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 bodies of the kids.
Well then you are totally twisting your point. You were talking suspect DNA here, not Libby and Abby's identification so why are you talking identification of Tylee and JJ in comparison to DNA in this case. Yes they identified these kids here too. That's not the DNA you were talking of.
 
But he keeps bringing up false confessions
Emu? Yeah I know. Just talking of RA and the claims. Also is RUMORED he confessed to the warden but no LE I know of. I did not capitalize that word and don't ask me why puter keeps doing that to me. No idea. Rumored. Oh now It didn't. Whatever. Lol.
 
Emu? Yeah I know. Just talking of RA and the claims. Also is RUMORED he confessed to the warden but no LE I know of. I did not capitalize that word and don't ask me why puter keeps doing that to me. No idea. Rumored. Oh now It didn't. Whatever. Lol.
Sorry now I see I had already answered that one last night I think. Just go home and trying to find where I left off. So you get two answers lol.
 
I don't think LE are lazy. They had this guy as a suspect all along IMO and needed to get the KK connection/conviction done and dusted first. Once they searched his house and got the bullet match, Bingo.

Cant wait to see/hear the rest of the video/audio of BG.
We agree on almost everything in this case but I'm just not so sure on that one. It isn't what they say. And while they can possibly lie to the public, I don't think they can to the court or possibly even the defense. Who all have they said the tip went missing to and they didn't know of RA and did they ever state that in court or any legal filings? Or about Doolin, etc.? I CAN see how you can think it possible and I guess I could too but for the fact they claim otherwise... If this is the case it will be a big surprise that's for sure. I haven't ruled out a KK connection but not looking at Rick for more than five years I'm not so sure about.
 
What does that have to do with perpetrator dna not being released??? They were the victims being identified. There is no comparison here on your argument that I can understand.
Same. He entirely changed his own subject to nothing that relates to what he was saying and asking.
 
Is there DNA linking Chad or Lori? I seem to recall they found someone's DNA on shovel?
I said that above DIRECTLY TO YOU. TYLEE's DNA were found on implements of Chad's in his shed I believe.

Lori's hair was found on tape of JJ. Now there's a good point there in that DNA doesn't mean everything as since she was his mother and the tape may have been used before in her own home by her, it could be argued why her hair was on it other than her helping to kill or bind him. So DNA at a scene isn't necessarily the big thing you think it is always. IN this case here we dont' even know WHAT IT IS and WHERE IT WAS FOUND or on WHAT. I don't think there was any DNA to speak of found on the kids other than what I have just mentioned. I think Tresir said there' were also Loris's prints on the tape, I don't recall that but very well could be.

And with these kids, the murders and destruction and desecreation of their bodies were extreme and still there is little to no DNA of the perps. Other than that unless there has more we don't know of BUT I'd think since Lori has been tried, it would have been known by now.

And back to your original actual question along the way, it was any case where the DNA was held back wasn't it? These things in were never ran to the public with just as NM isn't in this case which also was your argument, that he'd state it and tell us about DNA or fingerprints matches. No he would not imo. They have kept everything VERY TIGHT.

The DNA apparently isn't Allen's, that seems acknowledged. But again if it is Kelsy's boyfriend's hair on her sweatshirt or some friend from school, that doesn't mean squat. IF it was RA's cat, that wOULD MEAN something big and would also mean Holman could sit and say no, it's not RIck's but not mean it doesn't relate to him. Heck maybe it is HIS wife's or daugther's hair and that would also mean BIG THINGS. Just like in LISK. In fact, I'd find any of these possibilities if true quite hilarious and you can be we will all be pointing them out to you if any are the case or something similar. Think about THAT one, yes LE could sit and deposition and say it isn't RA's DNA while it though definitely DOES RELATE.

I've said it many a time and will say again and here I am again on this subject, that is my LAST one about these things, trial will tell us.

I think people need to start talking publicly of why there should be live feed and cameras or we will not HEAR the confessions nor anything else. The PUBLIC should DARNED well be able to watch this trial.
 
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.
Yeah we've been through all that before explaining it all. Much makes it very unlikely. Can't have it both ways geniuses who can frame and start five years before for someone they never knew was going to be on their radar but then they mess up having recordings, misfile tips, send a DNR guy out on a major double homicide invesigation, etc. Which way does he want it? Sorry emu but it is unlikel both. And the conversation has been had among us all and you repeatedly many times.
 
You "seem to recall" ???
I had just said that to him and told him directly that very thing just above a few posts of him saying this and then HE SEEMS to recall lol. He'd just read it I'd imagine two minutes before from me to him. Or whatever it was. However, he had it wrong, it was Tylee's DNA.
 
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
I'm not as behind as I seem in here. I read several post from today while on break. Not going to reread the ones I did not comment on them am just going to fully catch up.

Rulings expected without context but more will come as will a response from the other side I would imagine.

I'm replying this one o replay to the part about being taped or a camera or live or audio or any of it, we don't know yet and there does seem to be thought there will be audio recoriding at least, not saying to necessarily be heard live or even later in day during trial (this happened in Lori Daybell's) but hopefully there WILL BE SOMETHING and WILL BE live coverage of some type. however, it is not known yet.

The other thing I responded to this one for is why do you assume we may never see/hear the full confessions, Libby's phone capture, etc.? Once trial is over these things are all to be open for anyone to acquire. Why is it you assume they won't be? Ever? Many a channel and others will be going straight for these things and full transcripts, etc. And while we can't hear it if this is fully not recorded in any way other than by court reporter, there will be plenty of news and viewers in the courtroom and we will get every word of what RA said and so on. And later we will hear the confessions and anything not suppressed or not allowed.

Not arguing, I am simply not following your thinking that we will never hear nor see such. Ever.
 
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
I take anything defense said in the old filing called the FM with a grain of salt. And in fact in the last month or so they have made statements of not knowing of some evidence and being surprised or shocked and needed time to take it all in, etc.

I'm not saying what there is or isn't, I am simply saying doesn't sound like they themselves had all they do now as when they filed the FM and I never had hte impression at any time in this case they have ever been up on all they had throughout or read all ever anyhow. For instance they hadn't imo when they had their "help" drop evidence on RA and then he panicked and confessed.

Responding to #3 the prosecution did respond to the FM and it was quite brief as opposed to the defense whatever it was. I think there were plenty of falshoods, claims and assumptions and much more in that FM but the prosecution did not address every single one they stuck to points of law, kept it brief and that was that. And I am sure they could have given facts to displute more than a little they stated so I guess I agree with #3 generally when you have two sides with short to the point filings but lol that isn't this case.

NIce I am sure to wear your rose colored glasses where they are concerned. Not all agree quite clearly about their filings nor them. As goes vice versa for sure, no argument there.

I also do not agree with your lumping of digital evidence. It does not cover CSAM as there are such things as physical photographs and other things I would not necessarily classify as digital. I still have an old instant Polaroid that I pull out on occasion and yes film for it as well lol. And of course this is assuming defense at that point had been through or had all as I said. That's a leap.

What does geo location have to do with it when we know there is cell data and more and possibly even car data. I'm not saying there is or what all on Rick but we know nothing.

Now IF in depositions this was all stated under oath by LE etc., then I give what you are saying ior assuming more weight. DEpending on how said, what said, as to each thing and so on.

Question just to be clear--you aren't considering the defense attorneys court officers are you? You are only talking of the P side?
 
The handcuffs makes a huge difference. He definitely did not have the ability to leave if he was handcuffed.
Skimmed at break and skimming now, do we have any of this linked from anything but a defense filing or excerpts? We know we don't have video, etc. or anything like that. No one does. No prosecution response yet last I knew since this was recently filed.

I'll take a wait and see. If I was more into and never was the IN court filing system I'd go look for a few things but have never used it, not family and am not going to go doing that nor even get a day off this week that isn't a big trip to handle a big chore. Ten plus hours today, tomorrow and the next three after 9 pluses. And I don't mean to go looking for filings. I mean inmate rosters, dates, arrest date, all that sh*t.

Not a single thing i've read has a link to anything about some of these claims. I am not caught up and not saying there isn't one or I haven't gotten there yet or missed something but not so far other than of course defense claims with I gather very little provided to the court with the filings.

I've seen too much of their stuff to just assume or ever take their word for anything especially as at least wisely acknowledged, out of context claims with no back up.

The fact tons is held close to the vest and much sealed makes it difficult for anyone to know. Prosecution doesn't share and defense is very selective. Naturally.

Taking a wait and see unless in reading on I see some proof of any of it, time frame and a ton more.

Just me though.

Cuffed when? Just for one thing.

The night our perp was arrested, they got a few more voluntary remarks things out of him with no need to Mirandize if I recall correctly. And pretty darned positive. There are a lot of things that play into all this. I saw things Tresir found, Roundpeg found, etc. and read all on break. Each case and decision was different for examples as well.

Our perp was cuffed and taken in that night. They never sast him down for a formal interview and i'm not sure this was or certainly that he was detained until long after and I'd need to see proof of these dates as well. Haen't unless I missed, totally possible , other than what Tresir found. However, I still am not through all but read a lot on breaks.

Kind of going to do what I do and catch up with remarks on a few things here and it isn't to your post with where I go at all, this is just where I am and jumping off from. Glad to see you in her eby the way! It gets a bit heated imo. Not anything bad but everyone has their own opinions no doubt and I don't exempt self on that one either.

So here's something I want to know and maybe I should. Is interview one with Doolin and interview two this one? Or are we talking Doolin's is not part of what is interview one and two here and both were with LE and/or Holman? I'm not clear on that.

If Tresir or Olenna or someone I suspect knows could answer that, I'd much appreciate it.

Because I am thinking this won't end up suppressed but that even if it does, RA did not confess to Holman, I think we all know or are pretty sure of that. So what I am wondering is this the one RA changes the time frame for one and this is why I need to know if Doolin's counts or #1 and #2 we are just talking later more formal LE interviews years after Doolin?

I'm not thinking you like know and I don't, but just since I am in responding to your post asking it as it relates to catching up on several of the topics/points today.

On one hand generally they want suppressed what has what they are panicked over and so they are fine with claiming Miranda in one but making ain issue without the full backup for it with the other. LIke the FM with wanting the search warrant thrown out, don't get me wrong, who wouldn't but it was so extreme and over the top and imo ridiculous, unprofessional and written by Lord knows who and I just feel that warrant got something they need gone. And I don't mean just the gun.

Anyhow, not TOO long for me in trying to mostly catch up on most. I am sure there may be some since break time today I haven't seen but because I did look then, don't think I am too far behind.
 
We kind of go back and forth on this, so trying to clear it up.

RA was taken from the ISP post to the Carroll County jail on October 26.

He was formally charged on October 28.
I am not doubting this but where do you get this from?

I really want to know for certain what the dates were on all. Not trying to make you go search for a link but just wondering. I doubt it says on the court site they left the ISP for Carroll County for instance. I can believe it may show a charging or arrest date. Which can both be different.

I've read what Tresir found, see you saying this, etc. Just wanting to be absolutely crystal on it as to that it is fact. I'm not doubting you. So Lafayette was the ISP post you mean or was that a PD?
 
I take anything defense said in the old filing called the FM with a grain of salt. And in fact in the last month or so they have made statements of not knowing of some evidence and being surprised or shocked and needed time to take it all in, etc.

I'm not saying what there is or isn't, I am simply saying doesn't sound like they themselves had all they do now as when they filed the FM and I never had hte impression at any time in this case they have ever been up on all they had throughout or read all ever anyhow. For instance they hadn't imo when they had their "help" drop evidence on RA and then he panicked and confessed.

Responding to #3 the prosecution did respond to the FM and it was quite brief as opposed to the defense whatever it was. I think there were plenty of falshoods, claims and assumptions and much more in that FM but the prosecution did not address every single one they stuck to points of law, kept it brief and that was that. And I am sure they could have given facts to displute more than a little they stated so I guess I agree with #3 generally when you have two sides with short to the point filings but lol that isn't this case.

NIce I am sure to wear your rose colored glasses where they are concerned. Not all agree quite clearly about their filings nor them. As goes vice versa for sure, no argument there.

I also do not agree with your lumping of digital evidence. It does not cover CSAM as there are such things as physical photographs and other things I would not necessarily classify as digital. I still have an old instant Polaroid that I pull out on occasion and yes film for it as well lol. And of course this is assuming defense at that point had been through or had all as I said. That's a leap.

What does geo location have to do with it when we know there is cell data and more and possibly even car data. I'm not saying there is or what all on Rick but we know nothing.

Now IF in depositions this was all stated under oath by LE etc., then I give what you are saying ior assuming more weight. DEpending on how said, what said, as to each thing and so on.

Question just to be clear--you aren't considering the defense attorneys court officers are you? You are only talking of the P side?

Yes, defense attorneys are officers of the court. Yes the LE said these things in depositions under oath. Yes, these depositions are quoted in the Franks and attached as exhibits. All my comments are based on what I've read from the docket. JMHO
 
Last edited:
I am not doubting this but where do you get this from?

I really want to know for certain what the dates were on all. Not trying to make you go search for a link but just wondering. I doubt it says on the court site they left the ISP for Carroll County for instance. I can believe it may show a charging or arrest date. Which can both be different.

I've read what Tresir found, see you saying this, etc. Just wanting to be absolutely crystal on it as to that it is fact. I'm not doubting you. So Lafayette was the ISP post you mean or was that a PD?

It's understandably confusing. I've already linked and quoted the date of 26th as the day RA was interviewed by Holeman and taken into custody - see the the Second Interview Suppression Motion which is acceptable proof.

RA was cuffed on camera at end of interrogation on Oct 26, he was physically held in custody at ISP station or CC Jail until his booking into Carroll County Jail on Oct 28. On the 26th he was in custody. PCA date is Oct 31st -refer to the PCA; the probable cause covered a warrantless arrest.

They held RA at the ISP station from the time of his questioning until he was booked into Carroll County, Delphi. Some suspected they arrested him without a warrant but I saw his probable cause covered a warrantless arrest.

Here is the RA booking info from Vine;

Ethnicity Non-Hispanic
Date of Birth Sep , **
ID Number228**
Custody Status Date Oct 28, 2022 11:46 AM EDT
Custody StatusIn Custody
Custody Detail Carroll County Jail
Book Date Oct 28, 2022 11:10 AM EDT

LOCATION
Carroll County Jail
310 W Main Street
Delphi, IN 46923
(765) 564-2413
REPORTING AGENCY
Carroll County Sheriff's Office
310 W Main Street
Delphi, IN 46923
(765) 564-2413

JMHO
 
Last edited:
So was he held at the Lafayette ISP post for two days then booked into the Carroll County jail on the morning of the 28th when he was officially arrested? Or did they (ISP) release him on the 26th and arrest him 2 days later?

From @Olenna post

"They held RA at the ISP station from the time of his questioning until he was booked into Carroll County, Delphi. Some suspected they arrested him without a warrant but I saw his probable cause covered a warrantless arrest."

Any proof he was held at the Lafayette ISP post for two days?
 
Last edited:
I'm not as behind as I seem in here. I read several post from today while on break. Not going to reread the ones I did not comment on them am just going to fully catch up.

Rulings expected without context but more will come as will a response from the other side I would imagine.

I'm replying this one o replay to the part about being taped or a camera or live or audio or any of it, we don't know yet and there does seem to be thought there will be audio recoriding at least, not saying to necessarily be heard live or even later in day during trial (this happened in Lori Daybell's) but hopefully there WILL BE SOMETHING and WILL BE live coverage of some type. however, it is not known yet.

The other thing I responded to this one for is why do you assume we may never see/hear the full confessions, Libby's phone capture, etc.? Once trial is over these things are all to be open for anyone to acquire. Why is it you assume they won't be? Ever? Many a channel and others will be going straight for these things and full transcripts, etc. And while we can't hear it if this is fully not recorded in any way other than by court reporter, there will be plenty of news and viewers in the courtroom and we will get every word of what RA said and so on. And later we will hear the confessions and anything not suppressed or not allowed.

Not arguing, I am simply not following your thinking that we will never hear nor see such. Ever.

Transcripts after the fact - of course we'll see (if someone wants to pay for them and share them.) I wasn't referring to that.
They'll tape proceedings. What part of the taped proceeding will be made available for the public and when ... is up to the Court.
If Gull makes a full release to the public - that would be great! I agree. But that may not happen; and that's what I meant. And we'd see no video.
IMO, Gull is firm on denying cameras. In Indiana, the Court has this power, she has made her decision, I really don't see her changing her mind; she's made her need for control known. It's disappointing to me, as I mentioned. JMHO
 
So was he held at the Lafayette ISP post for two days then booked into the Carroll County jail on the morning of the 28th when he was officially arrested? Or did they (ISP) release him on the 26th and arrest him 2 days later?

Yes, RA and went into the ISP building to pick up his car October 26. Holeman met him and asked him if he'd answer a few more questions; RA agreed. KA stayed out of the building. RA was taken into the interrogation room, and was never released from custody to this day. Hope that's clear enough.

eta: RA/KA were told by LE when and where to come pick up their car that had been taken in the search. There was no car there for RA or KA to pick up.
This is all in the motion.
(Which I've provide a link to.)

IMO, it seem evident that the taking of RA under custody that day was the plan ... and the car pick up was the ruse. I think this motion provided this new information to the public for the first time - not sure if there were earlier sources with regard to the 2 day hold at ISP building/Lafayette. JMHO
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,343
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom