IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 - #35

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it has not been debunked, CrimeDawg123.
Some agree to seeing the vehicles. Some may not agree with it but no one can prove to me that the vehicles are not there, because they are in the original Snapchat image. Some members argued there was not a way for the vehicles to be located there until they learned of the private drive under the bridge where Liberty took the SC. I stand by my theory that has not yet been completely stated due to current TOS.

Yes, it has been debunked. You may zoom in as close as you like and see vehicles and people. That’s your prerogative. But the fact is, it is not physically possible for vehicles to be there given the scale. That is, it is not physically possible given the height of the bridge and the distance to those trees from where Liberty took the picture. Never mind the fact that the road you speak of is BEHIND her as she took the photo.

DeDee, you have to ask yourself this: how far away are those trees? How tall is the bridge? Therefore, how large or how small would a vehicle have to be for you to see it at your zoom-level?

Several people, myself included, have patiently and respectfully tried to explain this. Here are two examples:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-Delphi-13-Feb-2017-8&p=13171858#post13171858

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Delphi-13-Feb-2017-35&p=13247250#post13247250

This is not your opinion vs. my opinion. This is basic math. And the math doesn’t allow for there to be vehicles there.

It’s fine for us to bandy about here on WS talking about this. But there is a danger to it if someone calls the tipline and reports there are vehicles under the bridge in the photo. That wastes LE’s time.
 
Wow, again amazed how you guys have this one click away seemingly. Thank you so much. The extra info is also very interesting Glad to get the extended version.

LOL "seemingly". I was gonna snip it but I got lazy.

Hope it helps
 
Yes:

BBM: https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...qa3hOVFl4TnpFeE1qTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhaVGs9In19
10/08/2014
Hearing Journal Entry
The State of Indiana appears by Jerry Bean, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The defendant appears in person and by Andrew Achey, attorney. The defendant is in the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. The defendant has previously entered a plea of guilty to the following: Amended Count I, Operating a Vehicle with a BAC of .08 or Greater, a Class D Felony. Sentencing hearing is held. The court accepts the plea agreement and finds the defendant guilty of the crimes to which he has entered his plea of guilty. It is ordered and adjudged that the defendant is 75 years of age. The court enters judgment of conviction and sentences the defendant as follows: Count I-2 years sentence; 2 years suspended; 2 years probation; 0 fine. The sentence(s) shall be served in the Indiana Department of Correction. The sentences shall run consecutively to 08D01-1312-FD-107. The defendant's probation shall be supervised. 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. In determining the sentence imposed, the court considered the following aggravating circumstances: The defendant has recently violated the conditions of any probation, parole, or pardon granted him. The defendant has a history of criminal activity. In determining the sentence to impose, the court considered the following mitigating circumstances: Imprisonment of the defendant will result in undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant's dependents. The defendant has pled guilty and taken responsibility for his crime. Non-Statutory Mitigating: Remorse. The defendant has a diploma, college, and served his country in the military. The aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The court recommends that the defendant's driving privileges be suspended for 2 years. The court imposes court costs in the sum of $368.50 all to be paid to Clerk within 90 days. Count II, Count III, Count IV, Count V and Count VI are dismissed upon motion of the State of Indiana. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. C:State,Probation,CCSD,Achey,RJO10/27/14tsm

One part of RL's case is confusing to me. Could one of the many legal experts explain what may have happened on 3/3 and 3/7? A warrant was not issues until 3/10.20170320_002502.jpg
 
One part of RL's case is confusing to me. Could one of the many legal experts explain what may have happened on 3/3 and 3/7? A warrant was not issues until 3/10.View attachment 113253
And, why "the court is advised by defendant's counsel to disregard"? I've wondered if he was pulled over on or around 3/3 or some other notice of violation, but wouldn't that be in the court history?

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
looks like treatment was ordered twice. unclear for how long:


(from Vine.com , https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...UWXdNRGN4TnpFeE1qTXdPakUxTWprd05EVXhOVGs9In19
10/8/2014 Hearing Journal Entry
The State of Indiana appears by Jerry Bean, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The defendant appears in person and by Andrew Achey, attorney. The defendant is in the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. The defendant has previously entered a plea of guilty to the following: Amended Count I, Operating a Vehicle with a BAC of .08 or Greater, a Class D Felony. Sentencing hearing is held. The court accepts the plea agreement and finds the defendant guilty of the crimes to which he has entered his plea of guilty. It is ordered and adjudged that the defendant is 75 years of age. The court enters judgment of conviction and sentences the defendant as follows: Count I-2 years sentence; 2 years suspended; 2 years probation; 0 fine. The sentence(s) shall be served in the Indiana Department of Correction. The sentences shall run consecutively to 08D01-1312-FD-107. The defendant's probation shall be supervised. 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. In determining the sentence imposed, the court considered the following aggravating circumstances: The defendant has recently violated the conditions of any probation, parole, or pardon granted him. The defendant has a history of criminal activity. In determining the sentence to impose, the court considered the following mitigating circumstances: Imprisonment of the defendant will result in undue hardship to the defendant or the defendant's dependents. The defendant has pled guilty and taken responsibility for his crime. Non-Statutory Mitigating: Remorse. The defendant has a diploma, college, and served his country in the military. The aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances. The court recommends that the defendant's driving privileges be suspended for 2 years. The court imposes court costs in the sum of $368.50 all to be paid to Clerk within 90 days. Count II, Count III, Count IV, Count V and Count VI are dismissed upon motion of the State of Indiana. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. C:State,Probation,CCSD,Achey,RJO10/27/14tsm
(Judge Fouts)


(from Vine.com https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...HVXdNRGN4TnpFeE1qTXdPamcxT1RFMk1qZGxNQT09In19
6/14/2011 Order Issued
The State of Indiana appears by Jerry J. Bean, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The defendant appears in person and by Steven Knecht`, attorney. The defendant is advised of his right to counsel and of his constitutional and statutory rights, the charges against him, and the possible penalties. Defendant files Misdemeanor Written Advisement and Waiver Of Rights. The State of Indiana and the defendant advise the Court that the defendant has entered into a plea agreement with the State of Indiana. The Court is advised of the terms of the plea agreement. The Defendant, pursuant to the plea agreement, pleads guilty to the following charge(s): Count II, Operating a Vehicle with an Alcohol Concentration Equivalent to at least .08 but less than .15. The Court finds that the defendant understands the nature of the charges against him to which he has pled guilty, that he understands the possible sentences and fine, that his plea of guilty was freely and voluntarily made, that the plea is accurate, and that there is a factual basis for the plea of guilty. Sentencing hearing is held. The court accepts the plea agreement and finds the defendant guilty of the crimes to which he has entered his plea of guilty. It is ordered and adjudged that the defendant is 71 years of age. The court enters judgment of conviction and sentences the defendant as follows: Count II: 60 days, suspended and one year probation. The sentence(s) shall be served in the Carroll County Jail. The defendant's probation shall be supervised. 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 Wabash Valley Hospital; initial probation users fee in the sum of $25 and monthly probation users fee in the sum of $10; probation administrative fee of $50.00; no criminal violations; and no alcohol consumption. The court recommends that the defendant's driving privileges be suspended for 90 days retroactive to January 6, 2011. The court imposes court costs in the sum of $364.50 all to be paid to Clerk within 90 days. Count I: Operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person is dismissed upon motion of the State of Indiana. C: RJO, Knecht, State, WVO, Prob., CCSD 6/14/11 dad
(Judge Fouts)

Thanks Spellbound. Even more info! Phew!

I think that the rehab requirement on the 2011 sentence is probably a mandatory participation across the board for all first time offenders, perhaps why you highlighted participation?

But then again, I might be inclined that the second rehab requirement may also be mandatory for a second offense.

It would be interesting to know what the law mandates as obligatory for 1st, 2nd,etc. offenses.

In other words, are these inclusions obligatory in all cases or are they specific to RL?

If they are obligatory, then we still have no indication that RL is, in fact, diagnosed as an alcoholic.

If this is the case, then in my own eyes, as a drunk driver, he deserves whatever the law decides to throw at him and he got off lucky, both in that he didn't kill anyone and that he wasn't locked up the second time.

However, I am concerned by the rush to label him an alcoholic, and all the character assassination that has been attached to that label.
 
I keep reading how just because RL drinks doesn't mean or say that he is a murderer. I agree, I have known plenty of alcoholics and heavy drinkers and I have yet to see one of them murder someone. (not talking about driving while drunk) But, the one thing I can tell you, that the ones I have been around, most are loud and have diarrhea of the mouth when they have been drinking. Maybe, just maybe, RL had a little too much to drink and said a little too much to someone. And that someone called in a tip which caused a search warrant to be issued. I'm not trying to imply that RL is the murderer, just thinking he may know something or found something that he didn't reveal.
 
I hope this link works, I'm usually not effective with this. You and I are saying much the same thing, we both think they were forced into a vehicle and taken away from the bridge. If you review Skibaboo's map you can quickly see where Abby's photo was taken she had just crossed the creek, you can see it there in the background, but she was not yet near the private road. When Libby video'd BG they were almost coming across the road but it would have been right below them, in fact when they stepped off the bridge at the SE end, right down the hill, where the CS tape was, a vehicle could have been parked there and no one would have seen it unless they were down on that part of the road, or on the bridge, and because it's a road it wouldn't be weird to see a vehicle on it. That's why I said I agreed with your theory but for the vehicle being visible.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=195lcn7G7VGC-TkdJirxwNf6o9xM&usp=sharing

Slightly O/T, but I just had to thank you, ocgrad for this GoogleDrive link. I am just catching up from last night (and agree the earlier poster who thanked all of you who have so much patience with those of us that pop in and out and can't catch up and have questions. I am, for the first time in my life, sneaking on to the internet while at my job, and feel horrendous guilt over it. But this case has consumed me.)

Anyways, this GoogleDrive is so helpful to me. Apologies if it's already linked somewhere else; I do read all the Mod posts at the beginning of each thread, but there's so much in so many posts there that I'm sure I make errors/miss things. So much for my sleuthing skills. :(

I have 2 Newbie questions:

1. Is there one place/document where all the links and proven facts are kept? Or is that too impossible because we all seem to have diff opinions on what defines "proven"?

2. I have read everything I can find here at WS for Rules, tips, FAQ, etc, but I've had to sleuth the site itself to find them. Is there a WS101 section I'm missing? Like a How to Start Sleuthing primer?

TIA. I am so grateful to you all. And the Mods. It's such a gift to find a place on the Internet that is civilized.
 
One part of RL's case is confusing to me. Could one of the many legal experts explain what may have happened on 3/3 and 3/7? A warrant was not issues until 3/10.View attachment 113253
I'm not a legal expert by any means but I found this.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/indiana-petition-for-alternate-misdemean-61103/

"Indiana petition for Alternate Misdemeanor Sentence on a Class D felony. Motion to modify felony conviction to a Class A Misdemeanor."

Could this have been to remove the requirement for his DNA to remain on file if the previous felony was moved to misdemeanor and/or remove the 4th amendment waiver? Pure speculation and wondering on my behalf, moo, jmo, not a legal expert.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
FWIW..I've known people who've been arrested for things involving alcohol and/or drugs (weed in their cases). None of them, imo, are what I would refer to as alcoholics or addicts, but they still wound up having to go to alcohol & drug classes.


jmo
 
I keep reading how just because RL drinks doesn't mean or say that he is a murderer. I agree, I have known plenty of alcoholics and heavy drinkers and I have yet to see one of them murder someone. (not talking about driving while drunk) But, the one thing I can tell you, that the ones I have been around, most are loud and have diarrhea of the mouth when they have been drinking. Maybe, just maybe, RL had a little too much to drink and said a little too much to someone. And that someone called in a tip which caused a search warrant to be issued. I'm not trying to imply that RL is the murderer, just thinking he may know something or found something that he didn't reveal.

Alcohol can definitely make people aggressive. if I smell alcohol on someone it makes me nervous due to experiencing an alcoholic's mood swings. Especially if they reek of it due to long term drinking and it literally comes out of their pores.
 
I'm not. I want justice for these little girls. That's my priority.

You know the fact that LE made the public statement that RL is not cooperating indicates they are trying to put public pressure on him because they believe he did something or knows something. This isn't a case where they're on a wild goose chase. They have reason to be looking at him. They know more than we do.

I want whoever did this to face justice and be taken off the streets so he or she can't hurt anyone else and because society can't allow the taking of a life in this manner to be without repercussions. If justice is bad by this kindly old
man with a rap sheet talking to LE then that's what I want to happen.

Two innocent children were murdered. Their rights to live and the rights of other kids not to be murdered take precedence over the legal needs of this man. IMO.
I'm happy you made it here. I value your opinion. I really can't get on board with the whole "witch Hunt against an old man " theory. LE has reasons for what they are doing. They have highly respected agencies advising them.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
"No charges have been filed relating to the deaths of the two girls and no charges are imminent." <- This is very telling in my opinion. They are starting to backpedal. (Sorry cannot figure out how to bold on my phone in Tapatalk)


I don't see it as back pedaling..JMO. RL is in jail, he's not going anywhere soon. LE said it could take three weeks to process the evidence they have collected, that is certainly not imminent. For the record I do not think RL is BG. I think they are searching his property for DNA. MOO but when they say the case is large I do wonder if they believe more than one person was involved or perhaps it's just that 13,000 tips is large. Also, I think RL has had some type of contact with BG, either willingly or unwillingly. They could be trying to get him to talk or they could be concerned with his safety. Just thinking out loud here..
 
I'm not a legal expert by any means but I found this.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/indiana-petition-for-alternate-misdemean-61103/

"Indiana petition for Alternate Misdemeanor Sentence on a Class D felony. Motion to modify felony conviction to a Class A Misdemeanor."

Could this have been to remove the requirement for his DNA to remain on file if the previous felony was moved to misdemeanor and/or remove the 4th amendment waiver? Pure speculation and wondering on my behalf, moo, jmo, not a legal expert.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Or could it have been an attempt to reduce to misdemeanor so that RL would not have been in violation of probation. Was it an attempt to keep him out of jail on that violation? The lawyer filed it but then asked the court to disregard. Wonder why the lawyer asked the court to disregard his own petition, what changed?
 
I really think Mr L knows this guy but does not realize he is the BG.

Maybe.... there are similarities with Mr L and the suspect but as the image is blurry it really does not look entirely like him. So we shall see see. Time shall see hopefully.
 
Who are people in our lives? Friends. Relatives. Neighbors. Employees.

You said BG was called a participant. I guess we can parse that until the cows come home, but it doesn't sound like just one person to me.

The way LE has repeatedly (and pointedly, IMO) used the singular and the plural when referring to the perpetrators, and their use of the term "participant".... gives me the feeling they believe or know (?) it is more than one. I believe that's why they haven't come out and cleared RL. I don't see it being because they think RL is BG, I think they know better. And/or, they think RL could have information as to who committed the murders. But that's JMO and I've been known to change it. :/
 
Wondering if anyone could listen to the scanner? Currently at work so I can't. Heard some buzzings earlier we can't discuss here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FWIW..I've known people who've been arrested for things involving alcohol and/or drugs (weed in their cases). None of them, imo, are what I would refer to as alcoholics or addicts, but they still wound up having to go to alcohol & drug classes.


jmo

Same. Every single person I have known that has gotten a DUI (it's a lot because I have worked at a trucking company for 18 years) has had to go to alcohol/drug classes. It's standard here in Ohio.
 
Or could it have been an attempt to reduce to misdemeanor so that RL would not have been in violation of probation. Was it an attempt to keep him out of jail on that violation? The lawyer filed it but then asked the court to disregard. Wonder why the lawyer asked the court to disregard his own petition, what changed?
Maybe. But, the probation violation was not filed until 3/10, a full week after the attorney filed the petition and 3 days after said attorney requested it be disregarded. Hopefully a legal expert or someone with more legal knowledge can give some reasons for that.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
Wondering if anyone could listen to the scanner? Currently at work so I can't. Heard some buzzings earlier we can't discuss here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I could listen if you'd give me a link... still a newbie so not sure how to get there:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
89
Guests online
1,468
Total visitors
1,557

Forum statistics

Threads
598,622
Messages
18,083,919
Members
230,677
Latest member
Mary0309
Back
Top