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]



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]

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On Feb 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams & Liberty German were discovered in Delphi, #INDIANA. The suspect in their deaths is awaiting trial.

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant, though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." Even with a lot of media coverage, their murders remain unsolved.

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[GrandmaBear]

If they have DNA evidence, I highly doubt they'd be holding that back. Same with fingerprints.

I don't know with leakers who use YTers etc. to mount a campaing, I'd sure keep all close to the vest.

But also so what if they don't but have Libby's sock or Abby's barrette (not saying she was wearing one, just example) and what evidence scared Ricky Boy Allen so bad he confessed? The prosecution does NOT tip to the public if doing as they are advised (which I don't entirely agree with always in a case like this especially where one side plays the public and only one side) ANY INFO or EVIDENCE they do not HAVE to.

Of note YOUR Vinnie (he isn't mine, I can go either way on him from day to day) says DNA is not direct evidence. And it took me a moment but true, it isn't. Seems to be what you and some all think is the gold standard though. Fingerprint no different and even probably less so.

Do you ever look for what isn't said? What the defense didn't say they didn't have or find? Like photos, clothing of the girls, maybe a phone of Abby's, who knows. Any of these would be beyond damning and other thing would be as well. Do they cite Kathys' interviews or statements? No.

There is so much we don't know and have not heard.

Think back to all the years most of us, I knowk I did, said they may as well release more in he case or of the recording of of anything they have as this guy will never get caught after all this time if they don't give a bit more out but they did not. They held all back basically and we were always frustrated. That hasn't changed. One bit. They have put out what they had to only to get warrants, to make an arrest, to show cause for such arrest. Defense files things prosecution I am sure would love to go back at in kind and say uhm really, public does not know we can show this and show that but they don't. They file a strictly professional short legal response and stay out of the weeds.

Anyhow whatever. And no one knows to this day what kind of DNA this is other than I suppose the defense and prosecution. Do you?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yeah, like the guy he confessed to, who said he told him that he shot both of them.

You quote the defense. Period. And the defense on another brand new never heard of before story. As if fact. It isn't. And isn't known to be.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I don't know with leakers who use YTers etc. to mount a campaing, I'd sure keep all close to the vest.

But also so what if they don't but have Libby's sock or Abby's barrette (not saying she was wearing one, just example) and what evidence scared Ricky Boy Allen so bad he confessed? The prosecution does NOT tip to the public if doing as they are advised (which I don't entirely agree with always in a case like this especially where one side plays the public and only one side) ANY INFO or EVIDENCE they do not HAVE to.

Of note YOUR Vinnie (he isn't mine, I can go either way on him from day to day) says DNA is not direct evidence. And it took me a moment but true, it isn't. Seems to be what you and some all think is the gold standard though. Fingerprint no different and even probably less so.

Do you ever look for what isn't said? What the defense didn't say they didn't have or find? Like photos, clothing of the girls, maybe a phone of Abby's, who knows. Any of these would be beyond damning and other thing would be as well. Do they cite Kathys' interviews or statements? No.

There is so much we don't know and have not heard.

Think back to all the years most of us, I knowk I did, said they may as well release more in he case or of the recording of of anything they have as this guy will never get caught after all this time if they don't give a bit more out but they did not. They held all back basically and we were always frustrated. That hasn't changed. One bit. They have put out what they had to only to get warrants, to make an arrest, to show cause for such arrest. Defense files things prosecution I am sure would love to go back at in kind and say uhm really, public does not know we can show this and show that but they don't. They file a strictly professional short legal response and stay out of the weeds.

Anyhow whatever. And no one knows to this day what kind of DNA this is other than I suppose the defense and prosecution. Do you?

Name one case that revealed DNA matching until AFTER the trial started. If you want to get a confession, the first thing you start with is: "We have your DNA at the scene, as well as your fingerprints."

 

[Guess Who]

Saw this while exiting ... Grandmabear has same Q's ... the D asked P for the beginning of the recording - that's where miranda is handled, and the D had to wait for the P to search for it, and then get back to them confirming the first part of the interrogation is ... not on record. Next, D searches for possible miranda paperwork - no paperwork. Maybe I'm missing something but is that not the process? D thinks there is missing discovery, asks for it, the P says okay I'll get back to you, P goes and looks for it, that takes x time, P tells D they looked and they found nothing, D does further research, checks and double checks if there's a paper miranda, there's not, D preps motion. We've seen a series of such complaints from the D about incomplete discovery and P's had to go searching, and/or answer previous motions as to their explanation for the incomplete discovery. IMO, this is just more of that. The sticky thing here ... the think the D can't bring a motion without having verified the fact that the beginning of the interrogation is indeed MISSING ... it likely took time for the P to get that confirmed by LE. The beginning of the interrogation is - in fact - missing.

Yeah, "missing" part of a recording would definitely be an issue for an attorney to have a field day with..as it should be. This still should have been brought up much, much earlier.

 

[Guess Who]

Yeah, like the guy he confessed to, who said he told him that he shot both of them.

So now you are agreeing that nobody should go in without representation, right? Otherwise you are a totally confused emu with your lack of logic here.

 

[Guess Who]

Name one case that revealed DNA matching until AFTER the trial started. If you want to get a confession, the first thing you start with is: "We have your DNA at the scene, as well as your fingerprints."

Yep, You keep on giving more and more reasons why one should have representation when going in, yet you still disagree that people shouldn't???

 

[GrandmaBear]

Name one case that revealed DNA matching until AFTER the trial started. If you want to get a confession, the first thing you start with is: "We have your DNA at the scene, as well as your fingerprints."

I haven't said there is a DNA match or isn't nor that there is a fingerprint match or isn't have I? I would have no idea if such has ever happened in a case but I also don't put a lot of stock in whether they have it or not or whether it is touch, animal, sperm or hair DNA, etc. Who the F knows? Have you been told or any of us? Yet you cite there is DNA but you can't tell anyone what importance it is, what type of where it was found because CLEARLY they haven't shared THAT now have they? And on your thinking, the would wouldn't they if they had such and knew such? Why haven't they shared that as you say they would to get a confession and so on? So your argument make sense with only one half of these answers if at all.

You also ignore the rest of what I said. What if they have a sock, a photo? Etc.

What did Allen freak out over and confess over?

I could I guess go look for cases like that but why would I ask I claimed no such thing or certainty. As it is I have six more pages of a defense motion to read that I probably won't and have no desire to first lol.

You pick and choose and stick on what you want. You are defense minded but hang on an LE or FBI or whatever request for warrant written as effectively as they could to get one. However, you will dismiss all else they found or say. Just saying.

And we all have our opinions. Clearly. Obviously. Me as well.

I pray this gets tried next month. It is time much of it gets put to bed.

In ending to this post, we all have our opinions and repeat them and believe me I have heard your fingerprint and DNA thing many a time and acknowledge I have heard it. Okay?

And you aren't going to change any more than I am you anyone else's opinion or mine. For me I don't hang on that nor is it the crux and all of this case by a long shot. Whether they have it or not, what kind it is, where either was found. You say they'd share to get a confession and so on, well have they shared a bit of that?? NO I think is the answer every one of us can give to those questions. Sooooo?

You know I think it well established by now you are not going to bring me or some over to your opinion nor am I going to bring you over to mine no? Neither is going to convince the other and it's been discussed more than once. I guess at least we are talking if one can call it that.

So how about some new subjects instead of the same old disagreement? While I don't want to go into the interrogation room rabbit hole, at least new filings are new info than the same old that has been discussed here and everywhere a million times over. No?

I really don't want to spend life beating on the same old drum as we don't have answers and won't until trial. If you want to however, you go for it. You certainly have the right. I'm probably not going to play any longer though or bite when it is such. Pretty much said it here. We don't know and on your basis they would have said where found, what type and so on to get I'm to confess and they didn't so it doesn't wash. And none of us know. DNA has been a dance from the start with them and a question they've talked all around.

DNA is not the gold standard if say it is a schoolmate of Kelsey's who grabbed her arm whens he was wearing the sweatshirt she lent to one of the girls that day. And even if that is what it is and they don't know whose it is well yah, or maybe a teacher picked it up off the floor when it fell off the back of a chair. That means little.

Now if it is of the Allens' cat like so many speculate whoa boy. and of course they wouldn't have come out with that as it came after. However, perhaps he saw it in the discovery with new findings and test results, etc...

Now give me a break as I am not one who necessarily buys the cat thing but it has been said there is DNA but it isnt' the typical DNA or some such....

Not even going to go into fingerprint which much the same coiuld be said about. With that, I am done with it okay? Until any of us know more or see it and clearly if we have not by now that is going to take trial.

Good luck on your Read case. And I mean that. I know you and kdg are invested in it. I hope whatever is right wins out. I sure don't know. I hope if evidence is fake it is clear, I hiopei if evidence is real it is clear and what should happens happens. I don't know. I'm not sold on her innocence or their alternate story but I'm not sold on her guilt either or couldn't convict yet as a juror anyhow until seeing more.

I'm a bit the same here. Both need to be tried. BOTH have been trying to convince the public of innocence by only the defense pumping stuff into the public pretty much. That really is a big part of my problem with it. I think it needs to change. Don't get me wrong if someone is being railroaded they absolutely should be able to go public and put things in the light of day for help but I don't agree with how they yell on one hand about publicitiy but then do that first of all and seconf of all, then the prosecution should be able to not let it go on for a year or more and come back with well, maybe we need to share before trial that we have THIS evidence before people believe one side only and jury pools are tainted beyond repair.

And believe it or not I don't want to see anyone wrongly charged, convicted or railroaded and I sure would never want to be. One fact in both cases is they were there. Of course that doesn't make them guilty at all but from the get go it is not like LE is placing them at a scene where they were not is it? That is square one for me. Then there are several more.

Regardless I don't like corrupt powers that be and there certain is one in that case if not more. They ruin justice these days or can because they can't keep their selfish noses clean. However, I also don't like the victim and the accused drinking, driving and being immune in their opinon to tickets and charges that others would have to worry about.

I truly don't like any of them pretty much. O/T a bit but the cases are the same in that both defenses are trying to try the case on one side before prosecution shows all theirs. And for me, that right there doesn't fly.

There is a lot in this case I am not happy with. Doolin, lost recordings or overtaped ones or whatever. I trust though most juries. Not saying you coudln't get an idiot or one with an agenda or gotten to on one don't get me wrong but I think overall thek people who go in when called, get passed through and are willing to give their time out of their life take it very very seriously.

Both cases need to be tried and hopefully both will be in these next weeks.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Yeah, "missing" part of a recording would definitely be an issue for an attorney to have a field day with..as it should be. This still should have been brought up much, much earlier.

I believe the prosecution just gave the defense the interview stuff after saying they couldn't find it.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

I haven't said there is a DNA match or isn't nor that there is a fingerprint match or isn't have I? I would have no idea if such has ever happened in a case but I also don't put a lot of stock in whether they have it or not or whether it is touch, animal, sperm or hair DNA, etc. Who the F knows? Have you been told or any of us? Yet you cite there is DNA but you can't tell anyone what importance it is, what type of where it was found because CLEARLY they haven't shared THAT now have they? And on your thinking, the would wouldn't they if they had such and knew such? Why haven't they shared that as you say they would to get a confession and so on? So your argument make sense with only one half of these answers if at all.

You also ignore the rest of what I said. What if they have a sock, a photo? Etc.

What did Allen freak out over and confess over?

I could I guess go look for cases like that but why would I ask I claimed no such thing or certainty. As it is I have six more pages of a defense motion to read that I probably won't and have no desire to first lol.

You pick and choose and stick on what you want. You are defense minded but hang on an LE or FBI or whatever request for warrant written as effectively as they could to get one. However, you will dismiss all else they found or say. Just saying.

And we all have our opinions. Clearly. Obviously. Me as well.

I pray this gets tried next month. It is time much of it gets put to bed.

In ending to this post, we all have our opinions and repeat them and believe me I have heard your fingerprint and DNA thing many a time and acknowledge I have heard it. Okay?

And you aren't going to change any more than I am you anyone else's opinion or mine. For me I don't hang on that nor is it the crux and all of this case by a long shot. Whether they have it or not, what kind it is, where either was found. You say they'd share to get a confession and so on, well have they shared a bit of that?? NO I think is the answer every one of us can give to those questions. Sooooo?

You know I think it well established by now you are not going to bring me or some over to your opinion nor am I going to bring you over to mine no? Neither is going to convince the other and it's been discussed more than once. I guess at least we are talking if one can call it that.

So how about some new subjects instead of the same old disagreement? While I don't want to go into the interrogation room rabbit hole, at least new filings are new info than the same old that has been discussed here and everywhere a million times over. No?

I really don't want to spend life beating on the same old drum as we don't have answers and won't until trial. If you want to however, you go for it. You certainly have the right. I'm probably not going to play any longer though or bite when it is such. Pretty much said it here. We don't know and on your basis they would have said where found, what type and so on to get I'm to confess and they didn't so it doesn't wash. And none of us know. DNA has been a dance from the start with them and a question they've talked all around.

DNA is not the gold standard if say it is a schoolmate of Kelsey's who grabbed her arm whens he was wearing the sweatshirt she lent to one of the girls that day. And even if that is what it is and they don't know whose it is well yah, or maybe a teacher picked it up off the floor when it fell off the back of a chair. That means little.

Now if it is of the Allens' cat like so many speculate whoa boy. and of course they wouldn't have come out with that as it came after. However, perhaps he saw it in the discovery with new findings and test results, etc...

Now give me a break as I am not one who necessarily buys the cat thing but it has been said there is DNA but it isnt' the typical DNA or some such....

Not even going to go into fingerprint which much the same coiuld be said about. With that, I am done with it okay? Until any of us know more or see it and clearly if we have not by now that is going to take trial.

Good luck on your Read case. And I mean that. I know you and kdg are invested in it. I hope whatever is right wins out. I sure don't know. I hope if evidence is fake it is clear, I hiopei if evidence is real it is clear and what should happens happens. I don't know. I'm not sold on her innocence or their alternate story but I'm not sold on her guilt either or couldn't convict yet as a juror anyhow until seeing more.

I'm a bit the same here. Both need to be tried. BOTH have been trying to convince the public of innocence by only the defense pumping stuff into the public pretty much. That really is a big part of my problem with it. I think it needs to change. Don't get me wrong if someone is being railroaded they absolutely should be able to go public and put things in the light of day for help but I don't agree with how they yell on one hand about publicitiy but then do that first of all and seconf of all, then the prosecution should be able to not let it go on for a year or more and come back with well, maybe we need to share before trial that we have THIS evidence before people believe one side only and jury pools are tainted beyond repair.

And believe it or not I don't want to see anyone wrongly charged, convicted or railroaded and I sure would never want to be. One fact in both cases is they were there. Of course that doesn't make them guilty at all but from the get go it is not like LE is placing them at a scene where they were not is it? That is square one for me. Then there are several more.

Regardless I don't like corrupt powers that be and there certain is one in that case if not more. They ruin justice these days or can because they can't keep their selfish noses clean. However, I also don't like the victim and the accused drinking, driving and being immune in their opinon to tickets and charges that others would have to worry about.

I truly don't like any of them pretty much. O/T a bit but the cases are the same in that both defenses are trying to try the case on one side before prosecution shows all theirs. And for me, that right there doesn't fly.

There is a lot in this case I am not happy with. Doolin, lost recordings or overtaped ones or whatever. I trust though most juries. Not saying you coudln't get an idiot or one with an agenda or gotten to on one don't get me wrong but I think overall thek people who go in when called, get passed through and are willing to give their time out of their life take it very very seriously.

Both cases need to be tried and hopefully both will be in these next weeks.

I only read the first part. You didn't say they had a DNA match or fingerprint match. However, they do have DNA and fingerprints from the crime scene. They have not announced that there is any proof it is his. So, who's is it?

 

[GrandmaBear]

So now you are agreeing that nobody should go in without representation, right? Otherwise you are a totally confused emu with your lack of logic here.

He is talking of some brand new claim that he confessed to someone while in incarceration though, not to a cop I don't think. One was an inmate I forget their other new claim on who. So lol he was represented when he did this. If one can call his representation representation that is... This is another thing that way long after the facts all of a sudden magically is said.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I only read the first part. You didn't say they had a DNA match or fingerprint match. However, they do have DNA and fingerprints from the crime scene. They have not announced that there is any proof it is his. So, who's is it?

you only read the first part of what?

have I not responded to this kind of question before many a time and did I just not do so in full for the last time?

at length no doubt.

but i'd refer you to that as I said all I have to say about it in full.

for the last time. and i'm done with it and as I said it is going to take trial clearly.

and I pointed out a few things.

so if you only read part of my response then that's on you. if you are referring to reading only part of something else please clarify.

psheesh. in all lightness because of you I am never going to take an Uber again. I am never going to a Wegmans' if I ever see one which I NEVER HAVE. I am never buying a can of mushroom soup which no risk there as I have never in my entire multiple decades of life purchased one and will die before I ever do. LOL.

Done with the topic, did respond in full. Above. I sort of love you. At times. Just your awkward bird legs and speed and craziness though. Not into the nekked butt.

This thread needs a dose of lightness on occasion imo.

 

[Guess Who]

He is talking of some brand new claim that he confessed to someone while in incarceration though, not to a cop I don't think. One was an inmate I forget their other new claim on who. So lol he was represented when he did this. If one can call his representation representation that is... This is another thing that way long after the facts all of a sudden magically is said.

But he keeps bringing up false confessions

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Yep, You keep on giving more and more reasons why one should have representation when going in, yet you still disagree that people shouldn't???

I have seen a lot of interviews with cops on Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other true crime shows. Every time a guy lawyers up immediately, they become a better suspect to the cops.

I thought Peter Brozowitz lawyering up was really hinky.

JMO

 

[GrandmaBear]

But he keeps bringing up false confessions

Well yeah that's true. Always and forever. I thought you meant as to this one where RA if he did at all did it imo to prove his other confessions can't be trusted. Sorry. Haven't seen you in this one a lot and so I thought you maybe didn't know of these recent very late claims just like the Miranda thing.

Yeah false confessions and all are framed. If that's where you were at I get it lol.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Well yeah that's true. Always and forever. I thought you meant as to this one where RA if he did at all did it imo to prove his other confessions can't be trusted. Sorry. Haven't seen you in this one a lot and so I thought you maybe didn't know of these recent very late claims just like the Miranda thing.

Yeah false confessions and all are framed. If that's where you were at I get it lol.

We'll see what the prosecution presents as the confessions. So far they have not inspired a lot of confidence in me. Knowing they have DNA and fingerprints from the scene, but have not announced a match, is hinky to me. If it doesn't match, at the very least it means he had someone else involved. It could also mean he wasn't involved at all.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I have seen a lot of interviews with cops on Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other true crime shows. Every time a guy lawyers up immediately, they become a better suspect to the cops.

I thought Peter Brozowitz lawyering up was really hinky.

JMO

While I think we have all watched them these are TV shows. Like your Vinnie said who is part of that system when talking innocence project or innocence shows or anything else just give him the point (I am paraphrasing) and he took can show only the things meant to convince a viewere of that and not all the other things. I go back and forth with him, he has a few moments that are worthy of mention like that one. I think he is I a bit between still having to be tied to TV and doesn' yet go entirely out of that on his own shows/new channel, we shall see.

Point is, they pick their direction and there you go. True crime shows yes. Some trying to show both sides? I guess. Packed into an hour tops? Okay. Still it is TV. And agenda most often. I mean these are true right and not fiction?

Anyhow...

I would be in a fix as I am not going to smartly lawyer up unless I did something and I don't do anything that would have me doing that. And so if LE wanted to talk o me I would definitely cooperate. if and only if I for some reason I was being framed or they seemed intent on me and not wondering what I knew about something would I think stop and say I want a lawyer and shut up.

I think this is most people. Sure I guess you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be framed. I think it very rarely the case.

In Delphi RA was there. In Read, she was there. No one went and manufactured people who were never there.

Does that make them guilty? Of COURSE NOT. But it is step one.

I don't go anywhere and I don't hide my whereabouts, cheat, sneak, lie, kill and pretty much am at work, home or with family.

ABout the only thing I could ever be asked is if I witnessed something. If they were talking to me about anything else with no relation to me or I was not there, it is over and if it continued yes I'd ask for an attorney.

There's a likelihood to begin with if you are with officers you were at a site of an accident or crime. Certainly there has been some crazy out there framing especially decades ago and such but the day is very different. They have taken the legs or power from LE and prosecutors a lot and in many cases and if anything they can hardly do their job for rules. And all is going to soft on defendants to the point of overboard the other way.

Not all are corrupt. Not all are framed. Not all defendants are innocent in fact a minority if many at all are.

If I was wrongly accused or framed of course I'd be singing a different story but do you know what? I pretty much can show where I am and what I was doing at any given time. My life is very not risky. I live in a complex amongst many. I work with many. My drive is about two blocks. I'm not saying one should have to live that way and could not get framed but again ifsure doesn't hurt. I'm not out, I'm not buying drugs, I am not looking for some hooker to hire, and quite simply I was not there, you can about bet on it. if in an accident or saw one, I wouldn't flee. I'd stop and give all the info.

I guess I just don't agree with or like an all one way or all the other way. Not all are framed. Not all are corrupt. RA was there. His bullet was there. HE PUT HIMSELF THERE. He is a dead ringer for BG in looks and in voice.

Anyhow, lost any point but as cynical as I am I would cooperate with LE and not lawyer up because I didn't do anything. Only if they seem to think I did would I. and I will guarantee you I was not on that bridge nor never would I be. Lol. For instance.

Again lost my point. Mopping my kitchen floor now. In between.

 

[Guess Who]

I have seen a lot of interviews with cops on Dateline, 48 Hours, 20/20 and other true crime shows. Every time a guy lawyers up immediately, they become a better suspect to the cops.

I thought Peter Brozowitz lawyering up was really hinky.

JMO

So??? That's because they want to be able to lie to you and would have to do real work to figure out why that did it and can't keep reeming an innocent person into saying something stupid. And by saying that you've seen those and also say you've seen plenty of false confessions, which is worse??! You don't immediately become a "better suspect", you just become a better source of frustration to them. There are no real questions they can't ask you with an attorney present. They are just limited to not getting caught not being able to berate you into saying something stupid.

 

[Guess Who]

We'll see what the prosecution presents as the confessions. So far they have not inspired a lot of confidence in me. Knowing they have DNA and fingerprints from the scene, but have not announced a match, is hinky to me. If it doesn't match, at the very least it means he had someone else involved. It could also mean he wasn't involved at all.

Why would they announce to the public the results before trial?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

While I think we have all watched them these are TV shows. Like your Vinnie said who is part of that system when talking innocence project or innocence shows or anything else just give him the point (I am paraphrasing) and he took can show only the things meant to convince a viewere of that and not all the other things. I go back and forth with him, he has a few moments that are worthy of mention like that one. I think he is I a bit between still having to be tied to TV and doesn' yet go entirely out of that on his own shows/new channel, we shall see.

Point is, they pick their direction and there you go. True crime shows yes. Some trying to show both sides? I guess. Packed into an hour tops? Okay. Still it is TV. And agenda most often. I mean these are true right and not fiction?

Anyhow...

I would be in a fix as I am not going to smartly lawyer up unless I did something and I don't do anything that would have me doing that. And so if LE wanted to talk o me I would definitely cooperate. if and only if I for some reason I was being framed or they seemed intent on me and not wondering what I knew about something would I think stop and say I want a lawyer and shut up.

I think this is most people. Sure I guess you could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and be framed. I think it very rarely the case.

In Delphi RA was there. In Read, she was there. No one went and manufactured people who were never there.

Does that make them guilty? Of COURSE NOT. But it is step one.

I don't go anywhere and I don't hide my whereabouts, cheat, sneak, lie, kill and pretty much am at work, home or with family.

ABout the only thing I could ever be asked is if I witnessed something. If they were talking to me about anything else with no relation to me or I was not there, it is over and if it continued yes I'd ask for an attorney.

There's a likelihood to begin with if you are with officers you were at a site of an accident or crime. Certainly there has been some crazy out there framing especially decades ago and such but the day is very different. They have taken the legs or power from LE and prosecutors a lot and in many cases and if anything they can hardly do their job for rules. And all is going to soft on defendants to the point of overboard the other way.

Not all are corrupt. Not all are framed. Not all defendants are innocent in fact a minority if many at all are.

If I was wrongly accused or framed of course I'd be singing a different story but do you know what? I pretty much can show where I am and what I was doing at any given time. My life is very not risky. I live in a complex amongst many. I work with many. My drive is about two blocks. I'm not saying one should have to live that way and could not get framed but again ifsure doesn't hurt. I'm not out, I'm not buying drugs, I am not looking for some hooker to hire, and quite simply I was not there, you can about bet on it. if in an accident or saw one, I wouldn't flee. I'd stop and give all the info.

I guess I just don't agree with or like an all one way or all the other way. Not all are framed. Not all are corrupt. RA was there. His bullet was there. HE PUT HIMSELF THERE. He is a dead ringer for BG in looks and in voice.

Anyhow, lost any point but as cynical as I am I would cooperate with LE and not lawyer up because I didn't do anything. Only if they seem to think I did would I. and I will guarantee you I was not on that bridge nor never would I be. Lol. For instance.

Again lost my point. Mopping my kitchen floor now. In between.

Laziness is a big part too. We haven't solved this yet. There's a Sheriff's election coming up. This guy says he was there, so he must have done it.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Why would they announce to the public the results before trial?

Why did they in the GILGO case and every other case where a DNA match is what made them arrest a certain person? I can't think of one case where DNA and fingerprint evidence was withheld until trial.