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

 

[GrandmaBear]

asserts that Allen has also been denied the right to a public trial free of an impartial jury as a result of Gull’s previous ruling.

And WHAT are they talking of here? All trials are public and one is scheduled. The jury is coming from another county. And any public opinion has been colored more by their leaks than ANYTHING else ever about the case from anyone. In fact, no one else has done such.

Ridiculous, as always, and turning things rather than taking on their own failures.

As to the confessions, they didn't file correctly to not have a blanket decision on ALL confessions, duh. Maybe one was done when under mental duress, maybe another was not, maybe one was because he found God, and another because he thought the Warden could help him get a deal, etc., etc., etc. They'd have to be decided each and every one but they didn't ask for that, they asked for ALL. Again, that's on them.

No high court is going to fail to see all these things. Not unless corrupt and so far their decisions or lack of them are apt and fitting.

 

[GrandmaBear]

They include themselves in the error making many suffer, including selves. Just what are they suffering? They aren't victims here. Give me a break. Their careers are to file motions and deal with judge's decisions every single day and I've never seen them do a professional job at it. We all have eyes, ears and can read too...

I'm sorry, but they're pathetic.

I t hink I'll hold off on the rest of finishing it for now. I'm still on the first one and like most of their stuff, well, I've already had my fill for a bit. Maybe I'll even wait for Tom because then I can handle what is in them because he weeds it, etc. and is easy to listen to.

He may even jump on tonight with this news. I don't know, haven't looked yet. Saw this here right after getting home tonight.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Scott, if you don't want to watch his variety on different cases, go to 4:50 minutes in and it ends at 12:05, so not even 8 minutes and he packs a LOT in here and has a LOT to say.

This gives me what I was not getting from the article and that which I wondered of. The ISC taking the interlocutory appeal is totally discretionary, they don't have to. They usually prefer a conviction for instance takes place, then you do such an appeal. He finds it very unlikely they will take it until he is tried in the lower trial court.

He did go on to criticize Gull's decisions with her lack of citing law and more and said it was like an 8th grader wrote it when compared to decisions, I believe he said like in Daybell, etc., where they give thought and detailed reasons beyond just the basic reason, that they didn't prove enough or have any evidence, etc. and that case law is clear on such. So he criticized her for that and called her 8th grade in her short written decision...

HOWEVER, he then went on to say what a mistake the defense made in showing their hand and bringing up ANY of these things and plans before trial. They should have waited and brought it up and into trial, and not show the P their hand and then forced the judge to decide for or against them in front of the jury and never ever showed their hand... He says that is what HE would have done.

I think I we all know the D's total big show was to cover and help things that had happened in their own failures and RA's confessions and their leak even. BUT even so, Scott would have waited until trial... They've blown their wad basically and the P even knew to do the motion in limine etc. because they've shown all their cards, etc.

Now he did say there's an outside chance due to Gull not doing an overly detailed decision that the ISC will take it on being the record isn't there, I gather citations, all the reasons, rather than a broad one. I am definitely paraphrasing and trying to recall all. Even in that case though, he doubts the ISC will take this on until after trial if they appeal then. He finds it very doubtful.

So he lambasted the defense a bit too but gave them an excuse of thinking there will be some big win or legal strategy during lead up to trial that will win the day, etc. Again I am highly paraphrasing. Now I don't think for one moment that's what they were doing so I differ there.

But this is GOOD and just listen to him, it is not even eight minutes long.

Appeals Courts/Supreme Courts want a fully built RECORD and a case tried before getting involved generally.

And that is EXACTLY what we have seen with the D's other efforts with the ISC. They pretty much sent it back. The ONLY thing they did anything about was if RA's D attorneys could remain on the case and that is totally self explanatory.

I think they are dead in the water listening to Scott, but on the other hand, they probably just hope for another delay while their client sits now in a county jail swinging in the wind... They'd better hope he stays safe, THEY wanted it...

They will probably wait til last minute, if not, I hope (it's kind of unclear) they have already filed this, sounds like maybe they have, that the ISC comes back immediately with a decline on taking it on. And TRIAL CAN PROCEED. THIS is my thought. But I'm sure they'd attempt something else if that were to be the case...

This short less than 8 minutes told me all, they do NOT have to take it and probably won't. I thought so, but was not sure.

For anyone who doesn't know, Scott is a defense attorney and he sides that way very often. But he wouldn't have handled this as this duo did.... And he comes down on both Gull but then them.

It's well worth the 8 minutes of your life and I gave you the exact time marks to give him a listen and not have to listen to all his show if you don't want to although I listened to get the starting time for the first part and he had some other good insight into parents getting charged like in that recent mass shooting, and then mentioned the Crumbley thing. But I am saving all from the time to watch it all to find the time marks if one just wants to hear the Delphi portion.

 

[Tresir]

I see. I don't think more arguments or a reversed decision will go on in such though. I mean they can still attempt to file more motions and arguments right up to the morning of I have little doubt. Not sure they will but who knows. I'd be surprised if they don't try something more, if not just for the record but hard to say, time's ticking fast.

Pretrial conferences are mostly housekeeping, seeing where they are at, an last little decisions that haven't been made, any concerns, issues I suppose with witnesses being able to make it, etc. Even words that can be said perhaps. In our case, the word abuse could not be used. I thought it ridiculous but they granted the D that. I don't recall if that was decided in the pretrial conference but it was in those last hearings leading up to right before trial.

I guess what I mean is I don't think she is going to take arguments and revisit a major decision already made.

What she did say is at trial itself, she will consider offers or proof or evidence if they have any but she's basically ruled at this time, they do not have any, that's all been decided. Jmo.

The word abuse was not allowed? That's crazy. What was used instead, murder?

 

[Tresir]

asserts that Allen has also been denied the right to a public trial free of an impartial jury as a result of Gull’s previous ruling.

And WHAT are they talking of here? All trials are public and one is scheduled. The jury is coming from another county. And any public opinion has been colored more by their leaks than ANYTHING else ever about the case from anyone. In fact, no one else has done such.

Ridiculous, as always, and turning things rather than taking on their own failures.

As to the confessions, they didn't file correctly to not have a blanket decision on ALL confessions, duh. Maybe one was done when under mental duress, maybe another was not, maybe one was because he found God, and another because he thought the Warden could help him get a deal, etc., etc., etc. They'd have to be decided each and every one but they didn't ask for that, they asked for ALL. Again, that's on them.

No high court is going to fail to see all these things. Not unless corrupt and so far their decisions or lack of them are apt and fitting.

Where is that quote from?

ETA Oh sorry I now see the new posts about an appeal against the refusal of the hearsay third party defence . Not again. This is wearisome.

I see from your comments that this can just be batted back by the SC without a decision so I hope that will happen. I just get the feeling now that they are just ramping up their billable hours.

 

[Tresir]

Well I can't say it's a surprise. They've never not done such yet and have never quit despite most all coming back against them every single time other than their removal from the case, all else has.
They are doing it again and that's what I believe is to be appealed first at the trial court level, is not being done and instead they are heading to the ISC. Not 100 percent on that but it is what has been pretty much said prior.

I guess they care less if their client and his family remain in limbo and they sure don't care if the victims families do.

They should have had some defense prepared for this either way if such happened so IF they file and IF the ISC comes back quickly, the trial should still be made to proceed imo because they've had time to prepare for all eventualities. They could not count on this and as "seasoned" attorneys definitely know that. Her decision I mean.

Hey, it's the right decision and all are insofar as I can see. I've said throughout all they did was create a blizzard of hearsay and no solid evidence and just writing 100s of pages in I don't know, some attempt to confuse? A judge? I mean get real. Done for the public I guess...

Talk about more than once having a court and other attorneys clear their calendars for long lengths of time and then we wonder why the system takes years for anything to get done or anyone tried as it's rare on short notice they can move something else into such a slot.

I haven't read the actual links yet and perhaps that will change what I think here. I doubt it. I don't know what they mean by "signaling" as I have yet to read them which I am going to do here shortly.

They do this while complaining they will not get a jury that has not heard about it. This is crazy.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The word abuse was not allowed? That's crazy. What was used instead, murder?

Should have been. It was ridiculous. They made a pretty big deal over it. I think all just had to say something like when she was hurt, injured, when her injuries were sustained, of course they tried to claim an accident anyhow...

So what it totally was could not be said. Not abuse, not murder. Too prejudicial to a jury!

I am trying to remember if our prosecution even argued it, if they did, they did not for long. They were great but it seems to me on this, they didn't argue it too hard. Maybe they didn't want a prejudicial word in due to appeal chances? I have no idea.

Personally I think that's b.s. It is what HAPPENED so the words FIT and were FACT imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Where is that quote from?

ETA Oh sorry I now see the new posts about an appeal against the refusal of the hearsay third party defence . Not again. This is wearisome.

I see from your comments that this can just be batted back by the SC without a decision so I hope that will happen. I just get the feeling now that they are just ramping up their billable hours.

Yeah, the billable hours crossed my mind too, let's draft on and milk it for all its worth. Ever since seeing a lot of the cost breakdowns, they've been paid pretty darned well for the lack of what they've done which one would never have known from their whining about such throughout.

However, I also think they are as always not ready probably, and have failed to ready a defense without their Os which they knew was entirely possible and even likely such would be denied.

Yes, you are right, this is entirely wearisome. I hope it is batted back and FAST and trial goes on. I hope it's batted back so fast it leaves them reeling. I'm as are most sick to death of this. And all they are doing is causing more ups and downs and twisting the knife in the victims' families yet again. And imo that of their own client and his family as well.

It is, however, absolutely no surprise is it? I had hoped they wouldn't do such again but never really had any faith in that they wouldn't.

Scott's worth the few minutes watch. He said a lot in that short time. He doesn't see it being taken up but of course there's no guarantee he's right but I think he likely is. They have so far sent such back to Gull and the trial court each and every time. Not all that quickly though if I recall, and they did weigh in mostly just to say that was where it belonged and they hadn't followed the correct process there first. As I recall.

Knowing they can though just pretty much entirely ignore and rebuff it is good to know. I had wondered and Scott answered that.

 

[GrandmaBear]

They do this while complaining they will not get a jury that has not heard about it. This is crazy.

Isn't it? It is like they are making up falsehoods to the ISC, outright lies. The publicity in this case has come from them and them alone, leaks, purposely making sure filings hit the public before the judge seeing and more.

I was thinking this morn how highly critical I am in this case, mostly of the D and saying so quite often. I questioned self for just a moment, not long, seconds. I was like just waking up. (Boy did I have a weird dream, nothing about this, there were parts in it set in a historical time period and that made it very odd, never had something like that, I mean like back in the day of general stores and saloons, before my time but the rest was more nowadays or at least in my lifetime). Anyhow I tried to recall the dream for a few moments, then gave up, cleared it and this case came to mind since it was the only real news last night on cases I follow.

I thought of how highly critical I am anyhow, and then thought how deserved it is though. I am so thoroughly disgusted by their antics, incompetence, lack of professionalism, what I am sure is total self interest and not interest in their client's life, innocence or guilt and representation, etc., etc. and now these really outright lies. They have attacked the P, they've tried to take down a judge, etc. And lying DOES NOT make clear falsehoods so. (Does't make them true)

We have seen example after example after example. Countless, unending examples. They are total boobs. Clowns.

They fought for a month long trial and GOT IT and now it may all be out the window. Cleared a court calendar, etc. and again these decisions should not surprise them and if they have a lick of intelligence at all, they know they are the right ones. They did not HAVE anything NOR provide anything of substance for ever single thing they requested. Clear away the thousands of pages full of b.s. and there's nothing.

I have little patience for those who make our system or try to a circus by bringing their acts to town... If they could they'd be doing things publicly outrageously every single day. You know in this case, I am normally against such,, but a gag order may well be best just due to THEM. They mock the system basically or at least try to turn it again into a circus and bring and cause messes. It's why I don't watch or want to most "Hollywood" kinds of cases. The defense attorneys are often over the top, they are drama filled over sometimes fairly minor crimes compared to those we follow of real life people, and so on. I have no patience for such.

It's not the first time he said such but in more detail this time and in no uncertain terms. Scott made it entirely clear this strategy (if it was one and I don't think he said strategy) was the wrong choice by the D because they've shown all their cards and played all their cards and he'd have done just the opposite with the case. Give him a listen if you haven't. He makes things very clear. I gave the time stamps and it's less than 8 minutes.

So here we are.

I don't use the emojis a ton these days, where is that guy who Is tapping his fingers with this head on his hand. @Cousin Dupree uses him a lot. The one who just looks bored, having been waiting endlessly. I will see quickly if I can find him but if not, sure ya all know which one I mean. I'd like to end this post with him. As you said, wearisome, old news, same old. Waiting and waiting and waiting and just bored with it all.

Oh gee, wasn't too hard. Found him on my first search. Too bad I can't find any humor in the clowns but all it is the same old lies and choices and again imo self interest.

 

[GrandmaBear]

You know, we are just a bit past a month away, really close to a month. I hope this is batted back by week's end or very early next week and things proceeding as is already on schedule.

How long do they have to start looking to a jury pool that is going to need sequestering for a month, sending out questionnaires and more?

I have to wonder if these boobs have ever accepted a decision in their entire careers. I think they likely have and have made few motions to ISC particularly and until this 'gem" of a case that landed in their laps they they first did nothing on and once they did, now are going to milk until they cover their butts and also get all they can from. That's how I see it anyhow, always have as far as covering their own butts.

In a way, this isn't even big news, it's more of the same old, same old, do you have anything new or real b.s. It's quite dull if it were not for the fact it affects real lives. I'd be at my wit's end if I were the victims' family members. Allen's wife and mom will just cry more, not understanding. Sorry but come on. It's "their" attorneys that keep getting things canceled while RA sits. I'm also going to say one thing, these people are not THIS clueless about the legal system. I include RA in that, thinking the warden could make him a deal. Uhm, no, he can't. I don't buy his acts for a minute, never have. In this day and age, at their age, no one is that clueless plus of course by now with the amount of time it has been and with their attorneys explaining the process to them (right?) and how it all works, nothing should be that surprising or hard to understand... Right? They've been advised and explained to fully right? RA was told the first thing most defense attorneys tell their clients immediately, say NOTHING, right??

SMFH.

But mostly it's just all dull at this point and tiresome with their ridiculous same old desperate games. I bet these guys cheat at solitaire and board games with others too as they can't stand to lose. Sore losers. I think that was lol now that I think of it what was across Scott's screen for his show. Now that gave a chuckle because the term simply came to me and then I recalled that screen.

And so As the World Turns, here we are again...

 

[GrandmaBear]

Scheduled live by Tom for four days from now. Guessing he doesn't think this big enough news (it isn't, is it, I don't think it is) to merit a show right now and perhaps hoping by then it will be batted back or there will be more). And he probably went for what works best with his schedule since it isn't huge news. But linking now as I will likely forget to if I don't. And may forget when it comes on too as will be work week, but I'll see it at some point after, always do.

 

[Tresir]

Scott, if you don't want to watch his variety on different cases, go to 4:50 minutes in and it ends at 12:05, so not even 8 minutes and he packs a LOT in here and has a LOT to say.

This gives me what I was not getting from the article and that which I wondered of. The ISC taking the interlocutory appeal is totally discretionary, they don't have to. They usually prefer a conviction for instance takes place, then you do such an appeal. He finds it very unlikely they will take it until he is tried in the lower trial court.

He did go on to criticize Gull's decisions with her lack of citing law and more and said it was like an 8th grader wrote it when compared to decisions, I believe he said like in Daybell, etc., where they give thought and detailed reasons beyond just the basic reason, that they didn't prove enough or have any evidence, etc. and that case law is clear on such. So he criticized her for that and called her 8th grade in her short written decision...

HOWEVER, he then went on to say what a mistake the defense made in showing their hand and bringing up ANY of these things and plans before trial. They should have waited and brought it up and into trial, and not show the P their hand and then forced the judge to decide for or against them in front of the jury and never ever showed their hand... He says that is what HE would have done.

I think I we all know the D's total big show was to cover and help things that had happened in their own failures and RA's confessions and their leak even. BUT even so, Scott would have waited until trial... They've blown their wad basically and the P even knew to do the motion in limine etc. because they've shown all their cards, etc.

Now he did say there's an outside chance due to Gull not doing an overly detailed decision that the ISC will take it on being the record isn't there, I gather citations, all the reasons, rather than a broad one. I am definitely paraphrasing and trying to recall all. Even in that case though, he doubts the ISC will take this on until after trial if they appeal then. He finds it very doubtful.

So he lambasted the defense a bit too but gave them an excuse of thinking there will be some big win or legal strategy during lead up to trial that will win the day, etc. Again I am highly paraphrasing. Now I don't think for one moment that's what they were doing so I differ there.

But this is GOOD and just listen to him, it is not even eight minutes long.

Appeals Courts/Supreme Courts want a fully built RECORD and a case tried before getting involved generally.

And that is EXACTLY what we have seen with the D's other efforts with the ISC. They pretty much sent it back. The ONLY thing they did anything about was if RA's D attorneys could remain on the case and that is totally self explanatory.

I think they are dead in the water listening to Scott, but on the other hand, they probably just hope for another delay while their client sits now in a county jail swinging in the wind... They'd better hope he stays safe, THEY wanted it...

They will probably wait til last minute, if not, I hope (it's kind of unclear) they have already filed this, sounds like maybe they have, that the ISC comes back immediately with a decline on taking it on. And TRIAL CAN PROCEED. THIS is my thought. But I'm sure they'd attempt something else if that were to be the case...

This short less than 8 minutes told me all, they do NOT have to take it and probably won't. I thought so, but was not sure.

For anyone who doesn't know, Scott is a defense attorney and he sides that way very often. But he wouldn't have handled this as this duo did.... And he comes down on both Gull but then them.

It's well worth the 8 minutes of your life and I gave you the exact time marks to give him a listen and not have to listen to all his show if you don't want to although I listened to get the starting time for the first part and he had some other good insight into parents getting charged like in that recent mass shooting, and then mentioned the Crumbley thing. But I am saving all from the time to watch it all to find the time marks if one just wants to hear the Delphi portion.

I watched it and agree. Also, I noticed on the bar at the bottom there are little spaces and the spaces correspond to the different cases he is featuring. How neat is that?

So he makes a point that if you are going to have an alternate defence, you need to have some proof, which they don't have. So he does think the higher court will just disallow it and kick it back.

 

[Tresir]

I seem to remember that jury selection when the trial was scheduled for May, was about 3 weeks before the start of the trial. So, assuming similar this time would mean jury selection should begin in around 10 days time. Not too long now, so that appeal result needs to be back before then really.

 

[Imamazed]

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/delphi-murders-trial-to-still-begin-in-october-after-court-denies-richard-allens-appeal-request/

Delphi murders trial to still begin in October after court denies Richard Allen’s appeal request​

The Oct. 14 date for the Delphi double murder trial of Richard Allen remains intact after the court denied the defense’s request for an appeal Wednesday.

After concerns that a recently filed appeal request may once again delay the trial’s start date, the Court confirmed Wednesday the trial will continue as scheduled after the request was denied. Allen’s attorneys wanted Judge Fran Gull to certify recent rulings so they could appeal the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

 

[Imamazed]

Delphi murders trial moving forward after judge blocks defense appeal

Special Judge Frances Gull denied a motion by Richard Allen's defense to make their case to an Appeals Court.

www.wthr.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

I watched it and agree. Also, I noticed on the bar at the bottom there are little spaces and the spaces correspond to the different cases he is featuring. How neat is that?

So he makes a point that if you are going to have an alternate defence, you need to have some proof, which they don't have. So he does think the higher court will just disallow it and kick it back.

Yeah I often don't think to look for that but I know what you mean. My more experienced YT cooks use the time stamps so you can go to a spot in their video if you'd rather see this meal recipe being made, rather than that one when they do like five days of dinner. And more experienced YT users in the crime forums do it too and for Scott, it's a smart move as not all are interested in all cases and he does several in one show.

Lol now that I know that it will save me from rewinding, watching through to get the time stamps for everyone. I'll just say look at Scott's bar underneath with the time stamps. So LONG as he does it in ALL of his. He has an actual "crew" and I'm sure they likely do it. I don't mean a huge one but for sure two who I think even get the headline case news for him and court news and more, then map it out, even making bullet points, etc. he follows. A techie, an editor maybe BUT many of his shows are lives so unnecessary in those.

He explained very well and I find it significant he's a defense attorney and agrees they didn't provide any proof to merit the decision in favor of them for a third party defense.

He also made it clear the ISC can and likely will kick it back.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I seem to remember that jury selection when the trial was scheduled for May, was about 3 weeks before the start of the trial. So, assuming similar this time would mean jury selection should begin in around 10 days time. Not too long now, so that appeal result needs to be back before then really.

Yeah it has crossed my mind a couple of times that the start date probably isn't the jury selection days or weeks. Wasn't sure though the date of that or how long for this time nor did I recall for the last time. So then they did do this right up to the point of trial at least as to jury selection... To be fair, her decision on it hasn't been out all that long but they sure didn't file this the next day either.

 

[GrandmaBear]

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/delphi-murders-trial-to-still-begin-in-october-after-court-denies-richard-allens-appeal-request/

Delphi murders trial to still begin in October after court denies Richard Allen’s appeal request​

The Oct. 14 date for the Delphi double murder trial of Richard Allen remains intact after the court denied the defense’s request for an appeal Wednesday.

After concerns that a recently filed appeal request may once again delay the trial’s start date, the Court confirmed Wednesday the trial will continue as scheduled after the request was denied. Allen’s attorneys wanted Judge Fran Gull to certify recent rulings so they could appeal the ruling to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Okay, in nothing I read yesterday, although I never did look at the second article and did not finish the first, did I see that this "signaling" was to Gull to certify the decisions. It sounded like they did appeal to the appeals court. Also in Scott's I saw nothing indicating he realized this either. So the trial is ON. Well GOOD.

I did wonder and said as much what the "signaling" meant. So the signal was asking her to certify her decisions so they could be used to appeal. Okay.

Good to know. Thank you. @Tresir

 

[GrandmaBear]

Delphi murders trial moving forward after judge blocks defense appeal

Special Judge Frances Gull denied a motion by Richard Allen's defense to make their case to an Appeals Court.

www.wthr.com

Okay so both of these I did read in full and even in the first one clicked the hot link to read more on the P's argument against such and agree with it entirely. He said they had their chances, many to show proof, the families don't deserve another delay, more cost to the county, the interlocutory appeal is unlikely to result in a different outcome and only cause delay, and Scott pretty much said the same about the chance it will result in a different outcome would be slim to none and probably batted back. That's all paraphrasing and not all the P argued but a lot of it.

So the trial is still on and they can't appeal before trial because Gull said no. Okay then.

This wasn't clear at all last night and even though I didn't read the articles in full, I don't think Scott knew it either, and he's a defense attorney. So it would seem it was unclear as to what was meant.

And then the one article went into what the defense said and claimed as if it was "their written appeal".

Nice to have it clearer. Again thanks for that. And it's good news at least imo.

 

[Tresir]

Okay so both of these I did read in full and even in the first one clicked the hot link to read more on the P's argument against such and agree with it entirely. He said they had their chances, many to show proof, the families don't deserve another delay, more cost to the county, the interlocutory appeal is unlikely to result in a different outcome and only cause delay, and Scott pretty much said the same about the chance it will result in a different outcome would be slim to none and probably batted back. That's all paraphrasing and not all the P argued but a lot of it.

So the trial is still on and they can't appeal before trial because Gull said no. Okay then.

This wasn't clear at all last night and even though I didn't read the articles in full, I don't think Scott knew it either, and he's a defense attorney. So it would seem it was unclear as to what was meant.

And then the one article went into what the defense said and claimed as if it was "their written appeal".

Nice to have it clearer. Again thanks for that. And it's good news at least imo.

Thanks for clarifying and @Imamazed too.

Full speed ahead to trial