IN - Abigail Williams, 13, & Liberty German, 14, Delphi, 13 Feb 2017 - #30

[Steleheart]

I have not been really impressed with this reporter, so I am not sure this is as definitive a statement, as it might have been. IMO

I am not a fan of hers either but in the interview I watched Sgt Slocum say it directly to her.

 

[finine]

Do we know how many buildings are on his property and what type of buildings there are?

I went down the rabbit hole of researching property. I am not going to directly link, but will provide the website where one can search for his records: https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=377&LayerID=5553&PageTypeID=2&PageID=2976

Searching his name will provide 4 results and you can look at each to obtain more information.

 

[Sisyphus]

Interesting. Heard a radio report just now in Indiana on the search of RL's property. They said it came from new developments uncovered by the Carroll County sheriffs office, not from ISP or FBI. Carroll County Sheriff had custody of RL, so IMO he gave them something.

 

[Kadoober]

Did I miss that the SW is "unlimited?" (Sorry, thread is moving so fast and real life just keeps chuggin' along!)

"The search warrant is for the whole property, so we can go anywhere we want and look for whatever we need to look for," Riley said."

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...h-property-where-delphi-teens-found/99304450/

 

[alucardsdream]

Emily Longnecker‏ @EmilyWTHR 2m2 minutes ago
Mr Logan had no involvement in this heinous crime--Atty for Ron Logan, who is property owner of area where Delphi girls bodies found.

https://twitter.com/EmilyWTHR

He might be completely innocent and he might be completely guilty. But I'm a lawyer, and while I don't do much criminal law, I'm pretty sure the first thing I would say about any client was that he was completely innocent. So his lawyer is certainly not an unbiased party.

 

[Scout]

BG = Bridge Guy. The photo I'm referring to is the one released by Law Enforcement of the suspect, AKA Bridge guy.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Thank you. I've been following this investigation but haven't been reading here at WS. Don't know all the shorthand for this case yet.

 

[Eileen730]

Why did they wait so long to search his place?
Wouldn't that Be the first place to search?
They were found on his land.

Did he refuse to a search?

 

[SolwayFirth]

I am wondering if LEO Riley inadvertently let the cat out of the bag;


"Basically, we're just following up on some tips and interviews and leads that we've gotten," Riley said while blocking traffic on the county road east of Delphi.


"We're trying to either clear him or see if he's more of a suspect than what we originally thought," Riley said.


Further down in the same article Sgt. Slocum states:


Slocum said police are not calling the property owner a suspect.

"This might not be the last search warrant we serve," he said. "This is part of investigating a double homicide."


The second quote has been the LE line for awhile so hmmmm.

http://www.jconline.com/story/news/...h-property-where-delphi-teens-found/99304450/

So, they aren't calling him a suspect. (Unless they're calling him a suspect.)

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I think this search was from LE's own intuition. New fresh pair of eyes working on the case.

It doesn't really seem very intuitive to search the property owned by the man where the bodies are found. It seems like the first thing that should have been done, actually, not something they do over a month later.

 

[BunnyHop]

It's not as glamorous as DNA, but one thing they could have back from the lab is residues from the place where they were murdered, if it wasn't where they were found. Could be anything from sand/silt that didn't match the recovery site, to fertilizer, straw, sawdust, rug fibers, etc. etc. etc.

Or something kept in a silo.

 

[razzledazzle]

This is probably going to seem like a stupid question but here goes..Something has been bothering me and I think I just figured out what it was......Anyone knowledgeable about law in here? A quick question. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Endangering a person. What exactly does the endangering a person part mean. I assume it means the person driving the car is drunk and almost hits a pedestrian or another driver. Is that correct or are there other meanings as far as the law is concerned.

Or he could have had a passenger.

Or

 

[IceIce9]

This is probably going to seem like a stupid question but here goes..Something has been bothering me and I think I just figured out what it was......Anyone knowledgeable about law in here? A quick question. Operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Endangering a person. What exactly does the endangering a person part mean. I assume it means the person driving the car is drunk and almost hits a pedestrian or another driver. Is that correct or are there other meanings as far as the law is concerned.

Driving drunk with a passenger. When it is a child in the car they add endangering a child to the DUI charges.

 

[Mercedes]

The story is on Inside Edition right now, with interview of Mr. Logan, lasted only a few minutes.


The white Ford pickup was hauled away.

Logan was petting a horse.

Logan tells reporter he was buying tropical fish in Lafayette, got home @ 6:30 pm when neighbors asked permission to look for the girls on his property. He was asked to repeat the words "down the hill" and he did.

This would mean, if true, that LE had listened to Libby's audio (or video) by Monday, February 13, at 6:30 p.m. in order to ask RL to say, "down the hill." I thought the girls were reported missing at 5:30 pm on Monday. What gives?
:thinking:

 

[heli]

The story is on Inside Edition right now, with interview of Mr. Logan, lasted only a few minutes.


The white Ford pickup was hauled away.

Logan was petting a horse.

Logan tells reporter he was buying tropical fish in Lafayette, got home @ 6:30 pm when neighbors asked permission to look for the girls on his property. He was asked to repeat the words "down the hill" and he did.

How did he get back & forth to Lafayette if he wasn't supposed to be driving?

 

[heaterann]

That's not accurate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you going to explain your position or is that it? I firmly believe that any evidence they find during this search warrant would be incredibly difficult to prosecute anyone with.... This crime happened over a month ago anyone could have planted evidence on his property.. do I believe that happened no but prove it didnt... and any good lawyer good easily make that argument.

 

[Scarlett12]

It's a probation violation, not parole, but R.L. should have gotten a lawyer right away. He chose to talk - a lot - and now he is going silent.

Yes, thats what makes me go hmmmm.. he gives tons of interviews..he is quite the chatty fellow. He talks originally to LE without council.. now he decides to shut up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mercedes]

He might be completely innocent and he might be completely guilty. But I'm a lawyer, and while I don't do much criminal law, I'm pretty sure the first thing I would say about any client was that he was completely innocent. So his lawyer is certainly not an unbiased party.

Most lawyers do not ask their clients if they are guilty, IMO.

 

[PastorJerry]

Do you think he looks like BG- if you feel comfortable giving that opinion.

I do not. As for the other scenario in my head...a dead ringer. I am just waiting to see if it plays out or not.

 

[lelandrob]

Interesting.

And let's remember that RL is in jail so it's not like he's available to speak up for himself even if he wanted to do that right now. Maybe he gave LE some information while he was in jail. Maybe that information was about someone who is already in jail also on an unrelated charge, or related to someone who is, and that's why he was transferred.

Who knows, but it's definitely possible RL really did not actually commit this crime and was either knowingly or inadvertently involved after the fact. Or even during, ugh.

I agree with you, When he was giving his interview, the video and audio clips had not yet been released. Maybe even not yet found. Then the snowball starts rolling down the hill. mo

 

[SilentRogue]

Are you going to explain your position or is that it? I firmly believe that any evidence they find during this search warrant would be incredibly difficult to prosecute anyone with.... This crime happened over a month ago anyone could have planted evidence on his property.. do I believe that happened no but prove it didnt... and any good lawyer good easily make that argument.

It would be admissible. Absolutely, without a doubt, admissible. Whether it would create a reasonable doubt in the eyes of a jury, is hard to say without the exact circumstances of its discovery, etc...

I'm a second year law student, so this is my educated opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk