IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 - #33

[ambi]

IMO!

Just wanted to throw my two cents in on some things

1. Although the photo of RL and BG don't match entirely, it still could be RL. There are plenty of photos when people look quite different but it's all to do with lighting, angle and perspective. (Not saying I necessarily think it is though)

2. People wondering why the girls wouldn't have said his name if it happens to be him in the photo - perhaps he knew the family but that doesn't mean the girls in particular. In smaller towns, people know of everyone but it doesn't mean they personally know everyone or have met everyone. Perhaps he had met Libby's grandparents once at a town event or been introduced to Abby's mum by a friend or something. This could've also been years ago but people still describe that as 'knowing' because they do know them... but not necessarily personally. The girls may not have met him before. Food for though. (Unless he said somewhere he knew the girls directly? Like he had spoken to both of them before)

3. If the LE have probable cause to search his property, this may be because a tip or several has led them to believe the property was utilised for something to do with Libby and Abby. I don't necessarily think it was RL, in fact I kind of find that very unlikely but I wouldn't rule out him knowing the perp or having knowledge of what has happened.

4. Even though I don't think it was RL, plenty of murderers leave bodies on their own property. In many cases bodies are found buried in backyards or hidden in a house or on a property and the perp is someone who lives there. There is more movement in body placement when it's an abduction case, as the perp will take the person away in order to do what they want with them. They're usually then disposed of more than 10 miles from where the perp lives. (I've found this same pattern in many cases on here!)

I can't say 100% whether I think RL is involved in some way or not but I don't think he is the actual BG.

MOO [emoji202]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Momma2cam]

What if RL learned something that happened on his property (the girls) involving someone he knew well. He tells the police and for his protection they "arrest" him and put him in jail for breaking his probation so they can investigate further. They get the search warrants etc. and decide to move him to a different county because of an impending arrest they are about to make? Maybe they don't want RL there when they bring the suspect in? Just a thought I had while drinking my morning coffee....MOO....

Agree. Or, he refused to talk initially and began talking after the arrest. Maybe they have evidence to suspect he knew more than he was saying, not necessarily that he was directly involved in the crime.

I'm still really struggling to understand the amount of sympathy for him when we honestly know nothing other than bodies found on his land, history of DUIs, currently incarcerated for probation violation, potential issues with his alibi, a search warrant executed with probable cause on his home, which lead to removal of a truck and "armful" of stuff, and LE saying they are looking to clear him or move him higher as a suspect than originally thought.

I have only followed one other case here I which foul play is suspected and after almost 3 months following a search warrant of one home, there have been no arrests but nearly everyone believes him to be involved and any sympathy given toward him for possibly being innocent is jumped on. I hate to keep harping on this and I realize the cases are very different but this is driving me crazy.

I'm holding to my view for now that IMO, BG and RL are not the same person but it is very obvious the police are looking at him closely for some reason and I'm going to trust they have solid reason for that. JMO.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley95]

Is it true numerology is banned on WS? Hope so

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[KenzieK]

This is how I believe LE established probable cause for the search, all MOO:

On Feb 13 RL drove into Lafayette to buy his now infamous tropical fish (I'm just glad it wasn't a catfish). Under the terms of his probation he was not supposed to drive. Given his fairly remote location I assume he routinely drives anyway, and if local LE was aware they probably turned a blind eye.

He returns from his trip and is blindsided by the news of the missing girls and discovery of their bodies.

Being that the bodies were found on his property LE questions him. When they ask about his whereabouts he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. If he is truthful and tells them he drove into Lafayette himself then he admits to a probation violation. So instead he tells them a friend (lets call him Mr. X) gave him a ride. He probably then calls that friend and asks him to back him up if police ask. His friend agrees thinking that it's not that big of a deal since he's only covering for a simple probation violation, not a murder. LE talk to Mr. X, he "confirms" that he drove RL to Lafayette, and that establishes RL's alibi, and they clear him "at this time".

A few weeks later (and the investigation going nowhere) one of two things could have happened:
Either LE re-checked alibis and discovered evidence that Mr. X did not drive RL that day (could have talked to the store owner or checked security cameras). Or they talk to Mr. X again and put some pressure on him about lying to LE, and he admits it. Or maybe Mr. X got cold feet and realized that lying to LE in a murder investigation could land HIM in a lot of trouble, and he contacts LE to tell them he did NOT drive RL.

In any event, LE now knows that RL lied about his alibi. They don't know for certain if it was simply to cover up the probation violation (which IMO is all it was), or if there is something more sinister going on and RL might be somehow involved in the murders. The probation violation is enough to arrest him, and with the 15 day hold it gives them plenty of time to figure out their next steps. I believe all they had to do to get the search warrant for RL's home was to tell the judge that RL lied about his alibi (backed up by a written statement from Mr. X that he did not drive RL). RL may have lied only to avoid getting busted for driving, but it also is plausible that there is more to it, thereby justifying the search warrant.

Bottom line is I believe RL opened himself up to all this scrutiny by lying about his alibi. It's unfortunate that his "little lie" got him tangled up even more in a murder investigation...but I guess that can happen if you continually break the rules and skirt responsibility for your actions. Having a killer dump bodies on his property wasn't his fault, but he's made plenty of poor decisions, and he's paying a very steep price for it now.

ALL MOO.

 

[GGE]

BBM. Sure it is. It's his property, it is his home. Plenty of people, myself included, talk this way. Nothing strange at all.

Tell you what, if I instruct my child to go inside the house and they go into the woods behind my house instead and decide it's fine to just hang out somewhere in our 5+ acres, that child is getting punished for not doing what they were told to do.

JMO

However I will say this - when I was little we would say "let's go to your house and play" even if we meant swinging on the swing set in the back yard... but that's because we said TO your house, not IN your house.

again JMO

I guess it could be a regional dialect thing though, now that I think about it, because I've heard midwest and southern people say they were going to stand "ON line" instead of "IN line" before, which also makes no sense whatsoever. And I've heard people say "whenever we were married" when they mean "when we were married"... that one drives me nuts. It's like they're saying "it happend a bunch of times, and each time it happened... yadda yadda"... So who knows. Still weird to me. :scared:

 

[SomeoneElse333]

coincidence

kəʊˈɪnsɪd(&#601ns/

noun

1.

a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.

Now let us back to reality and on topic.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Sorry to have offended.

____________
The above is just my opinion.

 

[Ashley95]

Sorry to have offended.

____________
The above is just my opinion.

You didn't offend but i think numerology is banned on ws. Unless someone knows better....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[SomeoneElse333]

You didn't offend but i think numerology is banned on ws. Unless someone knows better....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Thanks. I didn't mean to imply anything about numerology. And I don't subscribe to that anyway.

I truly thought there might be some sort of connection between the two crimes...like if they were related, the killer may have chosen those dates intentionally.

____________
The above is just my opinion.

 

[SilentRogue]

Tell you what, if I instruct my child to go inside the house and they go into the woods behind my house instead and decide it's fine to just hang out somewhere in our 5+ acres, that child is getting punished for not doing what they were told to do.

JMO

However I will say this - when I was little we would say "let's go to your house and play" even if we meant swinging on the swing set in the back yard... but that's because we said TO your house, not IN your house.

again JMO

I guess it could be a regional dialect thing though, now that I think about it, because I've heard midwest and southern people say they were going to stand "ON line" instead of "IN line" before, which also makes no sense whatsoever. And I've heard people say "whenever we were married" when they mean "when we were married"... that one drives me nuts. It's like they're saying "it happend a bunch of times, and each time it happened... yadda yadda"... So who knows. Still weird to me. :scared:

I've seen in my house to be used as a euphemism for in my domain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WebSight]

Not how it works, you're correct in feeling that was not accurate.

The two years sentence that was suspended is the jail time he wasn't made to serve pending successful completion of probation, which clearly didn't happen because here we are on a probation violation, so that's the sentence that I expect the judge to re-instate now because he has violated, and which IMO he will stack the probation violation sentence on top of.

edited to delete some other stuff because I mis-read and need to double check facts before I state them again, because words matter and I'd rather be sure.

ETA:

this part is what I was saying about the suspended sentence:

(j) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition during any time before the termination of the period, and the petition is filed under subsection (a) after the probationary period has expired, the court may:

(1) reinstate the person's probationary period, with or without enlarging the conditions, if the sum of the length of the original probationary period and the reinstated probationary period does not exceed the length of the maximum sentence allowable for the offense that is the basis of the probation;  or

(2) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing.
- See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-3...code-sect-35-38-2-3.html#sthash.YJR0mrS9.dpuf

Thanks for all that work! So from what I am reading from your post here is this is if he violates while on probation, which I get now. But as I was waiting for your input I read your previous post which quoted the law and I think that answered my question:

Sec. 3. (a) The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period;  and

(2) the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of the following:

(A) One (1) year after the termination of probation.

And, hey, I had actually already read your post before you deleted that part about it coming back to haunt you.

So, it seems, then, that he has violated the terms of his probation which has actually ended but because he has violated them within a year of his probation ending, they can charge him for violation of the terms as if he was still on probation.

Or it was extended as some point which would explain why a probation officer would suggest revoking. If it been extended once, then they would not be inclined to extend again.

PHEW!! Thanks GGE, you are a real sport!

 

[GGE]

PS lets all keep in mind that the court record shows that RL did waive his Fourth Ammendment right in regards to search and seizure on his most recent probation sentencing back in 2014, which NOT ALL probationers do by a LONG shot - I've never seen it personally but that doesn't mean much. But still - it's a fact that is worth keeping in mind. They're doing it ALL by the book right now even though they don't technically have to which IMO means they're building a solid case (perhaps ONLY a solid probetion violation case, NOT suggesting this means it's a case related to the girls. Just "a solid case". whatever that may be.) IMO.

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...qVTBNelV4TnpFNU1UTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhPR0k9In19


" The terms of probation are set forth in the Order on Probation and include the following: waiver of 4th amendment rights against search and seizure; participation in a drug and alcohol program at mental health and substance abuse evaluation; initial probation users fee in the sum of $100 and monthly probation users fee in the sum of $30; $100.00 probation administrative fee; no criminal violations; and no alcohol consumption."

 

[Momma2cam]

Thanks for all that work! So from what I am reading from your post here is this is if he violates while on probation, which I get now. But as I was waiting for your input I read your previous post which quoted the law and I think that answered my question:

Sec. 3. (a) The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period;  and

(2) the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of the following:

(A) One (1) year after the termination of probation.

And, hey, I had actually already read your post before you deleted that part about it coming back to haunt you.

So, it seems, then, that he has violated the terms of his probation which has actually ended but because he has violated them within a year of his probation ending, they can charge him for violation of the terms as if he was still on probation.

Or it was extended as some point which would explain why a probation officer would suggest revoking. If it been extended once, then they would not be inclined to extend again.

PHEW!! Thanks GGE, you are a real sport!

Someone in a previous thread went through his charges and came to the conclusion that the probation was through (September?) 2017 due to a past violation that extended his sentence. Is that poster still here or does anyone else see this? I haven't looked into his criminal history that closely to know where it was found so ill just say MOO for now.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

[GGE]

Thanks for all that work! So from what I am reading from your post here is this is if he violates while on probation, which I get now. But as I was waiting for your input I read your previous post which quoted the law and I think that answered my question:

Sec. 3. (a) The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period;  and

(2) the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of the following:

(A) One (1) year after the termination of probation.

And, hey, I had actually already read your post before you deleted that part about it coming back to haunt you.

So, it seems, then, that he has violated the terms of his probation which has actually ended but because he has violated them within a year of his probation ending, they can charge him for violation of the terms as if he was still on probation.

Or it was extended as some point which would explain why a probation officer would suggest revoking. If it been extended once, then they would not be inclined to extend again.

PHEW!! Thanks GGE, you are a real sport!

No, it totally didn't answer your question, I deleted it because out of context it LOOKS like it answered your questio, but when I put it back into context I realized that I was giving misleading blocks of text.

Read what you quoted me saying again. IF the probationer is still ON probation ("violated within the probationary period") AND if the violation is filed within one year.

But we believe he's been OFF probation sice November since there are no court records clearly showing it was extended beyond that time. So that's why I deleted that part, because everyone is going to read it like you did and think it means what it doesn't, lol. My mistake for putting it out there but for sure I did delete it for a reason, and this is the reason.

 

[Ashley95]

Thanks. I didn't mean to imply anything about numerology. And I don't subscribe to that anyway.

I truly thought there might be some sort of connection between the two crimes...like if they were related, the killer may have chosen those dates intentionally.

____________
The above is just my opinion.

Oh i get you now. My apologies. I was rude then as i thought site was going all illuminati.

You may be right but seems far fetched but hey....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

 

[IshKlosh]

Does anyone know if they can/will impound your vehicle if caught driving on a suspended license? If so, this could be one reason for hauling RLs truck off on the flatbed (that would be separate from the search of the property).

 

[SomeoneElse333]

Oh i get you now. My apologies. I was rude then as i thought site was going all illuminati.

You may be right but seems far fetched but hey....

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

I wasn't clear at all, and you had the right to go there. Thanks for your notes!

____________
The above is just my opinion.

 

[Justice101]

Does anyone know if they can/will impound your vehicle if caught driving on a suspended license? If so, this could be one reason for hauling RLs truck off on the flatbed (that would be separate from the search of the property).

Normally no. And there were 40 law enforcement/forensic vehicles at the time of the search warrant.

 

[Deleted member 278]

Does anyone know if they can/will impound your vehicle if caught driving on a suspended license? If so, this could be one reason for hauling RLs truck off on the flatbed (that would be separate from the search of the property).

IMO, the truck was most likely noted in the search warrant.

 

[Cryptic]

Why do I feel so bad for RL. My heart just breaks for him and I don't know why because something isn't adding up with him. I don't think he did it. I think he's said he knew the families of the girls so you would think the girls knew him too and would have referred to him in the audio.
"HEY IS THAT MR LOAN ON THE BRIDGE OR HI MR LOGAN".
I don't know I'm just sad that this man's life is ruined if he's innocent JMO

The focus on RL is apparently based on not only the bodies of the victims being found on his property (many plausible explanations), but also that RL has apparently lied to police regarding his activities during that time.

Though there are plausible explanations for this as well, it is also equally possible that RL could be innocent of murder, but guilty of being an accessory after the fact if he assisted the actual murderer in say, leaving the area.

Though I do feel some sympathy for RL (that sympathy will go to zero if he is an accessory after the fact), he needs to start helping himself now. That means telling the whole truth. This is especially so as the police have emphasized that nobody, including RL, will be punished for implicating themselves in probation violations, other minor crimes, heck even mid size crimes when giving a truthful account of their activities during that time.

 

[GGE]

Someone in a previous thread went through his charges and came to the conclusion that the probation was through (September?) 2017 due to a past violation that extended his sentence. Is that poster still here or does anyone else see this? I haven't looked into his criminal history that closely to know where it was found so ill just say MOO for now.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

I will look into this more later. I do not see a past probation violation charge but it does show that this two year probation sentence ws stacked on top of a previous probation sentence, both for DUI etc. They ran consecutively. That much is shown clearly -

https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...qVTBNelV4TnpFNU1UTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhPR0k9In19

"
Probation
Term: 2 Yr
Suspended: 2 Yr
Consecutive with Prior Sentence: 08D01-1312-FD-107
"

that prior sentence case number can also be looked back up ,which I wlil do again later. It's been a few threads since I"ve laid it all out.