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 did not even go to what he said as also did not recall it that way but know there's some urban legend or rumor out there like that. And time to almost go and no time to look up to dispute but I am sure you will do it aptly lol.

To me it does not matter as there is absolutely nothing in this case that works with framing a man five years later or more. It does not compute and is ridiculously far fetched. In that, I'd believe first someone came from another planet and did it. Lol. So that's where I stayed with it with lack of time.
Framing him with his own bullet too, going back in time and placing it there to be found on the day the bodies were found - ingenious.
 
When he was actually arrested. It doesn't matter now as I have found out and it wasn't on that day of the interview D want to suppress. It would be good to get a full transcript of that interview though, instead of just the little itty bit quoted in the motion.
Yes, everything is out of context without the full transcript. No full RA interviews/interrogations transcripts have made it to the public realm AFAIK.
ETA: Arrest was day of the 2nd interview/Holeman on Oct 26.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
Mulling this Miranda thing. The D admits freely during interview 1 RA was mirandized.

I'm thinking the fact he was NOT mirandized during interview 2 is going to go against the P.
It seems that Holman may have pointed out and just relied on the previous Miranda perhaps. Without us seeing the complete transcript, we aren't going to know. Not sure how the judge will rule on it without all the info.
 
It seems that Holman may have pointed out and just relied on the previous Miranda perhaps. Without us seeing the complete transcript, we aren't going to know. Not sure how the judge will rule on it without all the info.
It was a different day, though. The earlier Miranda had expired.
 
It was a different day, though. The earlier Miranda had expired.
I think they can just extend a Miranda can't they?

If they just walked away from the first interview ( which he did apparently) then they can assume he would do the same again if he wished to leave.

Also, if the second interview is within two weeks, apparently they don't need to Miranda again. Also, if they are not in custody, a Miranda is not required either.


Thus, police do not need to Mirandize you to ask simple questions. But when their questions may implicate you in a crime, and a "reasonable person" would not feel free to walk away, an interrogation has begun.
In another 2010 case, the U.S. Supreme Court refined the rules for police interrogations. The court ruled that police officers may initiate a second interrogation of a suspect who had previously invoked his Miranda right to remain silent. Police may begin the second interrogation once two weeks have elapsed from the date of the original interrogation.

The Supreme Court ruled that police did not have to give the suspect another Miranda warning. The court decided that the Miranda warning from the previous interrogation remained in effect. Thus, the statements the suspect gave during the second interrogation constituted a waiver of his right to silence.
 
Last edited:
Most recently, we have two suppression motions from the Defense - most recent, entered 1 day apart, and awaiting Prosecution response.

- 2nd interview suppression motion - indicates motion is accompanied by both these LE interviews RA recordings.

- Confession suppression motion - indicates motion is accompanied by has confessions evidence and recordings of RA's confession(s) and mental health history stuff and expert input and health history stuff.

The Judge is obligated to consider all submissions, attachments, recordings, etc. (including whatever the P responses to these 2 motions with) when considering the D's motion(s).

I'm inclined to see the above two D Suppression Motions as being related, and when combined, they appear to be strategic.

The D has effectively (and one day apart) put in front of the Judge full recordings of RA's general affect pre-arrest and full recordings of RA's general affect @ prison confession. i.e. Before arrest being RA under normal stress. After incarceration being RA under (D's argument) what are extraordinarily traumatic conditions.

We have no idea if the Judge will agree with the D and suppress this or that BUT ... we can see that D has brought before the Judge RA's voice, personality, and affect before and after. We don't know what the recordings sound like. However, if the D did not make these motions, the Judge would not have heard these RA recordings.

The jury surely will view Libby's phone capture, and should Gull see fit to deny these suppression motions, the jury will also see/hear these RA recordings.

On a selfish note: Because this trial is not being taped (atm) ... the public may never hear these recordings and we may never see the original Libby's phone capture. Bummer. :angry:

JMHO
 
Last edited:
I think they can just extend a Miranda can't they?

If the second interview is within two weeks apparently they don't need to Miranda again. Also, if they are not in custody, a Miranda is not required either.


Thus, police do not need to Mirandize you to ask simple questions. But when their questions may implicate you in a crime, and a "reasonable person" would not feel free to walk away, an interrogation has begun.
In another 2010 case, the U.S. Supreme Court refined the rules for police interrogations. The court ruled that police officers may initiate a second interrogation of a suspect who had previously invoked his Miranda right to remain silent. Police may begin the second interrogation once two weeks have elapsed from the date of the original interrogation.

The Supreme Court ruled that police did not have to give the suspect another Miranda warning. The court decided that the Miranda warning from the previous interrogation remained in effect. Thus, the statements the suspect gave during the second interrogation constituted a waiver of his right to silence.
This is the one I was reading


After the trial, Howard appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court denied his motion to suppress his statements made in the second interview because the police officers did not reissue his Miranda rights prior to the interview. It is important to note that during the first interview, Howard did not choose to remain silent. He waived his Miranda rights (You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you.) and continued with the interview. The second interview was not an attempt to get Howard to talk because he refused to during the first interview. He voluntarily chose to talk during the first interview. However, the police officers had an obligation to reissue Howard his Miranda rights before the start of his second interview, just as they did before the start of his third interview. The rights must be read every time there is a significant break in an interrogation. His statements made during the second interrogation should have been suppressed.
 
IMO, we know there is no RA-related DNA evidence in this case. And we know there is no digital evidence linking RA to the victims.
(Parsing "digital evidence" is unnecessary as it's the broadest possible term. It covers CSAM theory, KK theory, direct contact w/ victim theory, geo-location info, digital photos, web searches, social media, etc.)

Here's how we know:

1. Depositions from LE confirm this. IMO, that's fact. (Franks Memo exhibits and narrative).
2. In the FM filings the D specifically asserts the lack of DNA and digital evidence related to RA. And the P has not disagreed.
3. If there's a fact interpretation in any Defense Motion, the Prosecution DOES respond and object and identify and correct what they consider to be a wrong Fact. The Prosecution HAS to be on top of that. It's their job to object, reject, correct and highlight any error in fact that the other side brings to the Court. (Same for the Defense - this obligation goes both ways.)
4. The Prosecution has along the way identified what they consider to be inaccurate or wrong facts in their responses to D motions.
5.The Defense has done the same in their responses to P motions.
6. Repeating: there's been no RA-related DNA or RA-related digital evidence disagreement between D and P.
7. Court officers DO NOT lie about facts in their submissions. Sure, they will present the facts in the best light for their argument. That's their job.

JMHO
 


From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, top of page 12.

#36.(L) Rick Allen was not free to leave as he was handcuffed and
arrested on camera after over 2 hours and 40 minutes of denying
involvement in the murders.


From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, bottom page 12:

39.Law enforcement clearly knew ahead of Rick Allen’s interrogation
that they would be arresting Allen for the murders. However, rather
than arrest Rick Allen at his home or work or after pulling him over,
Holeman waited until he had one more opportunity to interrogate
Rick Allen without Miranda.

From your ISP custodial interrogation rules link:

A. Custodial Interrogation – Questioning, express or implied, initiated by a law enforcement officer after a person has been deprived of freedom of action in a significant way.

It's my understanding that the definition of "custodial interrogation" does not include the requirement of a same-day arrest. (see the linked rules).

It requires confinement conditions - does the subject feel they are free to leave at any time or are they told "stay here" and they are not free to leave?
It doesn't require same day arrest for felony. The D's motion describes how the Holeman interview conditions met these confinement conditions as far as to RA's experience.

D's argument addresses the about custodial vs. non-custodial interrogation, and argues that ... even if/when this Holeman interview switched from one type of interrogation to another ... there became an obligation to re-Miranda.

The carry-over Miranda from the previous interview only works if the Holeman interview is fully non-custodial. Here, once it becomes custodial, Miranda must be given (or have been given at beginning of this particular interview).

(IMO - If the MIranda was offered at the get go of this particular Holeman interview, that would solve the problem - even if the interview started non-custodial and then turned custodial.)

IMO for the Court to parse:
1st issue: Was the Holeman interview "custodial". And/or Did the Holeman interrogation become "custodial".
2nd issue: Was Miranda warning provided at beginning of the Holeman interview (as is the practice)/or was an acknowledgement of Miranda notice signed such that the State's Miranda obligation was met for the "custodial" interrogation.

Along the same topic - this rule from your ISP link caught my eye:

F. Interrogation.
1. During the interrogation, the officer’s conduct should be of a professional demeanor. No threats or promises should be made to the suspect.

From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, bottom page 12:, mid page 9

36.(i) Throughout the interrogation, Holeman explicitly told Rick
Allen that he (Holeman), the prosecutor and other law
enforcement officers all believed that Rick Allen had engaged
in the accused conduct (murder) and Holeman’s questions
throughout the entire interrogation were accusatory, not
exploratory. Included in the videotaped interrogation are the
following exchanges that highlight the accusatory – not
exploratory – nature of Holeman’s interrogation of Rick Allen:

JMHO
 
Last edited:
From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, top of page 12.



That arrest timing in this motion seems to disagree w/ the arrest date reported at the State's presser.

From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, bottom page 12:



From your ISP custodial interrogation rules link:



It's my understanding that the definition of "custodial interrogation" does not include the requirement of a same-day arrest. (see the linked rules).

It requires confinement conditions - does the subject feel they are free to leave at any time or are they told "stay here" and they are not free to leave?
It doesn't require same day arrest for felony. The D's motion describes how the Holeman interview conditions met these confinement conditions as far as to RA's experience.

D's argument addresses the about custodial vs. non-custodial interrogation, and argues that ... even if/when this Holeman interview switched from one type of interrogation to another ... there became an obligation to re-Miranda.

The carry-over Miranda from the previous interview only works if the Holeman interview is fully non-custodial. Here, once it becomes custodial, Miranda must be given (or have been given at beginning of this particular interview).

(IMO - If the MIranda was offered at the get go of this particular Holeman interview, that would solve the problem - even if the interview started non-custodial and then turned custodial.)

IMO for the Court to parse:
1st issue: Was the Holeman interview "custodial". And/or Did the Holeman interrogation become "custodial".
2nd issue: Was Miranda warning provided at beginning of the Holeman interview (as is the practice)/or was an acknowledgement of Miranda notice signed such that the State's Miranda obligation was met for the "custodial" interrogation.

Along the same topic - this rule from your ISP link caught my eye:



From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, bottom page 12:, mid page 9
The handcuffs makes a huge difference. He definitely did not have the ability to leave if he was handcuffed.
 
The handcuffs makes a huge difference. He definitely did not have the ability to leave if he was handcuffed.
Amazing what you can learn if you read. :)
yes. handcuffed at end on interview - on the interview tape. And the arrest appears to be on the 26th - same day confinement begins and RA's been in custody since.

That being said, Holeman did provide a written statement Nov 1 that said "other detectives" mirandized RA before the interview. However if Holeman is referencing the detectives from the previous "non-custodial" interview - days prior ... that's not good enough, per the rules, for a "custodial interrogation".

From the Defense Motion to Suppress 2nd Interview, page 4/5

23.To make matters more suspicious, Holeman claims in his November
1, 2022, report (memorializing his October 26 interrogation of Rick
Allen) the following: “I asked Mr. Allen if he remembered the other
detectives reading him his Miranda rights and he said yes. I told him
he was free to go at anytime and that the door was unlocked.”
24.Holeman’s report doesn’t identify who the other investigators are
that purportedly reviewed Miranda with Rick.
25.Holeman’s report doesn’t detail when, where or how these purported
investigators purportedly reviewed Miranda with Rick.
26.Holeman’s words quoted in paragraph 23 above appear nowhere on
video. In other words, Holeman is not shown asking Rick Allen about
his rights, nor is Holeman viewed telling Rick Allen that he is free to
leave.
27. In his report, Holeman indicates that those words were stated to Rick
Allen at the very beginning of the interview. The beginning of the
interview is missing.


28.The defense has diligently searched through the discovery for any
Miranda/Waiver of Rights form signed by Rick Allen on October 26,
2022. The defense has found none.
JMHO
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,338
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom