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

[Etilema]

As a fellow Danielle Stislicki case follower from day one, I understand. I am one that got clobbered on that thread for sticking up for the suspect who has never been named a suspect. Sticking up for his right not to speak and have a lawyer, etc.

I feel the same way with this homeowner. Perhaps it's just one's nature--not sure. I don't like to assume anything unless it's based on fact. But that's me.

I wonder too, with the physical interviews of the landowner if it doesn't bring some empathy because well heck, most all of us have or had a grandfather and maybe it's hard to imagine someone like him who has trouble breathing, someone who's family has owned the land for decades is now suddenly a murderer.

Just as with Danielle's case, the massive media push with her sweet natured image tugged at people's hearts. The person who's house was searched has remained silent. For people here and on that thread who say they woud never be silent...they would want to clear their name no matter what they have to do...isn't this all coming from a different perspesctive from you or I or anyone else? I chalk the differences up to life experiences. To the way we process information.

Have you ever wondered how a jury is unable to come to a unanimous decision? Especially when all the facts were laid out pointing towards guilt? Or so we thought in our minds?

So maybe it's part personal, part life experience, part right to innocence until proven guilty that feeds which way we lean.

Questions were rhetorical and MOO :fence:

I am not inclined to see RL as being intentionally involved in the crime, especially before the fact, but it's not because he's elderly and might have health issues. It's because of his reaction, the things he said. He seemed so genuinely unsettled by this event and so perplexed.

Now, I've lived long enough to know that some guilty people can present very realistically as wholesome or innocent or clueless or righteous, and circumstances can seem far-fetched and allegations absurd to me, yet the still end up being true. I've seen this with people in the public eye and with people I've known personally.

So I would never say that based on my feelings about how RL acted in the interviews and the comments he made that I know he cannot be involved.

But it is how I currently FEEL about the situation.

JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mcumings]

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).

I noticed in the news video that there was an orange/red evidence sticker on the door/body seam. Door cant be opened without tearing sticker. Not sure they would apply an evidence sticker to seal the truck if it was only being impounded. Looks like a seal an evidence tech would break to begin processing the truck.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[ninij9]

This is certainly not the first search warrant to be used in the case and all of those warrants had ‘probable cause’.


For some reason RL is the only one warrant recipient who has been singled out by the media in this way — which might be sufficient reason to feel bad for him.


The police said not long ago that they were focusing on tying off some dead ends. I don’t have a link to a news article / video where that was said, but it was discussed a few threads back, with some focus on the meaning of ‘dead ends’.


Perhaps LE waited this long because they see the ‘tips’ about RL as ‘dead ends’. Nevertheless, if the tips have come in then LE needs to jump through the hoops and either eliminate him (tie off that ‘dead end’) or not.


If RL were high on LE’s suspect list then I would have expected to see them hit him with this warrant weeks ago.

I hope someone that can link will help me here, but LE said that leads have recently led them to evidence which gives them probable cause for this search warrant. They also made a strange comment about this warrant will determine whether RL will become "higher" up as a suspect.

I am on Tapatalk and for the life of me links elude me. Can someone help? Because I do think this SW is significant.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[trixster1958]

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:

In my profession as a court reporter, I hear it all the time how people speak incorrectly and nine times out of ten it's the lack of education of the person. You would be surprised how many people in the smaller impoverished towns don't finish high school and there are quite a few in Indiana.

 

[IllinoisMissing]

This is certainly not the first search warrant to be used in the case and all of those warrants had ‘probable cause’.


For some reason RL is the only one warrant recipient who has been singled out by the media in this way — which might be sufficient reason to feel bad for him.


The police said not long ago that they were focusing on tying off some dead ends. I don’t have a link to a news article / video where that was said, but it was discussed a few threads back, with some focus on the meaning of ‘dead ends’.


Perhaps LE waited this long because they see the ‘tips’ about RL as ‘dead ends’. Nevertheless, if the tips have come in then LE needs to jump through the hoops and either eliminate him (tie off that ‘dead end’) or not.


If RL were high on LE’s suspect list then I would have expected to see them hit him with this warrant weeks ago.

I think the words LE used was that they needed "to seal off some blind alleys".

Definition
blind al·ley
ˈblīnd ˈˌalē/
noun
an alley or road that is closed at one end.
a course of action leading nowhere.
"

I think that is exactly what this search was about.


Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Mcumings]

Yes, and if the murderer believed in numerology, then what they add up to could still be relevant. And a murderer wouldn't have to believe in numerology to choose particular dates or mirrored dates.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether you believe in numerology or not the suspect (s) might so it should be considered as a possible motive.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[ninij9]

I noticed in the news video that there was an orange/red evidence sticker on the door/body seam. Door cant be opened without tearing sticker. Not sure they would apply an evidence sticker to seal the truck if it was only being impounded. Looks like a seal an evidence tech would break to begin processing the truck.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Wow. Good eye. I'm going back to see. I don't think truck was used in crime itself, but what if it was used to remove evidence?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Mercedes]

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.

I don't recall the police emphasizing that, but surely this is a loud wake-up call for Mr. Logan that his behavior has got to change. Even if he has nothing to do with the girls being killed, his alleged lying and alleged probation violation has gotten him into a peck of trouble. :justice: for the girls

 

[Burnt Toast]

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.

so you are saying he wasn't on probation when he was picked up for a probation violation??

 

[ninij9]

As for the media zeroing in on this warrant as opposed to the other 13 or so, oftentimes LE alerts the media to certain events. They may want to see how a certain someone reacts to the huge show of LE at this particular location. JMO. And no, I didn't get that from a movie...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Mercedes]

But you don't have to do act that way if you lead an honest law abiding life.

Still would be a good idea, IMHO.

 

[Yellow Rose]

Idk if this was already covered, but can anyone tell where this photo of Abby was taken in relation to the Monon High Bridge?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4224810/Two-bodies-search-missing-13-year-old-girls.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't remember exactly where it is but almost an entire thread covered this. Wish I could direct you to but not on my device the way it's acting right now.

 

[kbsweet911]

This is certainly not the first search warrant to be used in the case and all of those warrants had ‘probable cause’.


For some reason RL is the only one warrant recipient who has been singled out by the media in this way — which might be sufficient reason to feel bad for him.


The police said not long ago that they were focusing on tying off some dead ends. I don’t have a link to a news article / video where that was said, but it was discussed a few threads back, with some focus on the meaning of ‘dead ends’.


Perhaps LE waited this long because they see the ‘tips’ about RL as ‘dead ends’. Nevertheless, if the tips have come in then LE needs to jump through the hoops and either eliminate him (tie off that ‘dead end’) or not.


If RL were high on LE’s suspect list then I would have expected to see them hit him with this warrant weeks ago.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tkqx14nIz-c

In the link above, LE states that they have gotten new leads and as they've talked to people, things aren't adding up.

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...rating-alibis-given-delphi-killings/99221194/

And here it is reported that LE is finding out that people have lied about their alibis. IMO, perhaps these are reasons they went back to RLs property.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cloudajo]

I know this was discussed previously, but I was thinking about it again after watching the various videos of the crime scene in the woods back from the creek.

A woman (CME) said she had been on the bridge shortly after the girls posted the photo…she said walked all the way across the bridge and back and saw another couple once she got on the bridge, but never saw the girls (ref quote in heavy.com article).

I couldn’t find a confirmed time for when CME was on the bridge but I see references to a time in a previous post on WS. I also don’t think we know if this woman was alone or not, or where exactly the couple was on the bridge and how far they went down the bridge.

Just speculation, but if CME was with another person or the couple she saw walked down the bridge, perhaps if any of them were talking, laughing, etc., their voices carried and were heard by BG (if he was still in the woods committing the crime). And then BG hurried out of there.

Thoughts?

===
I replaced the woman’s name with her initials in the below.

[snipped]
A woman who was at the bridge commented on a Facebook post by a family member of one of the girls, saying she had been at the bridge shortly after the girls posted the photo. She said she didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary.

“I even walked all the way across the bridge and back. I only (saw) a guy when I first got there and another couple once I got on the bridge,” [CME] wrote. “I didn’t see the girls at all. I also didn’t take the trail that leads to the right. Only took the trail that lead to the bridge.”

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/liber...ssing-snapchat-facebook-photos-family-bridge/
https://www.facebook.com/WRTV6/videos/10154523478509092/

 

[KyMom]

JMO..It's possible RL didn't lie about his alibi or anything else. Did LE specifically say RL had not been truthful w/his information? I honestly don't recall, but it could be there were some things that didn't dawn on him immediately or could be there was someone he didn't think to consider right away because he wouldn't think they'd have anything to do with something so heinous.

jmo

 

[WebSight]

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.

I had to go out for awhile and just got back so have just read through your response.

First sorry for bringing up in my post a part that you clearly deleted for good reason. You are right I misread the law quote myself and when I read that part of your post it confirmed what I was thinking, which was incorrect.

Okay so I stand at this point then, according to the portion of the law and your explanation, the law speaks plainly:

"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.
(B) Forty-five (45) days after the state receives notice of the violation."

So, because we have not been able to verify by official record that he violated the terms of his probation previously and was given an extension rather than it being revoked, I might come to this conclusion:

Possibly, somebody in LE has looked through records and found that RL had violated some particular part of his probation and, as they caught it within the year after probation, they are able to charge him with it now, though that infraction may have happened a year ago.

Also, if his probation did end a year ago, then he has been able to drive since then (his license would have been reinstated at the end of that probationary period).

This is important to me why?

Because it could mean that he did not do anything during this past month to violate any terms of probation.

Because many people have been upset thinking that he is out there driving drunk or whatever.

Because if he did violate the terms of his probation a year ago, but it was not caught/reported to the court, then LE could be asking the probation court to bring this charge so as to hold him now using this clause (2A).

As an example: It could be that during his probation he was driving and was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a license ("officer, I must have left it at home"). They don't generally check at that time. So, now, wanting to find a reason to hold him LE searches their data base and find that RL was, in fact, violating his probation by driving (or he wouldn't have gotten a ticket in the first place).

Because they want him held for a reason. Anyone can be taken into "protective custody." RL might not qualify for that. So, they may want him held for other reasons. hwow:

Please correct me if I am wrong here! Seriously, as I want to understand.

 

[pandorasbox]

I can't remember exactly where it is but almost an entire thread covered this. Wish I could direct you to but not on my device the way it's acting right now.

I think we've mostly decided that this definitely isn't the Monon High Bridge because there aren't power lines running across the creek anywhere that is in sight of the bridge.

 

[Etilema]

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:

OT: That "whenever" thing is something I noticed starting just a few years ago. People use it to mean "when", and it can be really confusing, as it sounds like they mean either, as you say, a recurring event or else that they aren't sure of the date!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SomeoneElse333]

I saw, it was too late to edit posts. My apologies to you.☮️

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

This forum is amazing. I've only been here a short while after discovering it when a local person went missing. I'm impressed by the thorough attention being paid to detail, and most of all, by the politeness and welcoming attitude of all here. You guys are great.

____________
The above is just my opinion.

 

[her]

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 must say you handled that gracefully. :loveyou: