view that there's a strategic reason ... what could it be?

While your "why now" question is brought from your point of view that the Defense are blubbering stumbling irresponsible idiots.

IMO, We are NOT debating. We are on completely different planets, wearing completely different glasses, holding a different definition of "debate".

Anyway, download/read the motion. 11 quick pages. Skip Tom. It's a very quick read. Quotes the interview(s). It's short, punchy. It's juicy. You'll find new stuff in there you never knew. (Although, there's none of that detail you express frustration about above.) JMHO
 
Last edited:
Interview rooms have a one way mirror don't they and there is always a uniformed officer in there too, right. And a video recorder (unless someone left it on for months and it recorded over itself LOL). This was Lafayette so they should have better facilities hopefully.
Pretty sure the motion addresses the rooms.
 
Interview rooms have a one way mirror don't they and there is always a uniformed officer in there too, right. And a video recorder (unless someone left it on for months and it recorded over itself LOL). This was Lafayette so they should have better facilities hopefully.
Why was it in Lafayette? Not sure I knew that, can you refresh me?

I think Cathy was talked to at work at least once based on notes I think you may have published or warrant stuff/info.
 
Oh well then he was mirandized after all ???????
Yeah, that's me thinking SURELY they took care of that.

In the motion the defense asserts that the discovery they received has no record of miranda happening.

Really, it's easier to just read the motion. You'll be rewarded with actual quotes. Pulled out of context, but ... actual quotes.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,320
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom