Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #196

[sunshineray]

I don’t always. Simply because I’m aware of perjury which I am NoT accusing anyone in this matter of, but which does happen on occasion. I prefer facts matched to evidence. Mooooo.

I'm pretty sure the OP meant under oath testimony of the facts, the evidence, like at a hearing or trial, not someone not LE writing a book about what they think the evidence or the timeline is? I may be mistaken but that's how I took their comment. MO

 

[sunshineray]

Speculative opinion....For them to not have crossed the creek, then the only way they could have accessed the area of the crime scene assuming they were forced from the area and returned at a later time that night would be from north of Deer Creek. Deer Creek runs E/W and W300N the same, E/W. They would have had to enter the CS under cover of darkness from a point near the field west of the Cemetery, to a point somewhere in the vicinity of RL's home, and east of there, south to the creek. The region of woods just south of RL's home, and a wee bit east, where there is a bend that approaches W300N, the terrain is quite steep at the creek bank, and likely not passable. So the area in question to return to the CS site would have to be the trail itself, leaving the trail before the bridge to pass through the woods, the field along W300N to the immediate west of the cemetery, and the area along W300N over to RL's home. One would have to assume that area of W300N was unoccupied overnight. I've highlighted in blue the area of concern, assuming they never crossed the creek to arrive at the CS site.

Edit to add...the length of roadway inside that blue circle on this map is around 2,000 feet, less than a half mile.

Quite the trek that would be.

 

[ClearAhead]

But the Prosecutor asked him if this is the point when BG abducted the kids. He says this is his understanding. In your response to me, you pointed out the same issue the D pointed out in their cross examination: this witness - his role was to examine the contents of the device. He can’t say for sure the kids were abducted or not etc.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Here is where the P asked him to say this is the point when the kids were abducted. Upthread is the screen as to where the same witness agreed with the D that he can’t say if the kids were abducted but I’ll post it below again anyhow since it’s handy:
View attachment 531255
View attachment 531256

I’m not sure what he’s expected to admit to ‘knowing’. How can he know if or when a kidnapping took place as he wasn’t there? This was only a hearing and he was there to testify about the cellphone data. Later during the trial it will be up to the prosecution to present a theory to the jury, linking all the facts together to demonstrate why RA is guilty of the murders. State witnesses generally do not take the witness stand and testify even during a trial, one after another about what they ‘believe’ or think they know. Those are opinions, not facts. The jury will be instructed to only consider ‘the facts’. JMO

 

[ClearAhead]

I'm pretty sure the OP meant under oath testimony of the facts, the evidence, like at a hearing or trial, not someone not LE writing a book about what they think the evidence or the timeline is? I may be mistaken but that's how I took their comment. MO

When ever I’ve followed a case I’m always amazed at details which manage to creep into the public realm that are perceived as facts, that turn out not to be true or are never mentioned again during the trial. It’s sometimes due to incorrect media reporting from unreliable sources or hastily written books. MOO

 

[photographer4]

I’m not sure what he’s expected to admit to ‘knowing’. How can he know if or when a kidnapping took place as he wasn’t there? This was only a hearing and he was there to testify about the cellphone data. Later during the trial it will be up to the prosecution to present a theory to the jury, linking all the facts together to demonstrate why RA is guilty of the murders. State witnesses generally do not take the witness stand and testify even during a trial, one after another about what they ‘believe’ or think they know. Those are opinions, not facts. The jury will be instructed to only consider ‘the facts’. JMO

We (the D, you and I) agree on this as I noted in my earlier post.

 

[steeltowngirl]

But my mind doesn’t let me imagine anyone trying to have two naked terrified kids wading through cold water across the creek.

Yet we know the killer slashed their throats and let them bleed to death.

Why would marching two (possibly half-nude) kids across a creek be off-limits to your imagination of this horrific murder scene?

 

[photographer4]

Yet we know the killer slashed their throats and let them bleed to death.

Why would marching two (possibly half-nude) kids across a creek be off-limits to your imagination of this horrific murder scene?

I could ask the same of you: why isn’t it outside the realm of your imagination? We just think differently is all, and that’s ok.

 

[steeltowngirl]

The next defense strategy is probably “Okay, RA abducted the girls but really it was other people that killed them, honest. Look at all this non-evidence and speculation.”

Ironically I could see that being more successful than trying to vanish the phone for hours while the girls are being driven around Delphi.

MOO

I have yet to see a document written by defense say it is not RA on the bridge in the photo.

If defense states RA abducted the girls, he’s done.

jmo

 

[ClearAhead]

We (the D, you and I) agree on this as I noted in my earlier post.

Let me put it this way. If he had adamantly responded “yes sir, exactly at that point of time the girls were abducted,” - is this a FACT or is he merely speculating? There is a difference and that was my point, considering the phone records are circumstantial evidence.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I could ask the same of you: why isn’t it outside the realm of your imagination? We just think differently is all, and that’s ok.

I’m working with case facts. After 7 years following this case, my imagination isn’t needed anymore. We have heard actual evidence.

I asked you, because you said your imagination couldn’t allow you to picture what is the most likely scenario.

 

[photographer4]

I have yet to see a document written by defense say it is not RA on the bridge in the photo.

If defense states RA abducted the girls, he’s done.

jmo

I’m confused. Why would the D state that RA abducted the girls?

 

[photographer4]

Let me put it this way. If he had adamantly responded “yes sir, exactly at that point of time the girls were abducted,” - is this a FACT or is he merely speculating? There is a difference and that was my point, considering the phone records are circumstantial evidence.

We still agree. He acknowledged to the D that he can’t say whether or not the kids were abducted. It’s nice we finally agree on something.

 

[steeltowngirl]

I’m confused. Why would the D state that RA abducted the girls?

I was responding to another poster who proposed that idea. That said, defense states all sort of things, nothing would surprise me.

jmo

 

[steeltowngirl]

We still agree. He acknowledged to the D that he can’t say whether or not the kids were abducted. It’s nice we finally agree on something.

Where is this coming from - who said they can’t say whether the kids were abducted?

Are you suggesting Libby and Abby were not abducted?

 

[ClearAhead]

We still agree. He acknowledged to the D that he can’t say whether or not the kids were abducted. It’s nice we finally agree on something.

Sorry but we don’t. Do you seriously believe the D intends to use this testimony to prove an abduction did not occur? Seriously?

 

[Arkay]

Where is this coming from - who said they can’t say whether the kids were abducted?

Are you suggesting Libby and Abby were not abducted?

Sorry but we don’t. Do you seriously believe the D intends to use this testimony to prove an abduction did not occur? Seriously?

At the risk of being repetitive, as I posted about this earlier in this thread, for those still questioning whether an abduction took place:

If there is one thing about which we are certain, “we” meaning everyone on all sides, it’s that the girls WERE abducted.

Of this there is no doubt. No two sides.

There is a man on film ordering two juveniles to go down the hill. Again, when someone is forced against their will to go to another location, with someone with whom they did not choose to go, that is in and of itself an ABDUCTION.

We may disagree vehemently about who is the culprit. But two things about which we have absolute proof are:

1) Abby and Libby were abducted by force and threat and prevented from remaining on their chosen path.
2) Abby and Libby were found dead.

These are indisputable.

We know these because:
1. A man is recorded in the act of abducting them.
2. Abby and Libby were discovered dead due to homicide.

NOT my opinion but fact.
We all have our opinions about RA or not RA, but their abduction is a tragic proven fact.

abduction

1. the act of making a person go somewhere with you, especially using threats…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[photographer4]

I’m working with case facts. After 7 years following this case, my imagination isn’t needed anymore. We have heard actual evidence.

I asked you, because you said your imagination couldn’t allow you to picture what is the most likely scenario.

Have the police or the state said the kids crossed the creek officially by wading through it? If so, pls provide a link as I have yet to see it. I know this is what many people think happened, however I also recall Le stating no one has it right so I don’t think we actually know their theory as to what happened here? Here is a post with a quote and a link that makes me think they may not have waded across the creek as so many do:

Found Deceased - IN - Abigail (Abby) Williams, 13, & Liberty (Libby) German, 14, The Delphi Murders 13 Feb 2017 #131

Link to case map: Abigail Williams & Liberty German. Delphi, IN. 2/13/17 - Google My Maps Thank you for the link.

www.websleuths.com

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Please move on from the back and forth bickering about whether the girls were abducted or whether they crossed the creek. It becomes tedious for other members and guests.

It is not within the expertise of a cell phone expert to provide an opinion on whether or not the girls were abducted or a specific time they were abducted. Their only testimony within their area of expertise relates to the cell phone.

While LE is quoted as having said " ... no one has it right ...", that appears to be a general comment but not specifically related to whether or not the girls crossed the creek. Libby's video indicates they were on one side of the creek, ordered down the hill, and we know they were found deceased on the other side of the creek. It is totally within the realm of possibility (if not probability) that they crossed the creek unless there is some known fact on which to base speculation to the contrary.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Starting at around 8:50, KG discusses the finding of Libby’s shoe on the same side of the creek as the bridge. The girls were then found across the creek.

"Somebody yelled up that they had found a shoe..."

It is also mentioned in this Investigation Discovery article.
Who KIlled Abby Williams & Liberty German? | Still a Mystery on Investigation Discovery | Investigation Discovery

"Then, on February 14, searchers reportedly found a single shoe. Within minutes, they made another grim discovery — they reportedly found the girls' remains, less than a mile from where they had started their hike just 24 hours earlier. The tragedy made headlines around the country, and media flooded the small town."