LIBBY GERMAN & ABBY WILLIAMS: Indiana vs. Richard Allen for 2017 murder of two Delphi girls

On February 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams and Liberty German were discovered near the Monon High Bridge Trail, which is part of the Delphi Historic Trails in Delphi, Indiana, United States, after the young girls had disappeared from the same trail the previous day. The murders have received significant media coverage because a photo and audio recording of an individual believed to be the girls' murderer was found on German's smartphone. Despite the audio and video recordings of the suspect that have been circulated and the more than 26,000 tips that police have received, no arrest in the case has been made.[1][2][3]

1581272168478.png

Police have not publicly stated nor released details of how the girls were murdered.[6] As early as February 15, 2017, Indiana State Police began circulating a still image of an individual reportedly seen on the Monon High Bridge Trail near where the two friends were slain; the grainy photograph appearing to capture a Caucasian male, with hands in pockets, walking on the rail bridge, head down, toward the girls.[4] A few days later, the person in the photograph was named the prime suspect in the double-homicide.[5]

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant,[7] though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." It was at this news conference that officials credited the source of the audio and imagery to German's smartphone, and, further, regarded her as a hero for having had the uncanny foresight and fortitude to record the exchange in secret. Police indicated that additional evidence from the phone had been secured, but that they did not release it so as not to "compromise any future trial." By this time, the reward offered in the case was set at $41,000.[5]


1581272119747.png


 
Last edited by a moderator:
IF they were already dead at that time. I'm not so sure.



Phones stop going straight to voicemail if the mailbox is full. In my experience.
Here we go again with instant belief in solely defense claims. When they died and dead or not makes what difference in the phone? Thinking she went home and charged it or something? Was in a car charging it? Where are those pings then? OH it was plugged in at RL's house? Libby had her phone with her. That's always been known and she recorded BG. Not sure why the fact it pinged and at some point went dead is some revelation? I think I am missing the point. Please fill me in?

Her phone isn't missing. They have it and always have had. So truly not sure what the big to do is about. Did it ping in California or Aruba or something? Or at RA's house?

Guess I will catch up later as not sure I'm in the mood to do so right now. Shall see.

Why do I sense another huge farfetched conspiracy theory coming on... Just saying...
 
5:44:49 p.m. on February 13, 2017 until 4:33:35 a.m. on February 14, 2017

That's less than 11 hours so the pinging must have been set for around 10 or 11 hours. Girls were found at 12.15, which is less than 10 hours later so it didn't ping the tower again or it shut down IMO.

The filing states that ISP oversaw 44 (manual-ATT forced) pings. These were sent and reported on ... (the D filing says they were waiting the list of times but the D's filing described ISP reports state that 15 minute intervals began around 6 pm with a break between 1 am on the 14th and then restarting the forced pings to Libby's phone at 5:39 AM on the 14th.) (I'm estimating 13th evening times here, b/c source does same.)

ISP reports state that NONE of the 44 forced pings from ATT reached the phone.

The 4:33 AM ping was initiated by Libby's phone itself. It was not a forced ping. (The reports distinguish between a 4:33 AM (on the 14th) ping from Libby's phone and a 5:39 AM (on the 14th) forced ping ATT ping to Libby's phone.)

Another marker not discussed by the filing might be the number of failed attempts for phone calls, texts, snapchats, attempted - that did not make it to Libby's phone timely, or perhaps never? When did those attempts/data get through to Libby's phone?

Again, we will hopefully have answers via an expert review of the phone data harvested from Libby's phone in the effort to understand what happened.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
The filing states that ISP oversaw 44 (manual-ATT forced) pings. These were sent and reported on ... (the D filing says they were waiting the list of times but the D's filing described ISP reports state that 15 minute intervals began around 6 pm with a break between 1 am on the 14th and then restarting the forced pings to Libby's phone at 5:39 AM on the 14th.) (I'm estimating 13th evening times here, b/c source does same.)

ISP reports state that NONE of the 44 forced pings from ATT reached the phone.

The 4:33 AM ping was initiated by Libby's phone itself. It was not a forced ping. (The reports distinguish between a 4:33 AM (on the 14th) ping from Libby's phone and a 5:39 AM (on the 14th) forced ping ATT ping to Libby's phone.)

Another marker not discussed by the filing might be the number of failed attempts for phone calls, texts, snapchats, attempted - that did not make it to Libby's phone timely, or perhaps never? When did those attempts/data get through to Libby's phone?

Again, we will hopefully have answers via an expert review of the phone data harvested from Libby's phone in the effort to understand what happened.

JMHO
I don't think any of this is a big deal or unusual at all and it does not mean that the girls went somewhere else and were brought back somehow.

So LE pinged the phone 44 times - 24 times from 6pm till 1am on the 14th and 20 times starting at 5.39 am but none of them reached the phone. Those 20 forced pings to the phone on the 14th would have stopped around 10:39 then IMO (4 pings per hour x 5 hours = 20 pings.

This 4.33 ping was clearly the phone doing its regular ping to the tower as described in the Quora example I posted. It is not anything unusual and IMO proves the bodies and the phone were there from when they were murdered until when the searchers found them.
 
Last edited:
So we are not going to see or hear any of the trial at all. We will need to find someone live tweeting it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any of this is a big deal or unusual at all and it does not mean that the girls went somewhere else and were brought back somehow.

So LE pinged the phone 44 times - 24 times from 6pm till 1am on the 14th and 20 times starting at 5.39 am but none of them reached the phone. Those 20 forced pings to the phone on the 14th would have stopped around 10:39 then IMO (4 pings per hour x 5 hours = 20 pings.

This 4.33 ping was clearly the phone doing its regular ping to the tower as described in the Quora example I posted. It is not anything unusual and IMO proves the bodies and the phone were there from when they were murdered until when the searchers found them.

I'm not sure I understand why 44 pings to Libby's phone yields nothing. While exactly one ping from Libby's phone does mean something.

It seems logical that the victim's bodies were never moved from another (kill site), (perhaps moved after death w/in the crime scene area.)

But for a moment, let's following Libby's phone here. (Not just the bodies+phone.) The phone is far more portable, and it's also a lifeline that a killer would be wise to immediately cut off. (Why would a kidnapper allow the victims to keep their phones? Why did Libby's video end in 43 seconds? Would the kidnapper leave the phone "on"?)

If we are following the phone (rather than the victims themselves) I'm suggesting that Libby's phone was not necessarily under Libby's control or within her person/body/clothing between kidnapping time and that 4:33 AM ping.

If the ping was due to the phone being "accessed and connected" to the tower at 4:33 am ... how did that happen?

Is it possible that someone related to this crime who was still in possession of that phone returned and placed the phone? (Maybe even turned it on?)

Excuse the late speculation. It's a bit of an earworm for me (singing "ping, ping, ping") at the moment. LOL. Thanks for the space to speculate.
And we can just wait for trial...

JMHO
 
Military Service of RA.



Because of the military suicide, I said previously that I wondered if he had been in the military. Nine years service - 89 to 98. I wonder if he served in Iraq?

I am doing a screenshot too in case the tweet disappears.


Screenshot_20240504-211500_Samsung Internet.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand why 44 pings to Libby's phone yields nothing. While exactly one ping from Libby's phone does mean something.

It seems logical that the victim's bodies were never moved from another (kill site), (perhaps moved after death w/in the crime scene area.)

But for a moment, let's following Libby's phone here. (Not just the bodies+phone.) The phone is far more portable, and it's also a lifeline that a killer would be wise to immediately cut off. (Why would a kidnapper allow the victims to keep their phones? Why did Libby's video end in 43 seconds? Would the kidnapper leave the phone "on"?)

If we are following the phone (rather than the victims themselves) I'm suggesting that Libby's phone was not necessarily under Libby's control or within her person/body/clothing between kidnapping time and that 4:33 AM ping.

If the ping was due to the phone being "accessed and connected" to the tower at 4:33 am ... how did that happen?

Is it possible that someone related to this crime who was still in possession of that phone returned and placed the phone? (Maybe even turned it on?)

Excuse the late speculation. It's a bit of an earworm for me (singing "ping, ping, ping") at the moment. LOL. Thanks for the space to speculate.
And we can just wait for trial...

JMHO

You said the 44 pings didnt connect to her phone.

IMO the 4.33 a.m. ping from her phone was an automatic regular function, as was explained upthread in my Quora post. It wasn't someone accessing or pinging it.

Why would someone take and then return the phone? If they did then the location of that phone would be known by those regular pings.

I don't think he even knew she had a phone. She surreptitiously recorded the BG video and audio and hid the phone under her shoe when he made them disrobe IMO. The phone recording was probably the last thing the phone did before the battery died. He may have seen the phone but would have been stupid to take it with him.
 
Last edited:
IMO the final ping at 4.33 a.m. was an automatic regular function of the phone as was explained upthread in the Quora post. It wasn't someone accessing it.

Why would someone take and then return the phone? If they did then the location of that phone would be known by those regular pings.

- The Quorum article addresses a phone that is on but is not in use. The 44 forced pings were not acknowledged, which means the phone targeted (Libby's) was not on, or was out of range. And the ISP wrote a report interpreting these two options being the status of Libby's phone. It was either not functioning (or off), or it was out of range.

- " the phone was accessed and connected with the cell phone tower at 4:33 a.m. on February 14, 2017. "
We know Libby's phone was connected to the network/tower on the bridge - from her photo history. If the phone never left the network or was never shut down (turned off), why did it need to reconnect?

- Phone can't ping if turned off (by kidnapper, ostensibly). I mean, that would make sense for a 1.5 hour planned murder. Disable victim's locator and SOS ability.

- As to why take and return phone? That's the $1,000 question. But, IMO, the $1,000,000 question is: Who took and who returned the phone?

eta JMHO and Thank you again for reading my earworms. :giggle:
 
Last edited:
- The Quorum article addresses a phone that is on but is not in use. The 44 forced pings were not acknowledged, which means the phone targeted (Libby's) was not on, or was out of range. And the ISP wrote a report interpreting these two options being the status of Libby's phone. It was either not functioning (or off), or it was out of range.

- " the phone was accessed and connected with the cell phone tower at 4:33 a.m. on February 14, 2017. "
We know Libby's phone was connected to the network/tower on the bridge - from her photo history. If the phone never left the network or was never shut down (turned off), why did it need to reconnect?

- Phone can't ping if turned off (by kidnapper, ostensibly). I mean, that would make sense for a 1.5 hour planned , IMO, the $1,000,000 question is: Who took and who returned the phone?

Thank you again for reading my earworms. :giggle:

I don't believe anyone took and then returned the phone. There is no evidence of that. Who did that and why do you think that happened?

The Quorum article covers the regular pinging generated by the phone itself which is what I believe is happening with LG's phone and the 4.33 am ping ie it was generated by the phone itself. It is a regular function of cell phones that they do this. Additionally, if the phone itself had been moved then it would rescan to see which was the best tower to connect too. That didnt happen so the phone wasn't moved IMO.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe anyone took and then returned the phone. There is no evidence of that. Who did that and why do you think that happened?

Mostly what's important here is that Libby's phone timeline doesn't match the State's timeline for their theory of the case.
So, I'm mainly looking something the Defense feels is exculpatory and thinking about that.

There more data info to be interpreted from Libby's phone that we are unaware of. Experts will patch together that phone's story and timeline ...
They'll know if that phone was powered down and when. If later powered up and when.

I also think it makes sense for a kidnapper/murderer to control any phones the victims had. If we accept that the kidnapper/murder came prepared to randomly select L & A ... the kidnapper/killer would have no way to know if there were others in the area that would come looking for them, or attempt to reach them by phone. They'd get that phone and control it. I think it's possible that someone involved returned the phone to the bodies - where it then pinged. (Otherwise - it would have pinged sooner, had it been there sooner.) Why the need to return it? Maybe they'd lost track of where it was. Maybe they thought about destroying it but decided it was better to leave it with the victims. Who knows; but I assume at some point the killer(s) were not exactly thinking straight.

There's evidence that the body's were staged ... that opens up the question of timing of staging, timing of placement of the phone, by whom. All stuff we can't know. JMHO
 
You said the 44 pings didnt connect to her phone.

IMO the 4.33 a.m. ping from her phone was an automatic regular function, as was explained upthread in my Quora post. It wasn't someone accessing or pinging it.

Why would someone take and then return the phone? If they did then the location of that phone would be known by those regular pings.

I don't think he even knew she had a phone. She surreptitiously recorded the BG video and audio and hid the phone under her shoe when he made them disrobe IMO. The phone recording was probably the last thing the phone did before the battery died. He may have seen the phone but would have been stupid to take it with him.
oh - just to clarify, the 44 pings didn't connect to phone conclusion = ISP reports, per the filing. Not from me.
 
Mostly what's important here is that Libby's phone timeline doesn't match the State's timeline for their theory of the case.
So, I'm mainly looking something the Defense feels is exculpatory and thinking about that.

There more data info to be interpreted from Libby's phone that we are unaware of. Experts will patch together that phone's story and timeline ...
They'll know if that phone was powered down and when. If later powered up and when.

I also think it makes sense for a kidnapper/murderer to control any phones the victims had. If we accept that the kidnapper/murder came prepared to randomly select L & A ... the kidnapper/killer would have no way to know if there were others in the area that would come looking for them, or attempt to reach them by phone. They'd get that phone and control it. I think it's possible that someone involved returned the phone to the bodies - where it then pinged. (Otherwise - it would have pinged sooner, had it been there sooner.) Why the need to return it? Maybe they'd lost track of where it was. Maybe they thought about destroying it but decided it was better to leave it with the victims. Who knows; but I assume at some point the killer(s) were not exactly thinking straight.

There's evidence that the body's were staged ... that opens up the question of timing of staging, timing of placement of the phone, by whom. All stuff we can't know. JMHO
Which bit doesn't match? I must have missed that. I believe RA wasn't even aware she had a phone. Even if he was aware, he would have been stupid to take it as it acts as a tracking device. If he did take it, he would have been even more stupid to return it IMO.
 
Which bit doesn't match? I must have missed that. I believe RA wasn't even aware she had a phone. Even if he was aware, he would have been stupid to take it as it acts as a tracking device. If he did take it, he would have been even more stupid to return it IMO.

The timeline of the phone does not match the State's timeline for their case against RA as explained in the filing.

Turn any phone off (it's then disabled) and it acts like NOTHING, which would be the point of taking Libby's phone.

In 2017, I'd argue the killer (who's not stupid, clearly planned w/ ties, knife, gun, even left his dna home) would demand/search for and disable their comms.

I agree powering up the phone before placing it ... is a risk. But If your preference was to have the bodies found as staged, makes sense. JMHO
 
Last edited:
Mostly what's important here is that Libby's phone timeline doesn't match the State's timeline for their theory of the case.
So, I'm mainly looking something the Defense feels is exculpatory and thinking about that.

There more data info to be interpreted from Libby's phone that we are unaware of. Experts will patch together that phone's story and timeline ...
They'll know if that phone was powered down and when. If later powered up and when.

I also think it makes sense for a kidnapper/murderer to control any phones the victims had. If we accept that the kidnapper/murder came prepared to randomly select L & A ... the kidnapper/killer would have no way to know if there were others in the area that would come looking for them, or attempt to reach them by phone. They'd get that phone and control it. I think it's possible that someone involved returned the phone to the bodies - where it then pinged. (Otherwise - it would have pinged sooner, had it been there sooner.) Why the need to return it? Maybe they'd lost track of where it was. Maybe they thought about destroying it but decided it was better to leave it with the victims. Who knows; but I assume at some point the killer(s) were not exactly thinking straight.

There's evidence that the body's were staged ... that opens up the question of timing of staging, timing of placement of the phone, by whom. All stuff we can't know. JMHO

It is also odd that the state took so long to provide this information to the defense.
 
I think it is possiblu explainable by a cell tower expert and i suggested that last ping was the phone finally signing off. I do not believe anyone took the phone away or brought it back. We have recently seen the extensive detail of the phone movements in the Daybell case and we will no doubt have such evidence fully explained in this case too IMO.
The phone sends a final handshake as I've seen it referenced when the phone powers off, dies, so calls etc. go to VM. Sounds like the most likely reason for the ping imo.

We've said all along not everything is known by a long shot in this case and certainly not from the prosecution side. I've read ahead most today on break and so if I reference things I have not hit yet here in replies, that's why.

Ahead is the talk of the perp taking the phone and bringing it back. I find this highly unlikely as do you I saw earlier. This would be absolute stupidity. And why would you return a phone that has a video of you the perp on it?? And then they are going to GO back when searching has already went on, will again in the morning and some stayed out doing so for longer? That's like really ridiculous to me. Not trying to diss anyone's opinion but just seriously saying the idea is not at all likely imo. Let's go be change being seen yet again go back to the scene, possibly leave more evidence or even get caught to return a PHONE you wouldn't want found to a victim? WHY? For what purpose? Leave again in his car, wife wondering where going in the middle of the night and so on? SMH I can't follow that at all. That's assuming RA, but ANYONE. Did he bring a headlamp lol? It would have been total darkness and wildnerness. The light alone could alert and you sure aren't going to find your way back without one. These girls were already KNOWN to be missing. It would be total stupidity.

Let's SAY he DID have it and forgot he did. Shut it off pocketed it, etc. WHY would you RETURN IT TO BE FOUND?? It has YOU ON IT. Go throw it without a battery or off into a dumpster 50 miles away or a pond. Take it back to the scene for LE to find? What perp other than a stupid one would do that.

I just can't understand that line of thinking at all.

Defense I guess has to do something to defend but almost like all of theirs, I'm seeing this as another big nothing burger

You know one question I'd like an answer to? If RA, wife or daughter joined the search that night or next morning... I want to hear her interview and his very much, as well as hear all the work hours and info and things that day and surrounding. I double they searched somehow... He'd have been busy for one... I'd think...

I also saw it seems no recording OR cameras, etc. that will be shared--EVER? I so entirely disagree with this it isn't even funny. It should not even be ALLOWED these days. There should be a recording of all in every single case EVEN if not live or shared during the trial process. Not just here, everywhere, ALWAYS. In fed court as well. ALWAYS..

And I saw inmate depositions allowed/ordered. Better be sure their dates they say they heard confessions are correct AND have all camera footage, etc. for those dates. I'll point out here Gull is doing as she should and imo she always has. They can depose them, why not. Hardly the first ones allowed either.

EIGHT DAYS as of tomorrow morn. I'm disgusted with the coverage decision. Some great reporters and YTers better get on it although SOME YTers and people like MS may be a bit shy with tails between legs. WHO will attend and Tweet as well as Nate does.

I will tell you though that such is appreciated and as thorough as they can do it isn't the same. Watching Daybell things are heard and seen that aren't all covered and just can't be. I am doing the mix because of lack of time.

So long 11 hour on the feet day, another tomorrow and so on. I think I've covered a lot of what I already know is ahead in one post lol. Probably good thing as late closing night and back tomorrow morn.
 
So we are not going to see or hear any of the trial at all. We will need to find someone live tweeting it.
Not real clear on if this means ever, like after trial. So there IS a recording it just won't be provided to media or public or copied, during at least is clear.

I'm also going to disagree with her on some things. This is of huge interest to the public which she does note. One of the biggest arguably cases in the nation for the longest number of years with only a handful matching the interest this has had nationwide and worldwide imo and since advent of internet (Ramsey for instance was prior, now it is discussed to no end of and on still but then there was not internet forums and so on). Daybell is up there and even Boyce gave in and it is live. The REad case I woudln't call as big or well known but it is televised. Where I DISGAGREE is the courtroom deals with LESS when live. Reports and interested parties do not HAVE to attend to watch and cover and the crowd is less.

So surprise to all but already said I would, I entirely disagree with this decision and with Gull on this. I could give more examples. I disagree with IN on it.

Linda is still considering doing a day or few attending Daybell but may not but she can cover it fully from home as it is live. People attend when they can't see it, especially reporters and YTes and those who have covered it THROUGHOUT the years. And I'd have to reread but is even media guaranteed a daily seat or no, changes day to day first come? Doors will be locked when in session, just wondering if someone had a spicy lunch if they can be let out... Lol.

I get it to a point but I disagree with it. Even in Lori's didn't Boyce at least allow it was only audio but to be checked and released each night or a day later, just not live? I hated that too it is not the same as seeing a witness or defendant, etc. to gauge truth but better than nothing and even in Chad's the camera is so distant or has such a far focus that one can't see much expression anyhow of witnesses.

So surprise surprise I disagree with her. However, not sure if I could have taken defense for long as just that one transcript or whatever it was was enough.

Who knows about the safety thing, I have seen nothing in this case versus any other that just having a strong security or entry to the courthouse, around it, etc. should be plenty. And may even be overkill. HOWEVER Diener bailed quickly citing things like safety. I'd point out again this female judge is still here and has stood to all of it whatever they face and if she has the same as he did. That says something to me. About Diener. And about her. But I do disagree with the coverage decision of the trial.
 
I'm not sure I understand why 44 pings to Libby's phone yields nothing. While exactly one ping from Libby's phone does mean something.

It seems logical that the victim's bodies were never moved from another (kill site), (perhaps moved after death w/in the crime scene area.)

But for a moment, let's following Libby's phone here. (Not just the bodies+phone.) The phone is far more portable, and it's also a lifeline that a killer would be wise to immediately cut off. (Why would a kidnapper allow the victims to keep their phones? Why did Libby's video end in 43 seconds? Would the kidnapper leave the phone "on"?)

If we are following the phone (rather than the victims themselves) I'm suggesting that Libby's phone was not necessarily under Libby's control or within her person/body/clothing between kidnapping time and that 4:33 AM ping.

If the ping was due to the phone being "accessed and connected" to the tower at 4:33 am ... how did that happen?

Is it possible that someone related to this crime who was still in possession of that phone returned and placed the phone? (Maybe even turned it on?)

Excuse the late speculation. It's a bit of an earworm for me (singing "ping, ping, ping") at the moment. LOL. Thanks for the space to speculate.
And we can just wait for trial...

JMHO
Why would they do that? The LAST THING they'd want is the phone to be found by LE and with the victims and chance returning to a crime scene where girls were already being looked for earlier and will be again at first light, etc. I fail to understand this thought. And am stating so nicely. It just doesn't make any sense at all and what it would take as well doesn't. Or chances taken to do so. The PERP was on her phone. and HIS voice but he returned it?
 
Military Service of RA.



Because of the military suicide, I said previously that I wondered if he had been in the military. Nine years service - 89 to 98. I wonder if he served in Iraq?

I am doing a screenshot too in case the tweet disappears.


View attachment 21976

what military suicide are you talking of that relates to RA? Sorry. Confused or just drawing a blank.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,899
Messages
223,061
Members
906
Latest member
TheSandlot6
Back
Top