Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[sunshineray]

I would say: they are rather super distrustful people.

I rather believe they are ignorant, not stupid...ignorant.

 

[arielilane]

@NewsyBarbara

7 years ago today they went for a walk and didn’t come home. Their families are still waiting for justice. Abigail Joyce Williams was 13. Liberty Rose Lynn German was 14.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1757375458029576281

 

[steeltowngirl]

Just wanted to bring forward this article originally published on Feb. 18th, 2017: Memorial grows as police continue search for Delphi girls' killer

"Friday evening, state police hustled back to the crime scene where friends Abby Williams and Libby German were found dead Tuesday. Undercover officers did some work and left about a half-hour later."

Good find @Yemelyan !

 

[zh0r4]

If RA's device did support his timeline, or should have proved it but LE didn't have the tower data, <modsnip - namecalling> would have said so in the Franks. Instead they strangely didn't mention his phone at all.

RSBM
RBBM

p. 129

“Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 1-3).
Liggett further has testified that he is unaware of anything that links Richard to the crime through his phone, computers or electronics (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 9-12).”

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19). No data extracted from Richard Allen's phone connects him to the murders (Holeman depo. p. 48, lines 20-25 and p. 49, lines 1-4).”

I agree P would have pulled the sim data before the 2022 interview. If the D was lying here, wouldn’t the P immediately call them out? If the D was lying about these taped depos, they could be disbarred. I’m very confused.


Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

 

[steeltowngirl]

I don’t think Lebrato was referring to another crime suspected of being tied to Odinism, he was talking about the Delphi case. He explains how he originally thought the Odinism angle was “hocus pocus” but the more he got into it he realized it “was real and scary”. “In what way?” Lebrato responds, “Well, I believe they sacrificed a girl and killed another one.” He also stated, “Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rozzi were on to something right away.”

IMO the comment “Well, I believe they sacrificed a girl and killed another one.” interesting. Since according to the CS section of the FM, it described one of the girls in a very different state/more severe than the other.

If by some stretch B&R were on to something, why did they need to reveal their findings publicly? LE had stated when they arrested RA that it was still an active investigation. B&R risked compromising the investigation and apprehending others that may have been involved, and evidence that potentially could have exonerated their client - if they were correct.

 

[Salah11]

RSBM
RBBM

p. 129

“Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 1-3).
Liggett further has testified that he is unaware of anything that links Richard to the crime through his phone, computers or electronics (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 9-12).”

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19). No data extracted from Richard Allen's phone connects him to the murders (Holeman depo. p. 48, lines 20-25 and p. 49, lines 1-4).”

I agree P would have pulled the sim data before the 2022 interview. If the D was lying here, wouldn’t the P immediately call them out? If the D was lying about these taped depos, they could be disbarred. I’m very confused.

View attachment 483008
Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Does the gag order not stop them saying it’s all a Defense ploy?

 

[mrjitty]

RSBM
RBBM

p. 129

“Tony Liggett has testified under oath that there is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 1-3).
Liggett further has testified that he is unaware of anything that links Richard to the crime through his phone, computers or electronics (Liggett depo. p. 80, lines 9-12).”

“Jerry Holeman has testified to the following: There is no DNA linking Richard Allen to the crime scene (Holeman depo. p. 40, lines 14-19). No data extracted from Richard Allen's phone connects him to the murders (Holeman depo. p. 48, lines 20-25 and p. 49, lines 1-4).”

I agree P would have pulled the sim data before the 2022 interview. If the D was lying here, wouldn’t the P immediately call them out? If the D was lying about these taped depos, they could be disbarred. I’m very confused.

View attachment 483008
Source:
https://www.scribd.com/document/672126677/DELPHI-Memorandum-in-Support-of-Motion-pdf

Again your quotes go to my point.

I think his phone was at home or switched off during the relevant times.

1. If his phone showed him arriving/leaving the trails at 12.00-1.30 the defence would have mentioned it in the Franks. Clearly exculpatory. So we can exclude this IMO

2. If his phone showed him on the trails from 1.30 until after the murders, IMO it would have been in the PCA. Clearly supports the prosecution timeline, and Ligget/Holeman would not have said that in depo.

Therefore we are only left with the possibilities that

3. his phone was either at home (or elsewhere) during the critical times and/or switched off

OR

4. There is no phone mast evidence at all.

It is particularly interesting to me that nowhere in the exhaustive Franks does it make any mention of where his phone was and if it was on/off. Personally i think if there was no phone mast evidence, they would have yelled about it in the Franks as that evidence would presumably have cleared their client.

If you have an idea where else his phone might be I am all ears.

 

[mrjitty]

A recurring theme in murder cases is that the killer is 'forensically aware' and switches their phone off, and/or does not take it to the crime.

By switching the phone on/off around the sensitive hours, the killer in fact highlights the blackout window in which they were doing the criming.

IMO an issue for RA could be precisely that his phone does not link him to the crime scene, because he said he was checking stock tickers so it should link him to the crime scene!

I'll be very interested in the CAST evidence, and how he was confronted with it in his '22 interview.

 

[M. Kay]

If RA was checking the market's stock ticker, wouldn't his phone be traceable to the MHB by using his phones' downloaded data that will prove, once and for all, when one of his phones was at the MHB and when it left?

AMHOO

Yes to your inquiry on 'tracing phones' data. In Susan Hendricks' book "Down the Hill" she outlines how GEOFENCE technology works, and would be applicable for confirming details being presented sequentially in court.

 

[girlhasnoname]

From the interview conducted with BMcD by Court TV about her interview with Lebrato, I believe he was pretty clear, regardless of ”walking it back,” as you refer to it. I don’t see it as that. I see it as a statement of fact. It does not negate what he expressed prior to that statement.

When BMcD was asked how emphatic BL is in his belief that RA is innocent, BMcD’s response was that he believed not just that he is “not guilty, but that he’s innocent of these charges and not involved at all according to Bill Lebrato. That was a bit surprising to me..…and I pushed back on that a bit, ‘you’re a defence attorney that’s your job to say that’ .… He doesn’t say that very often and he’s never felt as strongly about a client’s innocence as he does in this case.” ”Yes, 100% innocent, he said”

When asked about the Odinist angle Lebrato responded to BMcD, “I thought it was hocus pocus. I honestly didn’t… I’d never heard of it. Ummm, and the more I got into it, Ummmm, that’s, that’s a real thing. It’s a real thing, and, it’s scary.” BMcD then asks, “In what way?” Lebrato responds, “Well, I believe they sacrificed a girl and killed another one.” He also stated, “Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rozzi were on to something right away.”

As well, BMcD shared, “Yeah, and he said that you know, their defence strategy probably would have been a little bit different than Rozzi and Baldwin, but not too different. Oh, they were also preparing a Franks Memo for a Franks hearing, alleging there were problems with the information that was used to obtain the search warrant for Richard Allen’s home. It appears they were following a similar path, not identical, but a similar path.”

Personally, I don’t think what he said can be called, “walking it back.”

With regard to his statements about Gull’s fairness, well, in his experience thus far with her, he sees her as being fair. I have to wonder if he and Scremin had remained on the case, if his opinion of her “fairness” would have changed. How fair does he feel she is now that she denied having RA moved which occurred after they left the case? I really don’t think he would find that fair having witnessed what he did of RA’s situation in prison which he also commented on. As far as I know, he didn’t “walk that back.” JMHO

Two different answers from 2 different interviews, typical Defense Attorney smoke & mirrors IMO. He is in on his 15 minutes of fame as well, he sure can't say R&B are 2 unprofessional, blundering attorneys no matter what he truly may think. He was towing the Defense company line IMO.

BMcD led him by the nose in that interview if you ask me. Did you notice all of his "ummms" in response? The interview I linked was done after the one you linked so I believe Lebrato didn't walk back his opinions on Judge Gull.

Here's another response by Lebrato on the Odinist theory from the article: They are now brazen Facebook Odinists.
<snipped & BBM>

“There are people that follow this Odin religion,” he said. “There are people that were very brazen at the time of the murders on their Facebook accounts about being part of this Odinistic cult. Whether they’re responsible, I don’t know. I don’t want to get into what our legal defense theory would’ve been because I don’t want to hinder the current attorneys.”


Photo: Curtesy FOX59News 10/31/2023

He looks much better and has put his weight back on since that (staged IMO) previous photo.

‘I’ve never seen so many twists and turns’: Former attorney for Delphi suspect Richard Allen discusses case

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

A recurring theme in murder cases is that the killer is 'forensically aware' and switches their phone off, and/or does not take it to the crime.

By switching the phone on/off around the sensitive hours, the killer in fact highlights the blackout window in which they were doing the criming.

IMO an issue for RA could be precisely that his phone does not link him to the crime scene, because he said he was checking stock tickers so it should link him to the crime scene!

I'll be very interested in the CAST evidence, and how he was confronted with it in his '22 interview.

I've seen that type of phone date bury many Defendants. Morphew, Murdaugh just to name a few.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I've seen that type of phone date bury many Defendants. Morphew, Murdaugh just to name a few.

MOO

Yep.
Mcstay as well. Idaho too i think?

 

[zh0r4]

Again your quotes go to my point.

I think his phone was at home or switched off during the relevant times.

1. If his phone showed him arriving/leaving the trails at 12.00-1.30 the defence would have mentioned it in the Franks. Clearly exculpatory. So we can exclude this IMO

2. If his phone showed him on the trails from 1.30 until after the murders, IMO it would have been in the PCA. Clearly supports the prosecution timeline, and Ligget/Holeman would not have said that in depo.

Therefore we are only left with the possibilities that

3. his phone was either at home (or elsewhere) during the critical times and/or switched off

OR

4. There is no phone mast evidence at all.

It is particularly interesting to me that nowhere in the exhaustive Franks does it make any mention of where his phone was and if it was on/off. Personally i think if there was no phone mast evidence, they would have yelled about it in the Franks as that evidence would presumably have cleared their client.

If you have an idea where else his phone might be I am all ears.

I believe this is due to the purpose of a FM:

“A Franks hearing is a legal proceeding in a criminal case where the defense tries to traverse a search warrant. Traversing a warrant means that the defendant challenges the truth of the information that is used to support it.

A Franks motion is the legal document given to the judge that sets forth the defendant’s request for a hearing and the specific challenges that the defendant has.

This type of hearing is typically conducted aftera search and seizure have taken place. If the defense is successful at the hearing, then the judge will throw out (or suppress) all of the evidence, or some, that was seized under the warrant.

Note that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution says that a search warrant can only be issued upon a showing of probable cause.

“Probable cause” is a reasonable belief that:

• criminal activity has taken place, or
• criminal activity is taking place.

A motion to traverse, then, challenges the truth of the information that tries to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.”

Source:

What is a "Franks Motion" and Hearing?

A Franks motion asks the court for a Franks hearing, where you can contest the truthfulness of the affidavit in support of a search warrant.

www.shouselaw.com

And yes. The sim data would not pick up any location information if the phone was off. With that being said, how will the P prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that RA is BG? I assumed phone data would back that RA is BG, but if there is no phone data due to the phone being turned off, how is that to be determined?

Re: your #4 RSBM

Personally i think if there was no phone mast evidence, they would have yelled about it in the Franks as that evidence would presumably have cleared their client.

I believe they were yelling about this in the FM, as cited above.

JMO.

 

[steeltowngirl]

A recurring theme in murder cases is that the killer is 'forensically aware' and switches their phone off, and/or does not take it to the crime.

By switching the phone on/off around the sensitive hours, the killer in fact highlights the blackout window in which they were doing the criming.

IMO an issue for RA could be precisely that his phone does not link him to the crime scene, because he said he was checking stock tickers so it should link him to the crime scene!

I'll be very interested in the CAST evidence, and how he was confronted with it in his '22 interview.

Also, if RA was gone from the trails by 1:30, wouldn’t his phone track his path home, or to wherever he went next? Do we even know where he says he was from 1:30 on?

 

[photographer4]

Yes I don’t believe the girls had plans to meet anybody as they invited the much older sister to tag along but she had work or was busy I believe.

So that does not point to the girls having anything secret planned at the bridge. Also I believe it was spur of the moment they decided to go out to the bridge.

I could be completely wrong and I will hold my hands up if I am but I am just not seeing some grand conspiracy with loads of moving parts.

Unfortunately they just happened to cross a evil monsters path that day who took advantage of the situation presented to him who had likely harboured sick fantasies for years.

Mooooooooooooooooo

They did invite KG to go with them, but it wasn't spur of the moment. They asked BP to take them earlier and she was busy with work and set the kids working on some chores or something to help her out a bit. They then asked KG and she was agreeable. The reason I think they COULD have planned to meet someone is that kids are insanely fast on Social Media - a text to a friend, a snap to a group - half the planet could have known that the girls were excited to be heading to the bridge shortly, and unattended by adults. I'm not saying it went down this way, but it COULD have. Could have been as simple as a snap chat / kik / Instagram message ON ROUTE to the bridge. It takes mere seconds to tell someone via text what the plan is. They may not have had a plan to meet anyone when they LEFT BP's house, but they COULD have had a plan to meet someone by the time they GOT there is all I'm saying.

I don't think there was any plan to meet anyone that was made that day at all though. They seemed to just be out enjoying some freedom on a nice day and ended up ambushed. It could have been as simple as a Snap Story (if that was a thing at the time, I don't know as I've never used the app)... that could have alerted all their contacts that they were off, and someone could have been there to ambush them by the time they got there.

 

[zh0r4]

If by some stretch B&R were on to something, why did they need to reveal their findings publicly? LE had stated when they arrested RA that it was still an active investigation. B&R risked compromising the investigation and apprehending others that may have been involved, and evidence that potentially could have exonerated their client - if they were correct.

I don’t know. I am not a lawyer so I don’t feel I am qualified to begin to analyze the reasonings behind why any attorney does anything to be honest. It is easy for me to criticize when I have no idea-but from a writing standpoint I definitely felt it was too long and drawn out. For example, I like how Hennessy’s motions are neat and succinct. I do feel they are trying to do their job, and since the Lebrato interview, I truly believe they believe RA is innocent.

JMO.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Could very well be possible there is no connection.

I don't think we know of all the evidence does or does not have at this point.

MOO

We know KAK hasn't been charged with anything related to Delphi. We know he didn't receive any deal on his case (quite the opposite in fact). We know RA hasn't been charged with anything related to CSAM yet. We know neither the prosecution nor the defense has mentioned the Anthony_Shots account as being involved in the case yet.

I guess it's still possible there's a connection, but a long time has gone by since RA's arrest without there being any public movement in that direction. So it seems pretty unlikely to me that there's a connection at this point. It's a strange coincidence for sure, but those do happen.

 

[photographer4]

Oh and my last post on if this could all be connected with a child sex ring.

The fact RA left the phone behind with vital clues on it points to him not being at all tech savvy. If this was somebody who was luring girls over the internet to meet them and all that jazz then they would of been very aware of taking away the technology that could point to their guilt.

IMO

In regards to LG"s cell phone. It appears it was found under one of the kid's bodies. When LG made the recording of BG, the book by Susan Hendricks: Down the Hill: My Descent into The Double Murder In Delphi states that: "Alarmed, Libby began to secretly record the man using her phone, hidden within her clothing. This layer of static shrouds the recording to this day,..."

I don't know if the phone was found IN some clothing that the kids were wearing, or just plainly under one of their bodies. But - if it was not found IN an article of clothing, which seems to be how LG recorded him secretly as asserted by LE, then I suspect he knew about it. I just don't think he knew he was the main character in her most recent (possibly last) recording on it. If it was IN an item of clothing, if the kids were found laying on their backs, then how would that have happened?

There are things we still don't know: did the killer(s) leave evidence of their own on the device? Did they WANT Le to find that phone? Did they just leave it there out of carelessness or lack of concern? Did they leave a "note" on the phones notepad? A text to someone? We have no idea if they did or did not interact with LG's device at the scene. There could be a lot of shocking things about it yet to be learned by us.

 

[photographer4]

Also, if RA was gone from the trails by 1:30, wouldn’t his phone track his path home, or to wherever he went next? Do we even know where he says he was from 1:30 on?

Not necessarily. If if it was in airplane mode, it may not have been trackable. And if it was in airplane mode during the crime, I have wondered, if that might mean that when they examined the device forensically: does a phone history show LE when it has been turned off or on? If it was in airplane mode, then would it show that it had been in airplane mode vs turned off during that time?

Since we're speaking of phones, did RA send any texts or view any websites on his phone at all during the commission of the crime? We recall from RL's PCA to get a SW that they believed he'd been outside his home the night the kids were missing, and had placed a text or two that they thought were made from near where the girls bodies were found. If we don't have that from RA - why not? Did he use a burner? I could believe he may have done just this, and that MIGHT be what LE wanted from the Wabash river when they did the big search before RA was picked up.

 

[photographer4]

We know KAK hasn't been charged with anything related to Delphi. We know he didn't receive any deal on his case (quite the opposite in fact). We know RA hasn't been charged with anything related to CSAM yet. We know neither the prosecution nor the defense has mentioned the Anthony_Shots account as being involved in the case yet.

I guess it's still possible there's a connection, but a long time has gone by since RA's arrest without there being any public movement in that direction. So it seems pretty unlikely to me that there's a connection at this point. It's a strange coincidence for sure, but those do happen.

They may not want to charge KAK until AFTER RA's trial so as to help avoid tainting a jury pool, and to keep quiet what they already know. He's not a threat. He's not going anywhere is he?