The 2017 Delphi Murder Case

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 591

The 2017 Delphi Murder Case Nov 3, 2022 17:55:46 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Nov 3, 2022 17:55:46 GMT -5

The Murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams

These murders took place on the outskirts of the small town of Delphi, Indiana, on February 13, 2017, close to a landmark structure named the Monon High Bridge¹, a derelict railroad bridge that was abandoned in the 80s by CSX². The roughly 60 foot high bridge spans Dear Creek. A shallow stream flows at the bottom of the creek and forms a natural barrier which, as we shall later learn, may be the key to understanding how the girls ended up on the ravine north of the stream when their last known location was up high at the south-east end of the bridge.

The two teenage girls, commonly known as Abby (13) and Libby (14), were hiking the surrounding historic trails on the afternoon of February 13, 2017. They were supposedly dropped off at a small parking area by Libby's sister, allowing easy access to the trail, and were supposed to be picked up a couple of hours later by Libby's father at around 3 p.m. at a specific location. However, they did not show as agreed and when the dad called Libby's cellphone there was no response.

The trails were searched by family members and friends to no avail and repeated calls to Libby's cell phone went unanswered. Late in the afternoon a more organized³ search was launched which continued into the early hours of the 14th of February, but to no avail. Search teams were deployed again the morning of the 14th and sometime after noon both girls were found dead not far north of the creek on a piece of land owned by a local farmer, Ronald Logan⁴, who quickly became a person of interest. However, he was never charged with the murders of Abby and Libby.

Although another local guy, Richard Allen, has just been busted, the usual Carroll County Sheriff's propaganda show was less than impressive in providing any factual info apart from Richard Allen being arrested for the murders, an event that could have been covered equally well in a one line press release and saved everybody a lot of time. Especially since all they otherwise had to offer was their usual begging for tips -- five years after the murders happened and after they've got their man!

I first became aware of the case when it was covered by Ken Mains on his YouTube channel (No More Unsolved). As a railroad buff, what immediately caught my interest was the Monon High Bridge and a video snippet of BridgeGuy, commanding the girls "Down the hill". What immediately set off alarm bells was that no K9 unit was employed to track Abby and Libby even though the exact drop off location of the girls was known and their exact last known position was at the far east⁵ end of the bridge, this based on a picture of Abby freshly uploaded by Libby.

There is close to no documented physical evidence available in the case and the Carroll County Masterminds pride themselves of keeping facts of the case secret. What is known, though, is that Libby was in contact with a so-called catfish account, a fake social media account supposed to belong to one Anthony Shots, but created by a shady character by the name of Kegan Kline with the purpose of soliciting indecent material from underage girls. This account was known from day one of the murders by law enforcement and likely somehow played a role, directly or indirectly, in setting up a meeting with the girls.

The FBI would have had an impressive suite of software to unravel any possible connection to this account, yet it has taken five years to come up with an arrest. I find that extremely suspicious and it wouldn't surprise me if someone with inside knowledge has been busy covering their tracks. From leaked interrogations of Kegan Kline it's obvious that he's bordering on being a retard as he even had a Dropbox account from which he traded pictures. This dude left an ankle deep trail of bread crumbs and is constantly caught lying so whoever has been tracking him must have had a field day.

A lot of things do not add up in this case; combining the few bits and pieces that have been leaked with various interviews of key players leaves me with the distinct feeling that there could be some kind of fall guy being set up. I intend to show that the late Ronald Logan must have had some kind of guilty knowledge that connects him to the crime or to a group of local "facilitators". They may not have intended to kill the girls but something escalated out of hand. They may even have tried to pin the crime on Ron Logan.

My plan is to post whatever I find, basically in the order I find it, or suggest how pieces already found are connected and see where it leads me.

_______________

¹ LINK showing bridge, photographer facing north.

² LINK to wiki about CSX.

³ I'm not sure when and how the local Delphi police got involved in the search.

⁴ Logan died early 2022, allegedly from complications related to COVID.

⁵The bridge is not part of the trail which ends at the west end of the bridge.

Last Edit: Nov 5, 2022 2:59:05 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Phrasing.

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 591

The 2017 Delphi Murder Case Nov 8, 2022 12:38:27 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Nov 8, 2022 12:38:27 GMT -5

Ronald Logan -- Guilty Knowledge?

While looking for Ron Logan interviews on YouTube I spotted this nugget embedded in a news broadcast on the WISH-TV channel; video¹ linked in the footnotes, go to the 1:08 mark. I've transcribed what he said:

Monday afternoon I was in Lafayette Aquarium World getting a tropical fish for my aquarium, so when I came home one of the neighbors stopped and asked for permission to come back and look for the missing girls, that's the first time I knew anything about it, so I fooled with my tropical fish the whole time [inaudible] the search was going on Monday night but then they didn't find them until Tuesday around noon or what or one or whatever it was...

To set the context for his statement we now know that he asked his cousin to lie about taking him to Lafayette that Monday. His statement was put out "a few days" after the murder according to the narrator. So at this time he's confident that his cousin has his back covered and it's safe to have his story broadcast on TV. It's pretty obvious that he wants to send a message: I was in Lafayette, at Aquarium World (and he has his cousin and the receipt to prove it), that's a solid alibi, so you can forget ALL about pinning this shit on me!

Let's look at his statement for possible deception. Pronoun "I" shows strong commitment and presence. Not so good though is that he was supposedly with his cousin in Lafayette, did he forget about that? Wouldn't "we" or "my cousin and I" have been more appropriate? Especially since, supposedly, they both came home and "when I" suggests it happened as both would have arrived. Note placement of "so"². It really belongs to "that's the first time..." but he needs the neighbor to deliver the news to him. He wants to convey the message that since he was in Lafayette he couldn't know about it. Unfortunately he puts "so" in the wrong place. Substitute with "in order that" and we have an embedded confession: he went to Lafayette in order that when the neighbor stopped by, that's the first time he knew [about it].

The "came back" part indicates somebody had already been on his property searching and his neighbor knew Ron was fuzzy about people trespassing. We don't know what the neighbor said but it wouldn't surprise me that Logan pushes his alibi to the max by implying he didn't even know they had been there prior on the same day³.

BTW, It's worth noting that Ron Logan never refers to the girls by their names. It's always "girls" so he's clearly distancing himself from them but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on this if he didn't have any dealings with them or their families. However, since this is supposed to be a tight knit community it does put me slightly off.

I then see a couple of red flags when he states that "the first time I knew anything about it" was when the neighbor came over. Firstly, "anything" is unnecessary language -- he knew something or he didn't. In fact, if he didn't know anything about it this would be the first time he learned, or heard, about it; like when would be the second or third time he knew about it? I'd say this smells to me like an other embedded confession: he already knew something when the neighbor came over and he's trying to argue why he couldn't know anything until he came back. Again, he put the "so" in the wrong place.

Secondly, what does he mean by "it"? When he came back from Lafayette he knew nothing. All he was told was that two teenage girls went missing from the trails and a search for them had been undertaken and somebody would possibly be on his piece of land soon, again. There was basically nothing to know and by his own admission (later interview) there was absolute no reason to expect foul play. The only thing he could have learned from his neighbor was that of a disappearance. "It" refers to the whole package, the murder of the two girls, but he's using ambiguous, distancing language to detach himself from it.

He then makes himself guilty of a non sequitur fallacy⁴ by using "so" once more. Why would a search for the missing girls be a premise for messing with his fish? His priority simply was to mess with his fish instead of taking part in the search on his own property. This second "so" is put there to rationalize him not participating in the search; he needed to acclimatize the fish he just bought. Ironically, he was later bitching over all the people tromping things down on his piece of land! Let's not forget there's nobody to corroborate his claim of having been fooling with the fish "the whole time" which was into the early hours of Tuesday!

Something that just dawned on me is how he's non-committal on the time he fooled with the fish. It's not midnight or one (a.m.), it's "the whole time". I'll call 100% deception on that one since he couldn't have know when the search was called off if he was busy with his aquarium. If he was outside, keeping an eye on his property, he couldn't fool with his fish. I wouldn't surprise me if he was exercising some kind of damage control while the search was going on. Calling his cousin early the next day leads me to believe that he was very concerned with the ongoing search.

The inaudible word would logically be "while"/"when" but he doesn't say that. It's almost as if he has a micro melt down when blocking a memory leak. I'm sure it has something to do with the timeline because his "then" doesn't make sense at all where he placed it. Is it supposed to mean at the time or after? Remove "then", and his sentence makes sense. Looks to me like he has two competing narratives going and he almost said that something happened that we're not allowed to know, "but then...". Or maybe I'm pushing the analysis too far.

CONCLUSION:

The way his statement is organized defines his priorities: He was in Lafayette Monday afternoon getting fish for his aquarium, which equals a solid alibi, his top priority. He doesn't specifically state he went there with the intend to buy the fish, but it's implied, and he's now introduced the fish to justify his actions later the same evening. Next, since he arrived home late he couldn't possibly have known anything about what had happened or even been involved. Lastly, attending to his fish tank explains why he was not out and about searching. Even habitual liars do not like to state a direct lie and that's why his cousin is not mentioned. The use of the pronoun "I" is true in both the actual and the fabricated narrative, nice! He also leaves out his means of transportation but simply states he was there. I'm sure he had carefully prepared his statement in advance. What happened was that he was slightly out of breath from climbing the ravine and likely a bit stressed out being in front of a news crew. Picking just the right words within milliseconds while tailoring a narrative and not leaking guilty knowledge is tough as we see!

________________

¹ WISH-TV, NEWS8: LINK

² "so" -- conjunction, (1) and for this reason; therefore: "it was still painful so I went to see a specialist", (2) with the aim that; in order that: "they whisper to each other so that no one else can hear".

³ The search warrant has some peculiar ambiguities in that is states that the bodies were "moved and staged" but at the same time concludes the girls were killed were found due to the amount blood present at the scene. I'm surprised the judge didn't call that out.

⁴ The fallacy of non sequitur is a logical fallacy that occurs when the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Last Edit: Nov 9, 2022 0:53:25 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Phrasing.

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 591

The 2017 Delphi Murder Case Nov 9, 2022 8:50:07 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Nov 9, 2022 8:50:07 GMT -5

Ronald Logan -- The Fake Alibi

On the morning of February the 13th, Ron Logan took his truck to the transfer station¹. He did that despite having his license suspended. So why would he do that? Well, the real question would be: How did Ron Logan make life on his farm work without driving his truck? The simple answer: He didn't!

That's why he took his truck to the recycling facility the morning of the 13th, as he probably did repeatedly. This tells me that Ron was prepared to take a calculated risk and it wasn't the first time as the reason for having his license suspended was drunk driving. But this was a short trip on back roads, not a 30-minute trip to Lafayette and back! Did he feel this was his lucky day when he would not be pulled over? We can say for a fact that Ron Logan either had guilty knowledge of the killings, or he didn't when he left for Aquarium Wold in Lafayette.

So, on the 13th, if he didn't know a thing prior to the discovery of the bodies, he simply had an urge to buy tropical fish for his aquarium and concluded it outweighed the risk of being busted. During the evening, while messing with his fish tank, he would have learned about the missing girls and the search around the Monon bridge. He claims to have returned 6:30 pm, so he would have had until around 8 p.m. (dusk) to walk to the creek to check out what was going on.

The next day, February the 14th, while the search was still ongoing and it would seem less likely that girls would be in the area around the bridge, he called his cousin at 9:20 a.m. and asked the cousin to lie about having taken him to Lafayette and back. The reason being that Ron had driven to Lafayette although his drivers license was revoked. But what about the trip to the transfer station?

If this probation violation was his real concern, it doesn't seem to make sense he wouldn't have included the trip to the transfer station. Here is the catch: If he knew the transfer station had video surveillance, and he likely did having lived in Delphi for decades, he would be busted anyway if the police developed an interest in him and his cousin would also be in trouble for giving Ron a fake alibi. Now, why would he even be concerned with the Lafayette trip since he evidently made it home without being pulled over?

This is where Ron screwed up big time! The only logical explanation for this is that he needed an alibi for the afternoon, not a driver for his Lafayette trip. If he had no knowledge of a crime being committed prior to the morning of the 14th, there would have been no need to preemptively acquire an alibi -- BOOM.

That's why we know with 100% certainty that Ron Logan had guilty knowledge of something related to the killings of Abby and Libby, and he knew the time frame in which it happened. That's why he also kept the receipt from Aquarium World. If the probation violation was his primary concern, why hold on to evidence of him having been in Lafayette? Again, being charged with murder, or complicity to murder, is much worse than being charged with a probation violation which is what he actually ended up being charged with and convicted; the receipt might ultimately have saved him from being locked up for murder.

Still, we don't know when he left his property. The alibi he requested from his cousin would have given him around two and a half hours to buy a fish. Even if he was a returning customer and chatted with the owner, or whoever was there, it doesn't make sense to me. I wonder if he was so sneaky, that he drove around and expected to be flagged by a license plate scanner³; this would give him an ironclad alibi, although not entirely adequate to exclude him as the killer. Eventually he ended up in Lafayette and bought a fish to at least get a creditable timestamp on paper.

I would love to see the FBI report on Aquarium World and what the owner and staff told about Ron Logan and how it fits the timeline!

__________________

¹ The local recycling facility where you get rid of your trash.

² You'll find a tour of the Aquarium World shop in this post: LINK

³ I'll discuss license plate scanners in an upcoming post and link it here.

Last Edit: Nov 9, 2022 15:24:18 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: phrasing.