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 defense said the state planned to introduce audio and video enhancements of the video recovered from Libby German’s phone into evidence.

One enhancement contains a phrase uttered by one of the victims, the motion said, while another contains an audio clip of a man speaking. Both are repeated on a loop, according to the motion, and are “very difficult to understand.”

The defense is asking the court to prohibit the state from eliciting testimony concerning the contents of the words contained in the clips.

The defense argued that interpreting words and sounds is “speculative” and that the enhancements were “investigatory tools.”
Jeez the D are FOS. Just let the jury decide by hearing it all.
 
So now it makes more sense. The woman who gave Tom her notes is one of his subscribers. I know he's had some from the Delphi area and when he went down for the hearings that did not happne, he met one or two of them in person, they went to eat together, and more. I believe they've even offered to let him stay with them. Not sure if it was this one but wouldn't doubt it.

Well she got in and was ahead in line. of where he was in the morning. And shared her notes. So I'd say there is a good chance this could continue.
 
So there is a pic of the bullet in the ground, I just wondered that above.

And they did take the sticks but two days later...

I dont' know about anyone else but I certainly have more questions about the clothing that this did not answer. The mention ONLY Libby's clothing in the creek and so does that mean Abby had all of her own on PLUS Libby's shirt... And was the thing about wearing both the bras true? Honestly other than hearing all of Libby's except one shoe and the shirt was in the creek and inside out, this isn't much more than we already new with no further details. What the heck? Will that maybe only come say with the med examiners at which point maybe Abby was undressed...? I heard from somewhere that ABby had shoes on but no socks but do we know if she wore socks... Meaning were they missing or just never had any?

Also can they tell by other evidence, etc. if Abby WAS ever undressed, or partially so?

One thought I had is if Libby was giving RA a fight, Abby may have herself put Libby's shirt on, for a few possible reasons I can think of while he was busy with Libby... Probably not but it crossed my mind...
I think Abby had Libby's/Kelsi's sweatshirt grey zip top on because Libby's tie dye T shirt was spotted and found in the creek. That was how they directed Pat Brown to look further around the ravine and find the bodies. Those guys did so well with that search to find the girls so quickly.
 
I just had to delete one of my posts as I inadvertently duplicated it but don't know how that happened. Sorry about that.
I never saw such, was watching Tom but don't know why it would be a big deal anyhow. But who knows I guess. I can only say a duplication if I had seen it wouldn't have bothered me nor I;'d hope anyone.
 
I think Abby had Libby's/Kelsi's sweatshirt grey zip top on because Libby's tie dye shirt was spotted and found in the creek. That was how they directed Pat Brown to look further around the ravine.
Aha.... Good in picking up on that. I keep picturing the tie dye shirt but of course it was found in the creek as we now know. We don't have any picture of Libby as we do of Abby that day on the bridge or at the trails.. I know Kelsi gave was it just L or both girls a sweatshirt, but I know L, I could have told you what type or color though although I've heard it over the years.

It makes it even more logical to me since Abby put it on or someone put it on her that it would have a female hair from a relative of L's on it.

They are really going up a ridiculous tree with that one, the D. If it comes back to K or GMA, etc. are they then going to claim one of them killed the girls? And transport them there unseen by any witness...
 
Very hard day for the families (other than for RA I guess) and the jurors with seeing such photos.

What the heck are they on about now with the recording? Psheesh.
I think they are trying to say they want the video removed from evidence because it wasn't used to identify RA. However it  was used (eg that's exactly how they knew the killer wore a blue jacket and jeans) to identify RA and they seized his blue jacket and numerous pairs of jeans and arrested him because of that video.
 
Aha.... Good in picking up on that. I keep picturing the tie dye shirt but of course it was found in the creek as we now know. We don't have any picture of Libby as we do of Abby that day on the bridge or at the trails.. I know Kelsi gave was it just L or both girls a sweatshirt, but I know L, I could have told you what type or color though although I've heard it over the years.

It makes it even more logical to me since Abby put it on or someone put it on her that it would have a female hair from a relative of L's on it.

They are really going up a ridiculous tree with that one, the D. If it comes back to K or GMA, etc. are they then going to claim one of them killed the girls? And transport them there unseen by any witness...
I think she gave both girls a sweatshirt and A is seen wearing it unzipped in the famous pic of her on the bridge. Are they going to demand that pic is taken out of evidence too? The D are really p'ing me off now - mind you they have been doing that all along with their stupid shenanigans that have continually delayed the trial and justice for two years.
 
I think they are trying to say they want the video removed from evidence because it wasn't used to identify RA. However it  was used (eg that's exactly how they knew the killer wore a blue jacket and jeans) to identify RA and they seized his blue jacket and numerous pairs of jeans and arrested him because of that video.
Oh I AGREE, don't get me wrong. They couldn't know otherwise to look for a blue jacket, hats, boots, who knows what without such. So yes it was USED.

What I am saying is THIS is what they are trying to get it tossed and their excuse and trying to compare it to the P getting the sketches tossed (not the same at all), but that the REASON they want it out is because it's damning to their client totally.

What I mean is they use claims to say it should be tossed but their reasons for wanting it tossed is not the same.

We are saying the same thing, honestly.

I'll try one more way. They give the REASON for tossing or wanting it tossed as it was not used to ID him, was ehanced, etc., but the REASON they want it tossed really is because it is damning in many ways to their client.

Believe me, we are pretty much I think saying the same thing...

In a way, they are hiding their real reason for wanting it tossed... But we all know better... Jmo.
 
I think she gave both girls a sweatshirt and A is seen wearing it unzipped in the famous pic of her on the bridge. Are they going to demand that pic is taken out of evidence too? The D are really p'ing me off now - mind you they have been doing that all along with their stupid shenanigans that have continually delayed the trial and justice for two years.
So it's the same one Abby had on all along? Because I know the one in the bridge picture... Too tired for that one right now.

As to the D pizzing one off, yeah, what isn't it, and again it's always a blanket of wanting everything out.

They tried to get this video and all her phone data for that matter tossed before trial. WAs that one Gull ruled on, I'd imagine so, so here we go again, same old, or they tried a new approach, same thing.

Was just hitting some interesting things by Tom, but am trying to keep eyes open so may have to wait. ONE IS about the temp that night and bodies preserved, etc. but I ended up rewinding it to listen again and probably need to go to bed rather than try to hear it again. It was colder than freezing that night if I caught it right. But I wasn't entirely listening, rewound, now rewound too far and probably gong to hang it up and will start there in morning if I get time.
 
Okay, so I'm too stupid to go to bed and am not back to that part yet, but am just getting into where Tom took over and go in. He said of course some did not get in in afternoon and yet there were four seats in defense area open, and ONE in public area and he said to guard he could let at least one more from the public in, guard said okay, and then proceeded to do nothing. Tom says the seating process is NOT a process at all.

I've never seen a judge so sh*tty about this. If a person can't save a seat and no one has filled in then LET the next person fill it.

I CAN be very critical of her with this, believe me. I have repeated myself but I have hardly touched the SURFACE of what I think of it.
 
Not only that, but I've also heard more than once that sometimes the people in the courtroom can't hear the answers, etc.

I need to go to bed but last remark is you'd think for 4+ million and an expensive new podium and more, those who can make it in would be able to hear clearly.

I'll also add one other snarky comment, Tom's video from Saturday said he was so distracted by the squeaking of chairs, I forget which side or group, was constantly moving and squeak, squeak, squeak. He put it as a joke somewhat, but he was going to offer to go get some WD40 and take care of it for them since they hadn't... Paraphrasing.

Good thing none of all this b.s. has to do with the trial itself and testimony, evidence and so on.

So just some other stuff, not about the testimony itself. I did want to rehear what I did but have pushed it too far tonight. Wiped.

g'night all. I'm going to be two behind on his tomorrow night.
 
Keeping this in mind as far as us getting any information at all regarding this trial.



From Angela:

I don’t work 24 hours a day. I was outside with my son on a run/walk. I am here trying to do a service for you. I am doing the best I can with what we have been dealt. No cameras, no laptops, no cellphones, can’t leave the courtroom, can’t drink water. There are going to be “edits.” It’s 3AM. That’s what time I am up. I am the morning news anchor for Fox59. Delphi is one of at least 30 stories I’m currently working on. I am human. I am not perfect.
 
Probably because it was a female hair and they are looking for a man because of the video and audio evidence. Also, regarding all the clothing shenanigans the transfer of a female hair from one girl to the other is very likely.
Yes, I don't think either girl had left the house wearing outerclothing and that the sweatshirt Libby was wearing and the grey jacket that Abby was wearing were both Kelsi's. And remember, it was Kelsi who'd dropped them off that day.
 
Last edited:
Keeping this in mind as far as us getting any information at all regarding this trial.



From Angela:

I don’t work 24 hours a day. I was outside with my son on a run/walk. I am here trying to do a service for you. I am doing the best I can with what we have been dealt. No cameras, no laptops, no cellphones, can’t leave the courtroom, can’t drink water. There are going to be “edits.” It’s 3AM. That’s what time I am up. I am the morning news anchor for Fox59. Delphi is one of at least 30 stories I’m currently working on. I am human. I am not perfect.

Without a doubt, the rules are beyond ridiculous. I suppose she won't even let someone leave lest they run and share something on the internet but it doesn't or wouldn't stop them at break time, when they can't be guaranteed of getting back in. And/or for distraction's sake. I will say not able to drink water, I suppose because then they might have to pee is inhumane although it probably means the reporter has to choose not to drink water to avoid the need for the bathroom. Or is water banned? I'd also say that must have many a person skipping breakfast and perhaps even coffee as such can get some bodily functions going.

Not exactly what I thought I'd be talking of or saying but I mean really, the rules here are beyond unfair. As Tom was saying, to gripe about the process would mean there IS a process to get in. And he said there's not. I don't think he means there isn't as far as lines but that there just is no way to ensure KEEPING your seat once you have one, etc. NO ONE is going to be able to GO ALL day without a bathroom break unless diapered, seriously, or at least not need a minute away from the courtromm at lunch and that's IF they are even allowed to stay in there at lunch.

So does this extend to families? Is Gull doing such to the families too?

We had a time or two one of us would need to leave and one option the family members would have is a viewing room off the courtroom. If someone needed to leave due to emotion or for another reason, we could go back in but often decided to just go into the viewing room to no even slightly disrupt entering the courtroom to go back until some break was taken. Many of us were in both also during trial, meaning some would be in the viewing room and some in the courtroom. I was usually in the courtroom but did spend a segment or two here and there in the viewing room. I have no idea the term/name for it, I just mean you can hear and watch all the proceedings through the glass but the jurors can't see you, etc.

So I'd hope the family has that option and that they at least can walk the halls and go pee, etc. if needed.

I don't think I need to reiterate how unhappy I am with how far Gull took this and is taking it.

And your post is a good reminder that with reporters it is not their only story and more. And this trial has barely BEGUN.

It's where I would say GOOD responsible YTers (or any) like Tom fill a niche. He doesn't even follow crime in general, it is his ONLY case (unlike people like Grizzly and most others who try to cover all the current ones and sometimes even more). And for him it's a struggle just because you can't get in every time and to keep up with notes as well. Has talked writer's cramp already lol (but not really lol, true I'm sure).

You know, I actually have to wonder if she's maybe not going to go for any elected positions again after this trial. I say that because the public is unhappy with the lack of coverage and extreme rules here. She's of course already got a fair portion unhappy with the way they view some of her decisions, although I'm in agreement with most of those but more because I just don't feel the defense had enough in basically any of their motions throughout to get all of this or that thrown out, and for sure not to use the O theory, and so on. Not because I'm like going along with anything she decides if it is against the D, I truly think they've been the right decisions.

I'm not 100 percent that all traditional news is on the same page either? Because from one org, two were in in the morning but one coudln't get back in in the afternoon one day, either Friday or Saturday it was. I'd think they at least could keep their seats since some many are actually allotted so long as other reporters were in agreement they were theirs that day and would not try to go in, such would be empty both halves of the day but for the ones chosen/agreed to amongst the traditional news people.

Anyhow just some early morning wandering but related to the coverage rules and attendance rules I believe I've stuck to.

Good for her for standing up and saying it, to a critic or viewer, that it isn't easy at all. She didn't say they couldn't pee but she basically did, by saying no water and can't leave the courtroom.

I guess it's easy when a judge's seat is always there and no one takes it from her during this trial or someone randomly says nope, that's the cut off in line, and she can pee. Does she have water? See, I'm not always a fan LOL.

I'm glad Tom is there and I only hope he stays because I am getting more detail there and to be fair, traditional news isn't going to be able to cover in an article every last reaction or nuance or even everything said or get it to press necessarily as fast with edits. Where he jumps on live or hopes to every night right after court lets out.

I'll be having another fit IF, after this trial, almost everything isn't publicly available pretty quickly, for a cost of course.

And it sounds like everything in that courthouse needs some WD40. Lol.
 
I never saw such, was watching Tom but don't know why it would be a big deal anyhow. But who knows I guess. I can only say a duplication if I had seen it wouldn't have bothered me nor I;'d hope anyone.
You replied to the dup one that I deleted, but you're right, no biggie.
 
Yes, I don't think either girl had left the house wearing outerclothing and that the sweatshirt Libby was wearing and the grey jacket that Abby was wearing were both Kelsi's. And remember, it was Kelsi who'd dropped them off that day.
Some testing was clearly done because it was said I believe even by the defense that the hair belongs to some female relative's of Libby's so I don't know what the entire bunch of blowing out of proportion is meant to be, because they didn't go all out to determine which female relative? That's how ridiculous it has gotten imo. And then they hope to what, pin it on a female relative who wasn't there?

And now they've all submitted samples again I'm sure to allay the b.s.

A very big nothing burger that was made to be something by the D and a few who ran with it. Imo.
 
Keeping this in mind as far as us getting any information at all regarding this trial.



From Angela:

I don’t work 24 hours a day. I was outside with my son on a run/walk. I am here trying to do a service for you. I am doing the best I can with what we have been dealt. No cameras, no laptops, no cellphones, can’t leave the courtroom, can’t drink water. There are going to be “edits.” It’s 3AM. That’s what time I am up. I am the morning news anchor for Fox59. Delphi is one of at least 30 stories I’m currently working on. I am human. I am not perfect.

Good- i am glad she ripped that guy a new one. How rude.
 
That's it right there; in the first place, no, the sketches are not evidence!
Agree. And yeah, RP has found that it is not common for sketches to come in or them not to be blocked if I have it right.

Now the D is trying to claim the same type of argument, at least as part of their attempted reason, about the video, that it was not used to ID RA.

It isn't these same at all, the video is evidence and is actual time evidence and recording and as Tresir pointed out, the look for certain clothing items of RA's and more relate directly to that video. PLUS I'd add since the thought just came to me that he admitted pretty much to wearing what BG had on...It's completely different. Libby was filming someone I'm sure she already knew or sensed was not up to any good in their last moments of life...

Of course their other argument is it is enhanced or some sh*t.

It's obvious why they want it out. Imo. The voice is dead on for one thing. DEAD ON it is HIM.
 

Forum statistics

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