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 don't think it will carry much weight. I don't even know that they'll bother looking deeply at such because it was so long ago and sadly even what he is charged with now is not anything that serious. I guess what I mean is if someone gets a speeding ticket, a judge isn't going to throw them in jail for ten years over conversion because of that prior speeding ticket, nor have a presentence investigation, etc. like they will for a more serious crime or felony. Jmo.

It's interesting though. Far from unusual either however of many a person/child ages say 16 to 20. Not anything to be proud of but many do such in those years and just consider it used to be in college they could drink legally from the time they went at 18 and after high school graduation. Now college students have three of their four years (for basic degree) where they can't legally drink. Many still are doing so though and bars serving them and having fake IDs and so forth.

Can you say what the incident was? Did he hurt anyone? Or just was driving too young to drink and under the influence?

Personally lol I wouldn't worry about getting sued. This bunch of lawyers and one who couldn't pass the bar could never navigate international law to sue you over there. LMAO. I had to say that about them, I feel it deserved. Chuckling out loud.
I just wonder if it was no big deal why bother getting it expunged. Anyway, it seems it is not going to affect the current case anyway.

I don't have detail of the incident as it was expunged. I have never heard that word expunged before. I like it almost as much as Ding Dongs LOL.
 
Underage intoxicated driving offense typically has your driving privileges revoked. In not sure that can be expunged but a simple minor in possession without a driving offense included probably can be if there are no incidents for a certain amount of years afterwards.
Thanks for explaining "expunged" everyone!!!!!!
 
I just wonder if it was no big deal why bother getting it expunged. Anyway, it seems it is not going to affect the current case anyway.

I don't have detail of the incident as it was expunged. I have never heard that word expunged before. I like it almost as much as Ding Dongs LOL.
Many jobs have background checks, for one.
 
I just discovered we don't have expungement in England and Wales. But they may be considering it.

This is probably why I have never heard of it.


Criminal Record Sealing and Expungement in England and Wales​

Currently in England and Wales there is no formal process for the “sealing” a criminal record. There is no procedure to apply to a Court to have a criminal record formally sealed so that it is not disclosed.

There is also no formal process for expunging a criminal record (other than police records) namely erasing someone’s criminal record. In the United States there are laws on both sealing of records, and also expungement, the rules vary from state to state.

Recommendations for Sealing Criminal Records​


It has been recently suggested (September 2017) that the UK should adopt a similar approach to the Unites States. A report commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron, and headed by David Lammy MP (the Lammy review), recommended that former offenders ought to be able to apply for their criminal records to be sealed. The report recommends that ex-offenders should be able to apply to have their case heard by a judge or independent body, such as the Parole Board, where they could prove they have reformed.

The judge would then decide whether to “seal” the record, having considered factors such as time since the offence and evidence of rehabilitation. If the decision goes the applicant’s way and the criminal record is sealed, the record will still exist, but the individual would not need to disclose it and employers would not be able to access it.

Current Disclosure System​


Whether the suggestions for the reform of the disclosure system, incorporating a sealing process, will be implemented, is yet to be seen.

There are however already in place rules that protect former offenders from the disclosure of certain criminal records.

These rules are often reviewed, particularly after successful legal challenges before the High Court. Legal challenges have resulted in a number of improvements for former offenders.

The Disclosure and Barring Service’s (DBS) disclosure rules as currently in place, permits disclosure on a DBS certificate in the following circumstances:

  • cautions relating to an offence from a list agreed by Parliament
  • cautions given less than 6 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of caution)
  • cautions given less than 2 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of caution)
  • convictions relating to an offence from a prescribed list
  • where the individual has more than one conviction offence all convictions will be included on the certificate (no conviction will be filtered)
  • convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence (regardless of whether served)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 11 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of conviction)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 5.5 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of conviction)
The list of serious offences which permit permanent disclosure by the DBS, includes a range of offences which are serious, relate to sexual or violent offending or are relevant in the context of safeguarding. The government has concluded (although this is currently undergoing an appeal) it would never be appropriate to filter offences on this list.

Continued at link
 
I just discovered we don't have expungement in England and Wales. But they may be considering it.

This is probably why I have never heard of it.


Criminal Record Sealing and Expungement in England and Wales​

Currently in England and Wales there is no formal process for the “sealing” a criminal record. There is no procedure to apply to a Court to have a criminal record formally sealed so that it is not disclosed.

There is also no formal process for expunging a criminal record (other than police records) namely erasing someone’s criminal record. In the United States there are laws on both sealing of records, and also expungement, the rules vary from state to state.

Recommendations for Sealing Criminal Records​


It has been recently suggested (September 2017) that the UK should adopt a similar approach to the Unites States. A report commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron, and headed by David Lammy MP (the Lammy review), recommended that former offenders ought to be able to apply for their criminal records to be sealed. The report recommends that ex-offenders should be able to apply to have their case heard by a judge or independent body, such as the Parole Board, where they could prove they have reformed.

The judge would then decide whether to “seal” the record, having considered factors such as time since the offence and evidence of rehabilitation. If the decision goes the applicant’s way and the criminal record is sealed, the record will still exist, but the individual would not need to disclose it and employers would not be able to access it.

Current Disclosure System​


Whether the suggestions for the reform of the disclosure system, incorporating a sealing process, will be implemented, is yet to be seen.

There are however already in place rules that protect former offenders from the disclosure of certain criminal records.

These rules are often reviewed, particularly after successful legal challenges before the High Court. Legal challenges have resulted in a number of improvements for former offenders.

The Disclosure and Barring Service’s (DBS) disclosure rules as currently in place, permits disclosure on a DBS certificate in the following circumstances:

  • cautions relating to an offence from a list agreed by Parliament
  • cautions given less than 6 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of caution)
  • cautions given less than 2 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of caution)
  • convictions relating to an offence from a prescribed list
  • where the individual has more than one conviction offence all convictions will be included on the certificate (no conviction will be filtered)
  • convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence (regardless of whether served)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 11 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of conviction)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 5.5 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of conviction)
The list of serious offences which permit permanent disclosure by the DBS, includes a range of offences which are serious, relate to sexual or violent offending or are relevant in the context of safeguarding. The government has concluded (although this is currently undergoing an appeal) it would never be appropriate to filter offences on this list.

Continued at link
I do agree with it if it was just a stupid decision while young and dumb and they learned from that mistake and have stayed out of trouble since.
 
20 is considered an adult. Minors are 18 and under. Expunged means it disappears and can't usually be accessed after expungement and sealed.
Expunged I agree means basically gone, never happened even though it did. I don't see where this would affect anything although it is interesting of course.Although not uncommon with teens or young adults.
 
Underage intoxicated driving offense typically has your driving privileges revoked. In not sure that can be expunged but a simple minor in possession without a driving offense included probably can be if there are no incidents for a certain amount of years afterwards.
I think it can easily be and it isn't even considered a DUI or OWI in my state if they are underaged. It's called something else and I forget what. Just; underaged drinking or some such, I forget. It's actually less serious than an adult who would get a DUI. But yes one would think he'd have lost the right to drive at that age, at least for a time, yes. Now if he killed or injured someone, it might be different.

No matter what, it is not going to have any bearing at all imo on this charge of conversion and sentencing if found guilty. It was years ago, was expunged (disappeared in essence) and this charge is only a misdemeanor itself.
 
I just wonder if it was no big deal why bother getting it expunged. Anyway, it seems it is not going to affect the current case anyway.

I don't have detail of the incident as it was expunged. I have never heard that word expunged before. I like it almost as much as Ding Dongs LOL.
LMAO. Expunged and Ding Dongs. The D bunch is SPECIAL. Lol. I am laughing out loud for real. I needed that.

I guess the best way I could describe it is someone young not getting stuck with a bad record or something in their history because of one mistake. Sometimes they are told is how I'd put it if you behave for the next two years and keep your nose clean and learn from you're mistake, we will expunge the records (basically erase it). And I don't think that's an all bad thing honestly in most or at least some cases. How many teens or 20 year olds drink, try it and another example would be trying to shoplift something one time. What is interesting is that he was not a minor, he was 20. But again if no previous records or trouble, not unheard of.

I said we don't make any sense here. He's not a minor but he is underaged as to drinking LOL.

That's lawmakers, politicians and again the idiots who run this world for ya. If things made sense they'd be too easy and life a picnic with no worries. If no complicated red tape and b.s. then why would we need the politicians....
 
Many jobs have background checks, for one.
yeah I'd say it is giving a young person a chance of not starting out with something on their record for one mistake. not uncommon. depending on whether a decent judge, if they own up, face up, have a lawyer, talk to the DA, etc. I don't disagree with it if the person hasn't been in trouble five or twenty times. so long as no one was hurt, killed, etc. I just likened another example like shoplifting. if only once and a candy bar, even if something like a drill, NOT a good start to life, but in the teen years well, maybe give one a chance and hope they learned their lesson.

However he was TWENTY, that's a bit different but still understandable. When did he go to college, was he in it and going to attend law school? It could definitely not be ideal if so. We know he did but never passed the bar, not sure at what age though.
 
I just discovered we don't have expungement in England and Wales. But they may be considering it.

This is probably why I have never heard of it.


Criminal Record Sealing and Expungement in England and Wales​

Currently in England and Wales there is no formal process for the “sealing” a criminal record. There is no procedure to apply to a Court to have a criminal record formally sealed so that it is not disclosed.

There is also no formal process for expunging a criminal record (other than police records) namely erasing someone’s criminal record. In the United States there are laws on both sealing of records, and also expungement, the rules vary from state to state.

Recommendations for Sealing Criminal Records​


It has been recently suggested (September 2017) that the UK should adopt a similar approach to the Unites States. A report commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron, and headed by David Lammy MP (the Lammy review), recommended that former offenders ought to be able to apply for their criminal records to be sealed. The report recommends that ex-offenders should be able to apply to have their case heard by a judge or independent body, such as the Parole Board, where they could prove they have reformed.

The judge would then decide whether to “seal” the record, having considered factors such as time since the offence and evidence of rehabilitation. If the decision goes the applicant’s way and the criminal record is sealed, the record will still exist, but the individual would not need to disclose it and employers would not be able to access it.

Current Disclosure System​


Whether the suggestions for the reform of the disclosure system, incorporating a sealing process, will be implemented, is yet to be seen.

There are however already in place rules that protect former offenders from the disclosure of certain criminal records.

These rules are often reviewed, particularly after successful legal challenges before the High Court. Legal challenges have resulted in a number of improvements for former offenders.

The Disclosure and Barring Service’s (DBS) disclosure rules as currently in place, permits disclosure on a DBS certificate in the following circumstances:

  • cautions relating to an offence from a list agreed by Parliament
  • cautions given less than 6 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of caution)
  • cautions given less than 2 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of caution)
  • convictions relating to an offence from a prescribed list
  • where the individual has more than one conviction offence all convictions will be included on the certificate (no conviction will be filtered)
  • convictions that resulted in a custodial sentence (regardless of whether served)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 11 years ago (where individual 18 or over at the time of conviction)
  • convictions which did not result in a custodial sentence, given less than 5.5 years ago (where individual under 18 at the time of conviction)
The list of serious offences which permit permanent disclosure by the DBS, includes a range of offences which are serious, relate to sexual or violent offending or are relevant in the context of safeguarding. The government has concluded (although this is currently undergoing an appeal) it would never be appropriate to filter offences on this list.

Continued at link
VERY interesting. I don't agree with sealing for the most part ever. However, juvenile records are different and should be. And yes, expungement is erasing basically.

However, he was not a juvenile if twenty. And so no record should have ever been hidden from the public imo. He WAS an adult by legal terms. Not sure I agree with THAT with expunging. Still young but you're an adult. Who knows what his juvenile records was and that's something that will never be known generally to the public.

I'd say he was done a big favor being he was 20. And I don't necessarily agree with that. In my state one can look up records online and if your neighbor's kid, your cousin's kid, etc. was 20 and did anything it is on there even if they are now 20 year older and never had another ticket, crime, etc.

That said things are changing all of the time and imo we are seeing some scary lack of openness in states, courts and sealing.

And it looks like you are having issues in our own country and debate too.

I will say he was done a big FAVOR if he was twenty. As a juvenile it wouldn't be a big surprise if a one time incident.

It's an interesting sideline discussion anyhow in a case that has gotten a bit tiresome by the D and more at any rate. And of course it is again the D or a cohort, lol, no surprise LMAO.

Laughing out loud Is such a relief and needed and I've done so with this today. I also took an extra day off, something I NEVER do. It's been quite a week. I NEEDED it. Well I've needed such for years and rarely do such but it is 90 something, I don't feel the best (won't go into) and I did. They are wanting to pare down hours and payroll on top of it, so not a problem.

So here I am discussing "expungement". Had you never heard that term before? It isn't what I'd call a common word.
 
VERY interesting. I don't agree with sealing for the most part ever. However, juvenile records are different and should be. And yes, expungement is erasing basically.

However, he was not a juvenile if twenty. And so no record should have ever been hidden from the public imo. He WAS an adult by legal terms. Not sure I agree with THAT with expunging. Still young but you're an adult. Who knows what his juvenile records was and that's something that will never be known generally to the public.

I'd say he was done a big favor being he was 20. And I don't necessarily agree with that. In my state one can look up records online and if your neighbor's kid, your cousin's kid, etc. was 20 and did anything it is on there even if they are now 20 year older and never had another ticket, crime, etc.

That said things are changing all of the time and imo we are seeing some scary lack of openness in states, courts and sealing.

And it looks like you are having issues in our own country and debate too.

I will say he was done a big FAVOR if he was twenty. As a juvenile it wouldn't be a big surprise if a one time incident.

It's an interesting sideline discussion anyhow in a case that has gotten a bit tiresome by the D and more at any rate. And of course it is again the D or a cohort, lol, no surprise LMAO.

Laughing out loud Is such a relief and needed and I've done so with this today. I also took an extra day off, something I NEVER do. It's been quite a week. I NEEDED it. Well I've needed such for years and rarely do such but it is 90 something, I don't feel the best (won't go into) and I did. They are wanting to pare down hours and payroll on top of it, so not a problem.

So here I am discussing "expungement". Had you never heard that term before? It isn't what I'd call a common word.
No I had not ever heard of it. We learn something new every day, I guess. Was able to guess what it meant though, by the context.
 
No I had not ever heard of it. We learn something new every day, I guess. Was able to guess what it meant though, by the context.
Yeah the context pretty much gives it away as to what it means generally. I don't think I've ever heard the word used except with a court record and school records too at times.

I don't disagree with it when used right but I guess to be honest it is probably used more commonly for special or important people or families... I can agree a young person deserves a second chance if they only screw up LIGHTLY once but even then that record should exist maybe just not easily publicly accessible. It's a subject in and of itself.

I watched a case disappear once that involve a judge, a domestic abuse advocate for the same country and someone else. Against each other. Well we know what happened there, not a single record of it when there had been. Not had to figure out. Both were going at the other and knew things the other/s had done. She was charged is what happened and rightfully so and the public expected such but then I'm sure she said well are you thinking about what I know about you and what we did in your back room, etc. and filed a case back and boom, GONE. Off the public record. Disappeared. Doesn't exist. I know thought as I saw it when it did. and could even tell you about those involved... People that should NOT be in positions of power and still are.

If it's giving a kid a chance it's one thing if not too much wrong done but if it is due to who you are, bribes, etc. it is another. And again he was two years past adulthood. MW.

So I guess it just depends on the reason and if aboveboard and fair or not. USUALLY it would be with someone young and a first time offense and the deal generally is they have to stay out of trouble for a year or two, and THEN the court will expunge the record IF they do so. I don't think that's such a bad thing IF that's what it is about and they straighten out before they do worse.
 
Hmmmmm. My way is never to believe a criminal but there's things to think on here. I am going to go first to the idea he is of course a liar, and a ped, etc. but one has to wondered if some of it is truth. He's pretty quick to answer but then again he's probably practiced at it. However, Tom rapid fires questions too.

He tries to say the guy living next door to him in Vegas I think it was had access to the Shots account, however, that guy supposedly denies it and says he hopes Kegan rots basically.

Pretty insistent he was at his grandmother's and also that LE knows he was in Peru and have all the info and so on.
 
So it was their one and only talk but Kegan messaged him some time later and was pi**Ed he was being moved to Miami (IN I assume, not FL) prison because they couldn't have him in the same prison with Richard Allen.

Why not if the two are not connected?

Did LE figure just because of speculation it would be wise or is there more to it?

Pretty interesting but hard to know whether to take anything as truth, some of it or all of it. I seriously doubt all is. Hard to tell on all though, some might be. And we know LE can lie to get the truth BUT we also know he has lied so he starts out with with strikes against him for me.

Anyone else have a take on any of it?
 
Oh and he had really bad lawyers per him. Has he seen RA's lawyers? Just asking...

Ya know, regardless, he DID have CSAM and that alone is enough for me to say he wrote his own ticket to HE77. And doubt most all.
 
I think he lies about everything and it is difficult to believe anything he says. He manipulated and lied to many young girls for his own disgusting reasons and he cannot expect to be treated well in any prison he is in. I don't believe he had anything to do with the murders because if he knew anything he would have lost no time trading info for a better deal and lower sentence.

He comes across as a lying, conniving, b*stard who only cares about number one.

The only thing I sympathise with him about is he had sh*t lawyers who did not get him a good plea deal at all.
 
I think he lies about everything and it is difficult to believe anything he says. He manipulated and lied to many young girls for his own disgusting reasons and he cannot expect to be treated well in any prison he is in. I don't believe he had anything to do with the murders because if he knew anything he would have lost no time trading info for a better deal and lower sentence.

He comes across as a lying, conniving, b*stard who only cares about number one.

The only thing I sympathise with him about is he had sh*t lawyers who did not get him a good plea deal at all.
Yeah he's no fountain of truth most likely. It was interesting listening to Tom question him though and his responses. Imo. No big revelations naturally and denies some things,

I don't sympathize over his attorneys, that may be a lie too and personally I'd not think the prosecution would give him any great deal or had any reason to. I think having CSAM should be a life sentence imo anyhow. Anything involving SA of children should be.

Well the hearings are coming up quite quickly in his one. Those two also only have a couple of months to be ready for trial and they'd darned well better be working on a defense that doesn't count on ALL evidence suppressed. They are going to need to defend him either way.

I am not overly concerned about their new filing either. I doubt they are going to take Gull of the case over the Ding Dong thing lol. I don't think they will interfere in it but who knows. Guess we shall see.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,250
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom