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]



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]

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On Feb 14, 2017, the bodies of Abigail Williams & Liberty German were discovered in Delphi, #INDIANA. The suspect in their deaths is awaiting trial.

On February 22, law enforcement released an audio recording where the voice of the assailant, though in some degree muffled, is heard to say, "Down the hill." Even with a lot of media coverage, their murders remain unsolved.

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[Imamazed]

Judge Gull says Richard Allen had access to Delphi documents all along and wasn’t hindered

UPDATE (11/21/2023): Attorneys representing Richard Allen responded to Judge Gull’s call for the Indiana Supreme Court to reject their petition by saying that Gull did not correct all the err…

fox59.com

 

[Imamazed]

Judge argues Delphi suspected killer's motion should be denied

Richard Allen's motions for writs from the Supreme Court doesn't meet the urgency or criteria for the court's review, states a recently filed brief.

news.yahoo.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

Tom Webster, a 7 plus hour video. I know no one is going to do that and i certainly can't but I watched the first hour. @Tresir this is where I sent you to get the name of Duliln the DNR guy.

Anywho i haven't watched seven hours and will never get to and I doubt anyone else here will either but he is worth listening to BUT I am pointing people to THIS part. Start at 27 minutes 30 seconds in and end watching at 28:15. Not even a minute. Al can do that. @Cousin Dupree BG who you think to be Ron Logan, watch... Along with voice which entirely sent me there a week or so ago oh my. There is a bit more comparison photos further on a minute or so but just telling people to watch this much. Less than a minute. I watch;e;d a bit over 40 minutes of this and only wish I had time to watch all but seven hours who does... But those of you who can give it even the first hour...

And if not watch this video comparison of BG and RA. Less than a minute...

Tom is kind of methodical, looking at data and facts. If you watch the first hour he will g into spreadsheets of why RA is guilty and then be fair and list why he may be innocent.

BUT point is watch less than a minute comparison of shoes and feet. And pants. And go on if you want more.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Judge argues Delphi suspected killer's motion should be denied

Richard Allen's motions for writs from the Supreme Court doesn't meet the urgency or criteria for the court's review, states a recently filed brief.

news.yahoo.com

This is some effed up stuff:

...Other sealed documents, such as the 136-page memorandum in support of a hearing to suppress evidence, was sealed because it contained juvenile's names — specifically, Libby German and Abby Williams — which Gull said is prohibited.
Gull's brief makes no mention of Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland's objection filed June 13 to Allen's motion to suppress. In McLeland's original filing, he included the names of Abby and Libby, as well as the unredacted probable cause affidavit with the names of the witnesses, who were juveniles in 2017....

It contained juvenile's names. Which were Abby and Libby. So EVERYBODY knows that Abby and Libby are involved in this case. THEY'RE THE FREAKING VICTIMS!! That is a really weak argument.

Also, the names of the girls who saw RA on the bridge weren't redacted. Educate me if I'm wrong about this, but it was a filing to the court. If the court released it, they could easily black out the names of the girls. This seems really weak. Should the defense have submitted a motion that doesn't name witness' to the court?

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Judge Gull says Richard Allen had access to Delphi documents all along and wasn’t hindered

UPDATE (11/21/2023): Attorneys representing Richard Allen responded to Judge Gull’s call for the Indiana Supreme Court to reject their petition by saying that Gull did not correct all the err…

fox59.com

In this one more effed up things are said:

...Gull responded on Thursday by saying that Allen and his attorneys were incorrect and had complete access to all documents filed in the case, both sealed and unsealed.

Gull also said that by Allen’s “own admission,” he did not file a written motion seeking relief despite having “ample opportunity.”

My question: Why is Allen responsible for filing a written motion. It doesn't sound like she is saying his attorney's didn't file it, but Allen himself didn't file it. Isn't this something that should be handled by his lawyers?

“This failure alone warrants this Court to reject the Petition,” Gull said.

Gull also argued that the remaining documents under seal have since been unsealed and that she ordered the clerk to make all non-confidential documents available to the public, an action that she argues makes another of Allen’s petitions moot.

My Question: So she says that they had access to all sealed and unsealed documents, and later says that everything has been released to the public.

My confusion: Then she says that confidential documents have been made available to the public. So they had access before they were unsealed, which makes sense. I think the court can do that. They can't keep any documents out of the hands of the defense. The Prosecution has to turn over all of their evidence to the defense in a timely manner. Even if it contains the names of minors that can be easily blacked out. However, her two statements seem to contradict one another. "They've had all the documents all along, but that the documents have been unsealed since then making his point moot.

Gull points out in her response to the Supreme Court that Allen argued “extreme hardship” if his petitions were denied. Gull writes that Allen never clearly states that it is he who would suffer extreme hardship if the documents remain publicly inaccessible, however, and instead implies the hardship is to the public. But Gull once more reiterates that Allen “has complete access to any court documents, regardless of whether they are public or confidential. That documents are under seal does not hinder in any way (Allen’s) defense of the criminal charges against him.”

Again: Why is this Allen's responsibility? When she says "Allen" she may mean his lawyers, but that's horribly written if that's the case.

She also says this:

Gull said that the court also does not have “an absolute duty” to reinstate documents filed by attorneys who are no longer representing Allen. Gull said the court also did not have a duty to provide the public with remote access to records, “much less the particular form of remote access (Allen) requests.”

She doesn't have to reinstate documents filed by attorney's formerly representing Allen? She can wipe out all of their filed work? That doesn't seem right.

Gull still has until Nov. 27 to respond to Allen’s attorneys’ request for a transcript of a closed-door meeting from last month, a writ that puts pressure on the Supreme Court by Allen’s original defense to have Gull thrown from the case.

Shouldn't that have been handed over within a couple of days of the request? Something is rotten in Moscow, IMO.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Tom Webster, a 7 plus hour video. I know no one is going to do that and i certainly can't but I watched the first hour. @Tresir this is where I sent you to get the name of Duliln the DNR guy.

Anywho i haven't watched seven hours and will never get to and I doubt anyone else here will either but he is worth listening to BUT I am pointing people to THIS part. Start at 27 minutes 30 seconds in and end watching at 28:15. Not even a minute. Al can do that. @Cousin Dupree BG who you think to be Ron Logan, watch... Along with voice which entirely sent me there a week or so ago oh my. There is a bit more comparison photos further on a minute or so but just telling people to watch this much. Less than a minute. I watch;e;d a bit over 40 minutes of this and only wish I had time to watch all but seven hours who does... But those of you who can give it even the first hour...

And if not watch this video comparison of BG and RA. Less than a minute...

Tom is kind of methodical, looking at data and facts. If you watch the first hour he will g into spreadsheets of why RA is guilty and then be fair and list why he may be innocent.

BUT point is watch less than a minute comparison of shoes and feet. And pants. And go on if you want more.

I'm watching it very slowly. I have a lot of work to do this weekend, but I'm getting to it. The one thing so far that has stood out to me is the original statement by a witness who said he was in a tan jacket, and the police changed it to a blue jacket for the PCA. As he says, she could have changed her mind and decided it was blue, but why? Her freshest memory was of a tan jacket. It seems, to me, that evidence is being changed here. It's a lot like the WM3 case.

 

[buyerninety]

"It's a lot like the WM3 case".
Well, I don't have a full understanding of that case, but certainly
the point you're making reminds me of the Darlie Routier case,
where hospital staff gave evidence that the accused, whose sons
were murdered, didn't cry and didn't seem to be upset - evidence
that the defence showed was in contradiction to the medical charts/
information that the hospital staff filled out, and also that the medical
staff were discovered to have been required to attend a 'meeting'
where what evidence they were going to give in court was discussed
(with either the police or the prosecution, I can't quite remember which).
Now that was in the jurisdiction of the injustice system of Texas, but
apparently in Indiana it appears similar legal shenanigans can occur,
as we have a witness that stated (page 107 of the Franks Memorandum)
that the man she saw on the bridge was in his 20's to early thirties and
his hair seemed poofy (as the youthful, 2nd suspect sketch shows, an
illustration that that witness says was 10 out of 10 for accuracy). Yet
somehow, magically, this description is instead is what is asserted in the
PCA to the court: "She advised she walked to the Manon High Bridge and
observed a male matching the one from Victim 2's video. She described
the male she saw as a white male, wearing bluejeans and bluejean jacket.
She advised he was standing on the first platfonn of the Monon High Bridge,
approximately 50 feet from her."
Now while I could understand if someone had a problem estimating
a person's age, would it be likely that anyone is going to miss-see a
man with short, shaved head type hair as instead being someone with
poofy hair as shown in the '10 out of 10' 2nd sketch?
Is that PCA poorly worded or deliberately mis-leading? Of course, if a
LE officer placed information in his Probable Cause Affidavit that was
misleading, the State of Indiana gives the Defense a legal remedy, that
is to start a cause of action against that officer, a Frank's Hearing... er,
wait, what happened to that? Evaporated in the wind apparently now,
that the Judges appointed newD has taken over.
It's worth noting, once these false understandings of what happened,
false descriptions of people or circumstances, lodge in the public's
memory, come trial time a portion of the public on any jury will have
already made up their mind about a defendant's guilt or innocence.
RA get's to be this decades 'Richard Jewell'.

 

[GrandmaBear]

In this one more effed up things are said:

...Gull responded on Thursday by saying that Allen and his attorneys were incorrect and had complete access to all documents filed in the case, both sealed and unsealed.

Gull also said that by Allen’s “own admission,” he did not file a written motion seeking relief despite having “ample opportunity.”

My question: Why is Allen responsible for filing a written motion. It doesn't sound like she is saying his attorney's didn't file it, but Allen himself didn't file it. Isn't this something that should be handled by his lawyers?

“This failure alone warrants this Court to reject the Petition,” Gull said.

Gull also argued that the remaining documents under seal have since been unsealed and that she ordered the clerk to make all non-confidential documents available to the public, an action that she argues makes another of Allen’s petitions moot.

My Question: So she says that they had access to all sealed and unsealed documents, and later says that everything has been released to the public.

My confusion: Then she says that confidential documents have been made available to the public. So they had access before they were unsealed, which makes sense. I think the court can do that. They can't keep any documents out of the hands of the defense. The Prosecution has to turn over all of their evidence to the defense in a timely manner. Even if it contains the names of minors that can be easily blacked out. However, her two statements seem to contradict one another. "They've had all the documents all along, but that the documents have been unsealed since then making his point moot.

Gull points out in her response to the Supreme Court that Allen argued “extreme hardship” if his petitions were denied. Gull writes that Allen never clearly states that it is he who would suffer extreme hardship if the documents remain publicly inaccessible, however, and instead implies the hardship is to the public. But Gull once more reiterates that Allen “has complete access to any court documents, regardless of whether they are public or confidential. That documents are under seal does not hinder in any way (Allen’s) defense of the criminal charges against him.”

Again: Why is this Allen's responsibility? When she says "Allen" she may mean his lawyers, but that's horribly written if that's the case.

She also says this:

Gull said that the court also does not have “an absolute duty” to reinstate documents filed by attorneys who are no longer representing Allen. Gull said the court also did not have a duty to provide the public with remote access to records, “much less the particular form of remote access (Allen) requests.”

She doesn't have to reinstate documents filed by attorney's formerly representing Allen? She can wipe out all of their filed work? That doesn't seem right.

Gull still has until Nov. 27 to respond to Allen’s attorneys’ request for a transcript of a closed-door meeting from last month, a writ that puts pressure on the Supreme Court by Allen’s original defense to have Gull thrown from the case.

Shouldn't that have been handed over within a couple of days of the request? Something is rotten in Moscow, IMO.

I haven't read a thing in here in probably three days. I didn't even come near it except to put up the video comparison Tom Webster had. I saw this one as I came in to add to that.

Allen is the party in the action. There is absolutely nothing odd about saying the Petitioner, the defendant, Allen, etc. He is the party in the case. Not his attorneys.

The minute almost the attorneys were disqualified, their access to filing and looking at things that parties have would or should end. The judge and counsel have different access than the public. When my loser attorney pulled her stunt and then I had no attorney, she could no longer file on the record nor had that same access. I had to find another atty which was made almost impossible for me and in the meantime figure out how to file myself and get access as an unrepresented party. When I finally had a new REAL attorney, he had to do the legal stuff of showing he was retained and my access had to be removed and his granted as now I was not pro se and was represented. To the online official electronic filing record. And you can't have both. If a party is represented they personally do not have access, their attorney does. Allen's old D cannot have access if there is a NEW D counsel.

Allen's old attorneys are no longer attorneys of record. They don't have the same access and shouldn't.

Their filings after are not filings of a party. They aren't counsel. Just as no average Tom, Dick or Harry came come into that electronic filing and record and upload filings to clerk, judge and other side, neither can they. I am probably not putting it clearly but it all makes sense to me.

And again are you mixing things up? This is NOT Moscow. That's ID and the college students. This is Delphi, Carroll County. IN. Not ID.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I'm watching it very slowly. I have a lot of work to do this weekend, but I'm getting to it. The one thing so far that has stood out to me is the original statement by a witness who said he was in a tan jacket, and the police changed it to a blue jacket for the PCA. As he says, she could have changed her mind and decided it was blue, but why? Her freshest memory was of a tan jacket. It seems, to me, that evidence is being changed here. It's a lot like the WM3 case.

I don't know but will say the constant comparison to the WM3 case is not one I know of well and so it doesn't help other than I know they were framed or something by crooked cops.

I don't see Allen was framed, he PUTS himself there in the RIGHT clothing. If they wanted to go after him and get him and frame him that could have been done years ago. These things aren't perfect and are what they are. For me that shows real average eyewitness stuff. I think about it at work all of the time I finish with a customer and if someone asks me what they were wearing and what they bought, I can't tell ya. It is NOT important or my focus in my world at that time and later if necessary, well good luck on me having it right. It is like the car, do we think two or three people parked there that oddly that it was noticeable? I don't. And again Allen puts himself there too as to parking. The "guts" of it all aren't those things, it is all put together with the bigger things.

But I get you are talking of the PCA. By the way they are not required to put in like the O stuff to the PCA, etc. That is all bluster by Old D.

And Allen confessed something like five times. Interestingly, according to Tom Webster, he did this after meeting with his attorneys. Did he confess to them, getting all off his conscience, figure he came clean and this was it and then confessed to wife and ma? But Old D could not have this? There went the fame, the case if their client admits to all and no WIN... They can't have that... Who really manipulates Allen.... Or is he the manipulator... Was Allen that day ready to change his plea to guilty? Who and what stopped him? Old D? Seems to me he was trying to unburden and tell his D team and then his family and was likely going to plead guilty BUT..... Those attorneys are BAD NEWS. No one will convince me otherwise. Maybe others are too but they certainly are. And that is hardly the only thing. Leaks, Manipulation. More.

I am wandering and as always not a ton of time but as far as Webster's thing, did you watch the video comparison, if the shoe fits part? His way overall is to look at things supporting guilt AND innocence so there are times he goes the innocent route or weight and gives things in both directions. A bit further he shares more comparisons, hands in pockets, his walk, etc but he feels the face doesn't match. I disagree but just saying he looks at both sides. I did not of course watch all 7 plus hours and do not agree with all his thoughts but my main point in posting it was the CVS video versus BG video. Did you watch that part? The shoes, the pants, etc...??? Just like the recent voice ting, BAM. That is not Logan that is Allen.

 

[RoundPeg]

The broadcasters got their corrections submitted and their brief was accepted. This is the first (oldest) Supreme Court filing.

 

[GrandmaBear]

This is some effed up stuff:

...Other sealed documents, such as the 136-page memorandum in support of a hearing to suppress evidence, was sealed because it contained juvenile's names — specifically, Libby German and Abby Williams — which Gull said is prohibited.
Gull's brief makes no mention of Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland's objection filed June 13 to Allen's motion to suppress. In McLeland's original filing, he included the names of Abby and Libby, as well as the unredacted probable cause affidavit with the names of the witnesses, who were juveniles in 2017....

It contained juvenile's names. Which were Abby and Libby. So EVERYBODY knows that Abby and Libby are involved in this case. THEY'RE THE FREAKING VICTIMS!! That is a really weak argument.

Also, the names of the girls who saw RA on the bridge weren't redacted. Educate me if I'm wrong about this, but it was a filing to the court. If the court released it, they could easily black out the names of the girls. This seems really weak. Should the defense have submitted a motion that doesn't name witness' to the court?

Quit listening to the spin. It contained names and accused people by name OUTRIGHT of committing these murders. It DOXED people. They made sure it and graphic details never shared and names HIT the public first. I will admit I don't know the legalities of all that but it certanly isn't typical procedure or protocol.

They named, people, doxed people, accused people, called them Os and linked them as present and as committing this murder with not a single thing that put them there, connected them together to being there or removed Allen. Don't get me wrong, maybe making up some demonic fairy tale/fictional story is legal but I seriously doubt it is about naming the victims. Maybe naming the victims with DETAILSL about their deaths and wounds may be an issue but sadly these girls are dead. Just naming them I doubt is the issue here. But regardless, I don't know and don't claim to.

Tom Webster said early on in his vid, did you hear him, like many have about how bad the writing is in that thing, the grammar, punctuation, style, wording, etc. Paraphrasing I am. I have asked many a time, WHO wrote it? WHO drafted it? Because it sure the heck was NOT drafted by some attorney used to drafting and filing serious legal documents.

But then ya know everyone under the sun has access to the one's office, computers, files and you name it...

It is like someone who didn't graduate from high school or perhaps someone who didn't pass the bar... Hmm. Hard to says but if that was Rozzi or Baldwin, prove to me it matches their usual style in all their years of practice and filings?

FURTHERMORE, I believe Allen was done, wanted to confess, wanted to face the piper and did not want this anymore but THEY couldn't have it. Yeah a defendant does have rights and should. And protection from their own counsel as well if necessary.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Here is one of many good points Webster had and no, i didn't watch all seven hours, less than one.

When in later years LE put out and asked for whoever was parked at the old building between 12 and 5 to come forward to help, he didn't and yet it was him. And has admitted such but why not come in then? Do not tell me he was unaware of it.

 

[Tresir]

In this one more effed up things are said:

...Gull responded on Thursday by saying that Allen and his attorneys were incorrect and had complete access to all documents filed in the case, both sealed and unsealed.

Gull also said that by Allen’s “own admission,” he did not file a written motion seeking relief despite having “ample opportunity.”

My question: Why is Allen responsible for filing a written motion. It doesn't sound like she is saying his attorney's didn't file it, but Allen himself didn't file it. Isn't this something that should be handled by his lawyers?

“This failure alone warrants this Court to reject the Petition,” Gull said.

Gull also argued that the remaining documents under seal have since been unsealed and that she ordered the clerk to make all non-confidential documents available to the public, an action that she argues makes another of Allen’s petitions moot.

My Question: So she says that they had access to all sealed and unsealed documents, and later says that everything has been released to the public.

My confusion: Then she says that confidential documents have been made available to the public. So they had access before they were unsealed, which makes sense. I think the court can do that. They can't keep any documents out of the hands of the defense. The Prosecution has to turn over all of their evidence to the defense in a timely manner. Even if it contains the names of minors that can be easily blacked out. However, her two statements seem to contradict one another. "They've had all the documents all along, but that the documents have been unsealed since then making his point moot.

Gull points out in her response to the Supreme Court that Allen argued “extreme hardship” if his petitions were denied. Gull writes that Allen never clearly states that it is he who would suffer extreme hardship if the documents remain publicly inaccessible, however, and instead implies the hardship is to the public. But Gull once more reiterates that Allen “has complete access to any court documents, regardless of whether they are public or confidential. That documents are under seal does not hinder in any way (Allen’s) defense of the criminal charges against him.”

Again: Why is this Allen's responsibility? When she says "Allen" she may mean his lawyers, but that's horribly written if that's the case.

She also says this:

Gull said that the court also does not have “an absolute duty” to reinstate documents filed by attorneys who are no longer representing Allen. Gull said the court also did not have a duty to provide the public with remote access to records, “much less the particular form of remote access (Allen) requests.”

She doesn't have to reinstate documents filed by attorney's formerly representing Allen? She can wipe out all of their filed work? That doesn't seem right.

Gull still has until Nov. 27 to respond to Allen’s attorneys’ request for a transcript of a closed-door meeting from last month, a writ that puts pressure on the Supreme Court by Allen’s original defense to have Gull thrown from the case.

Shouldn't that have been handed over within a couple of days of the request? Something is rotten in Moscow, IMO.

When she says Allen, I think she means the Defence. The new defence (Allen) should clarify which documents are still valid or alternatively which documents are moot. (Eg maybe the new defence won't want the Frank's Memo.)

Maybe they will want to consider the confessions and work on a plea deal or argue for a mental health defence?

 

[Tresir]

Here is one of many good points Webster had and no, i didn't watch all seven hours, less than one.

When in later years LE put out and asked for whoever was parked at the old building between 12 and 5 to come forward to help, he didn't and yet it was him. And has admitted such but why not come in then? Do not tell me he was unaware of it.

Yes I just listened to the bit you mentioned (small feet -good point) and that was a good point about parking at the CPS and why didn't he come forward.

Did you (or anyone?) listen to the voice comparison I posted (RA/BH/PW) .

 

[Tresir]

"It's a lot like the WM3 case".
Well, I don't have a full understanding of that case, but certainly
the point you're making reminds me of the Darlie Routier case,
where hospital staff gave evidence that the accused, whose sons
were murdered, didn't cry and didn't seem to be upset - evidence
that the defence showed was in contradiction to the medical charts/
information that the hospital staff filled out, and also that the medical
staff were discovered to have been required to attend a 'meeting'
where what evidence they were going to give in court was discussed
(with either the police or the prosecution, I can't quite remember which).
Now that was in the jurisdiction of the injustice system of Texas, but
apparently in Indiana it appears similar legal shenanigans can occur,
as we have a witness that stated (page 107 of the Franks Memorandum)
that the man she saw on the bridge was in his 20's to early thirties and
his hair seemed poofy (as the youthful, 2nd suspect sketch shows, an
illustration that that witness says was 10 out of 10 for accuracy). Yet
somehow, magically, this description is instead is what is asserted in the
PCA to the court: "She advised she walked to the Manon High Bridge and
observed a male matching the one from Victim 2's video. She described
the male she saw as a white male, wearing bluejeans and bluejean jacket.
She advised he was standing on the first platfonn of the Monon High Bridge,
approximately 50 feet from her."
Now while I could understand if someone had a problem estimating
a person's age, would it be likely that anyone is going to miss-see a
man with short, shaved head type hair as instead being someone with
poofy hair as shown in the '10 out of 10' 2nd sketch?
Is that PCA poorly worded or deliberately mis-leading? Of course, if a
LE officer placed information in his Probable Cause Affidavit that was
misleading, the State of Indiana gives the Defense a legal remedy, that
is to start a cause of action against that officer, a Frank's Hearing... er,
wait, what happened to that? Evaporated in the wind apparently now,
that the Judges appointed newD has taken over.
It's worth noting, once these false understandings of what happened,
false descriptions of people or circumstances, lodge in the public's
memory, come trial time a portion of the public on any jury will have
already made up their mind about a defendant's guilt or innocence.
RA get's to be this decades 'Richard Jewell'.

He had a hat and a hoodie up though so how could she see his hair anyway?

 

[Tresir]

Quit listening to the spin. It contained names and accused people by name OUTRIGHT of committing these murders. It DOXED people. They made sure it and graphic details never shared and names HIT the public first. I will admit I don't know the legalities of all that but it certanly isn't typical procedure or protocol.

They named, people, doxed people, accused people, called them Os and linked them as present and as committing this murder with not a single thing that put them there, connected them together to being there or removed Allen. Don't get me wrong, maybe making up some demonic fairy tale/fictional story is legal but I seriously doubt it is about naming the victims. Maybe naming the victims with DETAILSL about their deaths and wounds may be an issue but sadly these girls are dead. Just naming them I doubt is the issue here. But regardless, I don't know and don't claim to.

Tom Webster said early on in his vid, did you hear him, like many have about how bad the writing is in that thing, the grammar, punctuation, style, wording, etc. Paraphrasing I am. I have asked many a time, WHO wrote it? WHO drafted it? Because it sure the heck was NOT drafted by some attorney used to drafting and filing serious legal documents.

But then ya know everyone under the sun has access to the one's office, computers, files and you name it...

It is like someone who didn't graduate from high school or perhaps someone who didn't pass the bar... Hmm. Hard to says but if that was Rozzi or Baldwin, prove to me it matches their usual style in all their years of practice and filings?

FURTHERMORE, I believe Allen was done, wanted to confess, wanted to face the piper and did not want this anymore but THEY couldn't have it. Yeah a defendant does have rights and should. And protection from their own counsel as well if necessary.

I agree with you on this. If he wants to confess, then let him.

 

[GrandmaBear]

When she says Allen, I think she means the Defence. The new defence (Allen) should clarify which documents are still valid or alternatively which documents are moot. (Eg maybe the new defence won't want the Frank's Memo.)

Maybe they will want to consider the confessions and work on a plea deal or argue for a mental health defence?

She does mean defense. Even in briefs and orders, etc. it ill say defendant or Allen or petitioner, etc., etc. It is not unusual in the least. Imo.

 

[Guess Who]

In this one more effed up things are said:

...Gull responded on Thursday by saying that Allen and his attorneys were incorrect and had complete access to all documents filed in the case, both sealed and unsealed.

Gull also said that by Allen’s “own admission,” he did not file a written motion seeking relief despite having “ample opportunity.”

My question: Why is Allen responsible for filing a written motion. It doesn't sound like she is saying his attorney's didn't file it, but Allen himself didn't file it. Isn't this something that should be handled by his lawyers?

“This failure alone warrants this Court to reject the Petition,” Gull said.

Gull also argued that the remaining documents under seal have since been unsealed and that she ordered the clerk to make all non-confidential documents available to the public, an action that she argues makes another of Allen’s petitions moot.

My Question: So she says that they had access to all sealed and unsealed documents, and later says that everything has been released to the public.

My confusion: Then she says that confidential documents have been made available to the public. So they had access before they were unsealed, which makes sense. I think the court can do that. They can't keep any documents out of the hands of the defense. The Prosecution has to turn over all of their evidence to the defense in a timely manner. Even if it contains the names of minors that can be easily blacked out. However, her two statements seem to contradict one another. "They've had all the documents all along, but that the documents have been unsealed since then making his point moot.

Gull points out in her response to the Supreme Court that Allen argued “extreme hardship” if his petitions were denied. Gull writes that Allen never clearly states that it is he who would suffer extreme hardship if the documents remain publicly inaccessible, however, and instead implies the hardship is to the public. But Gull once more reiterates that Allen “has complete access to any court documents, regardless of whether they are public or confidential. That documents are under seal does not hinder in any way (Allen’s) defense of the criminal charges against him.”

Again: Why is this Allen's responsibility? When she says "Allen" she may mean his lawyers, but that's horribly written if that's the case.

She also says this:

Gull said that the court also does not have “an absolute duty” to reinstate documents filed by attorneys who are no longer representing Allen. Gull said the court also did not have a duty to provide the public with remote access to records, “much less the particular form of remote access (Allen) requests.”

She doesn't have to reinstate documents filed by attorney's formerly representing Allen? She can wipe out all of their filed work? That doesn't seem right.

Gull still has until Nov. 27 to respond to Allen’s attorneys’ request for a transcript of a closed-door meeting from last month, a writ that puts pressure on the Supreme Court by Allen’s original defense to have Gull thrown from the case.

Shouldn't that have been handed over within a couple of days of the request? Something is rotten in Moscow, IMO.

Come on, emu. They are obviously talking about his attorneys and what they are saying about the releasing of the info is that it is now not sealed so there is no reason why his attorney's can't access it on their own. The court words it that way because it's not the attorney's on trial, it's Allen that is and his attorneys are representing him, not themselves. It's just the way it's done and worded in legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[Guess Who]

When she says Allen, I think she means the Defence. The new defence (Allen) should clarify which documents are still valid or alternatively which documents are moot. (Eg maybe the new defence won't want the Frank's Memo.)

Maybe they will want to consider the confessions and work on a plea deal or argue for a mental health defence?

That's exactly what it is saying.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm watching it very slowly. I have a lot of work to do this weekend, but I'm getting to it. The one thing so far that has stood out to me is the original statement by a witness who said he was in a tan jacket, and the police changed it to a blue jacket for the PCA. As he says, she could have changed her mind and decided it was blue, but why? Her freshest memory was of a tan jacket. It seems, to me, that evidence is being changed here. It's a lot like the WM3 case.

ok. Name the make, model and color of the car that was parked at the park you drove past yesterday. Go.

Now you will see what the witnesses were tasked with.