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

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:
Why have they only interviewed 2 guards with the patches if there are a lot more guards being used? I don't really follow that reasoning.

They're the only two guards with Odinist patches and the defense is saying it has an Odinist connection. They also happen to be, In my interpretation of what I've read, that these two officers are the only two who've tased him with the excuse he wasn't cooperating.
 
They're the only two guards with Odinist patches and the defense is saying it has an Odinist connection. They also happen to be, In my interpretation of what I've read, that these two officers are the only two who've tased him with the excuse he wasn't cooperating.
That's more of what I got out of it, too.
 
I read that but I am pretty interested in pages 179 to 181 too, I think, it is regarding confessions and mental health.

I have done some screenshots. If reading them on a phone you have to enlarge them a bit to read. Page 181 is just a signature so I haven't bothered to screenshot that. The date of service was 13th June 2023.

View attachment 20683View attachment 20684
This is older info; IIRC, State was denied their request for RF's records - which was expected.
I read that but I am pretty interested in pages 179 to 181 too, I think, it is regarding confessions and mental health.

I have done some screenshots. If reading them on a phone you have to enlarge them a bit to read. Page 181 is just a signature so I haven't bothered to screenshot that. The date of service was 13th June 2023.

View attachment 20683View attachment 20684

Thanks for having a look at the jailhouse letter. This inmate felt comfortable enough to slam the prison admin ... You'd think would be a risky move. I can't even begin to figure out what's going on there.

The medical records request from State went nowhere (Privacy). BUT the State got the issue on the record, which was probably the objective.
The Franks Memo came out - ostensibly one of its objectives was to frame RA's state of duress at the time of the confessions.
Makes sense that Gull will be asked to allow testimony etc. on this subject of the prison confessions ... and we'll likely see this addressed again in pre-trial, probably with experts. IMO
 
Last edited:

I gave Defense Diaries a chance recently and watched a few and promptly unsubscribed after I think the third. Their comments on this are full on assumptions.

I also note their constant omissions like for instance Old D uploaded for public viewing a full unredacted lengthy document that was seen before she could seal it.

Note she still has not unsealed it and put it up but does address it.

I prefer real defense attorneys who call both sides without the intentional bias and reason for this show. There are some really good ones out there.

Jmo though.
 
11/14/2023Order Issued
The Court has recently reviewed the Chronological Case Summary (CCS) in this cause and notes that the Clerk of the Court has not yet made available to the public on the CCS the 118 documents previously made remotely accessible by Court Order of June 28, 2023. The Court previously created a website for these documents as a convenience to the public and the Clerk and to ensure the public had prompt remote access to these documents. The Clerk is ordered to enter these documents on the CCS forthwith. The Clerk is further ordered to unseal the June 20, 2023, filing by the Carroll County Sheriff and the July 5, 2023, letter from a Department of Correction inmate and place same on the CCS. The Court further notes that a Motion for Franks Hearing, and accompanying documents filed by former attorneys on September 18, 2023 (including the Franks Motion, Memorandum in Support of Motion and Exhibits List) are marked as confidential on the CCS as counsel failed to supply a redacted version at the time of filing. On October 31, 2023, the Court ordered defendant's new counsel to review the pleadings and discovery and either adopt those pleadings or make their own. If counsel adopts same, they are ordered to file a redacted version of the pleadings. If defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing. Finally, the Clerk is ordered to place and make accessible on the CCS former attorneys' pleadings of October 25, 2023, and October 26, 2023. As noted in its prior order, the Court considers these pleadings stricken from the record and will not consider those pleadings as the attorneys who filed same are no longer counsel of record.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Scremin, Robert Cliff
Noticed:
Lebrato, William Santino
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Order Signed:
11/14/2023

This is from State vs. Allen for murder.

Case Number08C01-2210-MR-000001
Thank you Round Peg!

Clean up on Docket Aisle !!
It's the Clerk's fault !!
What the heck was that silly Clerk doing, hiding and deleting all the old D's filings that I ordered her to hide and delete?
Nothing to see here, SCION !!
Especially the Franks Memo, see me stand my ground on redactions! (Redactions I never directed Old D to take care of, but I'll order that for the New D)?
Franksly, if all goes as planned, that FM will never see the light of day again, given the choices my New D and facebook friends from back home will make to withdraw the FM ... if they know what's good for them.

(The problem with passive aggression is that when the poop finally hits the fan, the backwash kills everyone. Passive aggression works in opposition of the Court's primary role - to keep a consistent, fair playing field, calling and recording balls and strikes in real time.)

Having done some docket clean-up, reversing her bad orders and returning wrongly stricken motions to the record ... Gull is ready to answer SCION on the first writ (to do with the Court Record).

We'll see if her strategy for SCION is to shift blame to her Clerk for sloppy record keeping. (Which would be consistent w/ her passive aggressive style).
SCION will see through that.)

JMHO
 
I gave Defense Diaries a chance recently and watched a few and promptly unsubscribed after I think the third. Their comments on this are full on assumptions.

I also note their constant omissions like for instance Old D uploaded for public viewing a full unredacted lengthy document that was seen before she could seal it.

Note she still has not unsealed it and put it up but does address it.

I prefer real defense attorneys who call both sides without the intentional bias and reason for this show. There are some really good ones out there.

Jmo though.

Name one.
 
They're the only two guards with Odinist patches and the defense is saying it has an Odinist connection. They also happen to be, In my interpretation of what I've read, that these two officers are the only two who've tased him with the excuse he wasn't cooperating.
2 out of 375 guards. And they happen to be guarding RA. Who'd have thunk it?
 
So remind me when the Supreme Court are going to rule on this? They don't seem in any hurry.
I don't believe there is a time frame even though a ton of irresponsible news and people reported the fact they took it as taken on an "emergency basis" and it was no such thing. It was typical appeal of a judge's decision during a criminal process in lead up to criminal trial imo.

They also gave Gull time and were awaiting that. I am sure they can rule in their own time although there may be some type of time frame on these kinds of appeals but I don't believe so. These kins of appeals are not the same as appealing a conviction after the criminal process ends with a guilty verdict.

Contrary to popular belief this is not a life or death situation.

There sure are a lot of self identifying big shot talking heads out there who don't seem to know their stuff and people buy right into it and quote them as well. Kind of scary the sheep who can't free think.

I almost would expect this to take some time. This could well be a setting a precedent for a gray area that lacks adequate definition.

I myself expect they will come back with some remedies sent back to the trial court and some decisions and orders for one or all sides. I'm no expert but that's what I'd expect. Then again depending on court makeup and members, anything could happen. General higher courts have serious members who take their position seriously but times have changed and that's another story in and of itself. Hopefully IN's is comprised of members that do their job interpreting the law and the constitution without any sway, pull or agenda.

I personally also don't expect it to go all against Gull or all for the Old D either or all for Gull either, etc. but who knows. Only on reading the decision AND the reasons behind each will I form an opinion of that decision. Reading any dissenting opinions can be quite interesting as well although whether I will get the time is unlikely but I'm sure I will hear about it.

I'd normally expect it to take two or three months but this isn't ONE filing any longer and things have still recently been submitted by others. Ours was one thing filed by the defense over the judge's decision and I can't recall but I think it took three or four months, I don't think it was two and in the meantime other things proceeded in the case while that was pending if I recall. There was no "time" it was expected by. When it came in, I'd almost forgotten about it so sure I was that they would agree with the judge's determination and they did. I would almost expect these things are done on a first come, first serve basis as all are regarding ongoing cases. And I don't believe they can accept only some, they accept and rule on all. It is far different than the other types of appeals. I gather it is a part of their job and something I sure wouldn't have known of but for our case.

I'm wandering so I'll stop although I think most is pertinent to the topic. Just finished a long stretch of days and finally going into a day off tomorrow or what I call another lost day as it takes a fulll one just to recover. Next two weeks are even more brutal as we head into holiday shopping, Black Friday and the holidays until Christmas. I don't know that full schedule yet but don't expect my holiday season to be any more time and for sure less nor relaxing. I did take the weekend before Christmas off as we will celebrate early at my mom's with the whole big bunch although last year that was attempted and weather ruined it for all and plans were canceled.

Anywho my point is this is my first post tonight after a long work day/week but one in knowing for the first time in days I don't have to get up tomorrow so I took some time with it and is the baby step to a start of my unwinding. Watch out all lol. Jk, no more time than normal on day off, TONS to handle. Never enough time and I expect it to get worse because making appointments or getting a hold of people during this upcoming holiday time, business or person, will be even harder and less likely to work out.

And that's another thing, not sure how the holidays affect the ISC but they sure affect all the county courts, etc. AND the government! SO maybe they will come in with a decision right before but maybe we won't get one on all until the new year or later...?
 
So remind me when the Supreme Court are going to rule on this? They don't seem in any hurry.
SCOIN doesn't have any responses yet.
1st Writ Response papers due tomorrow. 2nd Writ Response papers due 11/27.

i won't be around so ... if you'd like to see them ... hit up the court - the FIRST case, not the 2nd case.

BTW, Gull FINALLY fixed her docket in the lower court yesterday ... 200 documents plus worth of fixing.
Because of this, Gull has complied with much of the WRIT from Relator Richard Allan.
Gull still being stubborn on a few docket items - Why?
Gull may explain in papers tomorrow what her issues are with these few specific records, why they warrant no transparency.
If SCOIN is satisfied Gull has corrected her docket ... what would there be left for SCION to order?
This happens quite a bit; the Court considers the complain to the SCION and the Court decides to comply with the request in front of SCION rather than to fight it. (See Red Below, it's possible that upon determining Gull's complied w/ the Writ, SCION will dismiss the action as "MOOT".)

Regardless, Gull never responded to mountains of docket and record requests made directly to Gull - from the press, etc.
End of the day, the People of Indiana have had to go to ridiculous lengths - to appeal to SCION - in order to get a docket record out of Gull. JHMO

The 2nd Writ (2nd SCION case) with the in-chambers transcript and stuff ... Gull's Response is extended and not due until Nov 27.

Rule 5. Disposition of Petitions

(A) Petition Granted--Issuance of Writ--Filing With Clerk--Disposition. If the application for writ of mandamus or prohibition is granted, either an alternative or permanent writ will be issued. If the alternative writ is issued, the respondent court shall be given 20 days to file a return. See Rule 3(E)(2). The return shall show compliance with the writ or state reasons why the writ should not be made permanent.

If the return shows compliance with the alternative writ, the Supreme Court will enter an order dismissing the original action as moot.

If the return contests the alternative writ, the Relator shall have five (5) days after service of the return to file a brief in opposition to the return. Any parties opposing the alternative writ other than the respondents also may file a further brief no later than five (5) days after service of the return.

The Supreme Court thereafter will dispose of the original action by written order or opinion without further hearing or the filing of any further papers, unless requested by the Court.

The Supreme Court may alter, by order, any time limit established by this Rule.
 
Last edited:
Real emergency. All the flashing lights, fire trucks, ambulances, first responders and a court called in that night to issue an emergency order by what date per news and quoted sources...? LOL. Just sayin'. And issue it also as if only one side needed to be heard of how egregoius and not a single thing I saw here even predicted well of course there would be responses and more. Just sayin... It was all URGENT. EMERGENCY BASIS. And here we are...

I guess I'd have ato add that Old D or someone has newscasters and PEOPLE losing their minds and falling for every bit of it.

All judged long, long before the court has ruled and they still haven't. OF COURSE THEY HAVEN'T on just the D side only submittted? How could anyone even think that?

The other thing I'd say going on is an attempt to influence the ISC and if they should be all this defense siding and assumption a SC rules on just one side without allowing argument or the other side is ridiculous.

Just a week or two ago it looked here to not just me as if the Court had ruled. I thank goodness took a moment that I didn't have (went back to work) and coudn't respond anyhow or react (and had to go back to work) and at first I was thinking for a split moment while working what kind of corrupt court would rule with only one side submitted and then it cleared. I then finally got home hours later, looked at your post again, looked at the REAL news and realized no such thing had happened but in the meantime Tresir thought it had.

Don't know where you are going or to do what in where you won't be here or have internet but hope all is well and it isn't for illness or some such and just a hiatus for the holidays and family. No offense of course intended, just different views plus we talk of different subjects too. Tell me, would you, for a moment coming down from your focus you are on about the legal stuff and just one side of it and your interpretation, just come down to normal talk and tell me if you think Allen is guilty (without playing all that in) or if you think him involved? I get his rights, I get all your other stuff although you are more the judge of it than the SC before they rule imo and would like to influence it maybe, but just in general if none of that had EVER happened, what was/is our opinion on Allen's guilt? Opinion, NOT as a juror for a trial that has not happened yet. Or do you change it daily and as O things are filed, etc.? No hidden meaning, I don't know or recall. I have it in my head that you do think he likely is but of course all this other is unfair to him or something on that order.

I've said it more than once here that I am not in favor of Gull or the defense, etc. but am awaiting the FACTS and the ISC's decision. And of course I mean SCION. All I see is a ton of people falling for the Old D's blizzards and no longer questioning what led to SOME of this. And without more answers about that suicide ruling and what all really went on and if there is an investigation, just for ONE thing out of many, I don't really have an opinion that would surmise the ISC's opinion on ALL... Maybe Allen has a right to these attorneys but if granted that and it blows up in his face from what they are really up to and why, then I hope all remember that.

I don't know. I am waiting.

BUT again, forget all that and tell me your personal leaning, was RA "likely" responsible or RA and the Os or who? If you can come down to that level for a moment?

Anyhow, I wish you a great holiday season and hope that is the reason you won't be around, and that the reason is all good. Maybe I missed it or forgot which is entirely possible with my life and lack of time.

And I do mean that. Happy Holidays and safe travels if it involves travel.
 
They're the only two guards with Odinist patches and the defense is saying it has an Odinist connection. They also happen to be, In my interpretation of what I've read, that these two officers are the only two who've tased him with the excuse he wasn't cooperating.
So out of 375 guards there are only two with "Norse religious" patches and they are the two assigned to RA.

So, assuming that is purely coincidental, is that what gave the D these crazy notions in the F memo, I wonder?

So the murders were committed by the same type of people who are now guarding RA.

This really shows up how wacky that F memo really is and it would be good to know who came up with it, in the first place.

BTW one guy named in the F memo (PW) is all over YouTube talking about it. So it will be interesting to see if new D will endorse it.

I predict that Baldie will have to go but Rizzo and Birdie will likely stay on and the F memo will be toast.

One of the latest links with PW. I haven't had time to watch any of it so am just putting it here for others.

 
Last edited:
11/16/2023Received Document
Receive Date: 11/15/23 Notice of Appearance of Amicus Curiae (The Indiana Broadcasters Association, Hoosier State Press Association, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News, E.W. Scripps Company d/b/a WRTV, Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a the Indianapolis Star, Nexstar Media Inc. d/b/a WXIN/WTTV, and TEGNA Inc. d/b/a WTHR) - Daniel Byron, Scott Leisz, Margaret Christensen, Jessica Meek - Certificate of service does not indicate service of actual document and refers to federal case management system. Motion for Amicus Curiae - Certificate of service does not indicate service of actual document and refers to federal case management system. Brief - lacks table of contents and table of authorities and actual cover page. Also, certificate of service is non-compliant.

PostmarkDate:
11/15/2023

Case Number23S-OR-00302
CourtSupreme Court
TypeOR - Original Actions
Filed10/30/2023
Status10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
ReferenceCase cross references
Original County Cause Number
08C012210MR1
RelatedLower Trial Court Case
08C01-2210-MR-000001
 
11/16/2023Received Document
Receive Date: 11/15/23 Notice of Appearance of Amicus Curiae (The Indiana Broadcasters Association, Hoosier State Press Association, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News, E.W. Scripps Company d/b/a WRTV, Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a the Indianapolis Star, Nexstar Media Inc. d/b/a WXIN/WTTV, and TEGNA Inc. d/b/a WTHR) - Daniel Byron, Scott Leisz, Margaret Christensen, Jessica Meek - Certificate of service does not indicate service of actual document and refers to federal case management system. Motion for Amicus Curiae - Certificate of service does not indicate service of actual document and refers to federal case management system. Brief - lacks table of contents and table of authorities and actual cover page. Also, certificate of service is non-compliant.

PostmarkDate:
11/15/2023

Case Number23S-OR-00302
CourtSupreme Court
TypeOR - Original Actions
Filed10/30/2023
Status10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
ReferenceCase cross references
Original County Cause Number
08C012210MR1
RelatedLower Trial Court Case
08C01-2210-MR-000001
This is for the first Supreme Court filing. Another "friend of the court" attempt. First one for this case. They have some corrections to do.
 
I'm afraid I don't know what that last post is. @RoundPeg can you explain?
All those media/broadcasters submitted a brief in support of basically lifting the cloak of invisibility of info regarding this case. I'm sure Judge Gull's penchant for randomly marking items "confidential" is being questioned, too. They want the info in the brief to be used as a reference point in the case. They apparently made some mistakes that need to be corrected in order for the brief to be considered.
 
All those media/broadcasters submitted a brief in support of basically lifting the cloak of invisibility of info regarding this case. I'm sure Judge Gull's penchant for randomly marking items "confidential" is being questioned, too. They want the info in the brief to be used as a reference point in the case. They apparently made some mistakes that need to be corrected in order for the brief to be considered.
Ok - thanks for that.

I have just listened to this voice comparison. It compares BG with RA, BH and PW. See what you all think, especially Emu. Comments are interesting but I recommend you don't read them till you have listened and made up your own mind.

 
J Gull has responded to 1st Writ. 20 pages.
11/16/2023
Brief - Respondent
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23
Attorney:
Stake, Christopher S.
Attorney:
Gutwein, Matthew R
Party:
Gull, Frances M. Cutino
File Stamp:
11/16/2023
11/16/2023Record of Proceedings (Original Action)
(Supplemental) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23
Party:
Gull, Frances M. Cutino
File Stamp:
11/16/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

Brief - Respondent.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - Brief - Respondent.pdf - Chris Stake
pdfhost.io
 
Office of the Attorney General pops by the 2nd Writ at SCION to ask if the AG is required to file before 11/16 (oops missed deadline) or before Nov 27 with their opposition to the 2nd Writ (b/c the rules for their response is unclear).

11/17/2023Appearance by Deputy AG
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23
DAG:
Sanchez, Angela
DAG:
Kobe, Andrew Anton
Party:
State of Indiana
File Stamp:
11/16/2023
11/17/2023Motion to Clarify
(Deadline for Response by State of Indiana) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23
Attorney:
Sanchez, Angela
Attorney:
Kobe, Andrew Anton
Party:
State of Indiana
File Stamp:
11/16/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
IMG_0902.jpegIMG_0903.jpegIMG_0904.jpeg
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,007
Messages
240,727
Members
967
Latest member
minaji88
Back
Top Bottom