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

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:
I could no decide on the shock emoji or laughing one on your frying pan remark.... I will revisit that later, if I remember lol.

As you know I don't get a lot of time. I also try to stay up on a lot of cases but find it almost impossible lately. Or at least a few key cases. And am struggling to do that. You know more I will guarantee you but in what I have watched or followed here, I will agree there are issues with Gull BUT I have not reached any point where i think there aren't as big of issues or even bigger with the defense team. The one he had/has/has one and not the other or who knows as one withdrew, both did, yada yada yada whatever is right based on who one listens to or reads.

I have not YET formed a solid opinion on it because we never know all, nor do all the talking heads despite all of the leaks, etc., etc., etc. But where I am at is NEITHER the judge nor the defense attorneys look very good right now. There is this concept of lowering yourself to someone else's level... Food for thought. With the judge and defense and which came first the chicken or the egg...

Then aside from THAT, there is LE and the prosecution. Now many do and an argue LE did not do a stand up job from day one. But this is also Delphi, small town, etc. and the who would have thunk this would have been the outcome, a double murder, a bridge guy, etc., they probably just thought two teens went missing. BUT yes didn't seem to be great once they found the bodies either. So that's another side and thing.

But that is different too than the prosecution team. And than the State. Etc., etc., etc.

ASIDE from Gull who is NOT the prosecution, I haven't seen the prosecution screw up too much. They keep their mouths shut. They came back to the overblown crazy defense thing quite calmly without offering defense against their claims by giving the public info to dispute it, still keeping anything they have quiet. They seem to have done so from the start, the sh*t we have learned is from defense filings and pics we have seen then add the leak... To THIS day we know nothing of what the Kline thing was really about, we know nothing that came from the search of RA's home, etc., we know nothing of the rest of his day or claims or what his wife has said about that day etc. I'd call that pretty professional.

Sadly, I am not sure if that will matter since others have made a huge mess. And I"m not even saying the prosecution isn't corrupt or that the judge isn't with them, etc., etc., etc. but I am saying THEY have kept sh*t hushed.

I am NOT okay with the defense antics, the former defense, or one former, one current, both former, depending on all the b.s. going on. I am getting to where I can see (lack of time is one) where Gull is probably NOT okay either but I am not yet down on the prosecution nor convinced on Gull BUT getting there MAYBE with her I will see. I don't have time to search myself and look at all and where it stems from and I hate to jump when there is so much being blown each and every way by everyone and not look to source myself but that is something I just can't do these days.

What I do know or am pretty sure of is this is a mess and this is outright unacceptable and I have no faith in our system. Haven't had total in a long time but it only gets worse. I am also still a bit stuck on that all this "snow" came after Allen's confessions. And yah, now they have retroactively given a reason for those confessions.... Uh-huh. Where was this O stuff even with the guards at minimum BEFORE his confessions? They STINK to high heaven and so does Allen.

I'm not liking that the judge it seems isn't helping this, like I said, I haven't seen that I can think of with my overtired brain, the prosecution really do anything or give the reaction the defense probably HOPED for, you know egg someone, blast this crazy sh*t and hope something comes from it and they DID NOT GET such a reaction. They still have maintained...

I am tired and could probably explain better but I'm not even saying prosecution team is good nor not corrupt but I am saying they haven't give us a single detail to speak of or blasted back with hey his wife Kathy said well I did come home to him washing clothes that day and never had he before in our marriage...

I could go in a number of directions and would really like to explain more on a few and give reasons but can't right now. The ending i want to make is more important and that is that there are TWO dead girls here who as in so many cases, aren't front and center, the defendant is. And now the judge is. And justice for them is not front and center. Never is with the victims or their families. The defendant is. Always.

And out of all the sides I talked of in this case, the one I am convinced of is bad news is the defense. I don't CARE their reasons. I don't believe them and the timing of all is too too too you know... And it is all retroactive. AND if anything was seriously wrong for real they did not pursue the correct avenue that attorneys should know how to pursue. And they only hit with all of this when? But people are forgetting that and not seeing it because of the blizzard. I have NOT.
I think they need a new Judge too. That would be the third right?

Also found a link on the science regarding ejector marks. I think these indentations will be the same on an ejected bullet and an ejected empty casing.

The science of ejector marks explained -

 
So they really have to prove BG is RA and then they have proved their case. I think they are sitting there with that ace up their sleeve.
 
Last edited:
That's cool. Without the info ... I can't take sides. Here's what I do know:
This is the most effed up LE investigation I've ever followed ... and that stinks of incompetence and even corruption. Pardon me franco.

I support Gull hiring new counsel she personally knows for RA. I think she thinks that something stinks in this case and she wants RA to have a fair trial -- not a fairy tale trial.

I really don't care about the writing quality of the franks memo. (I mean, I do care; I care a great deal about good writing .. but there are more important things in there to care about.) I care about the investigative facts and evidence described within ... that had not previously been released. I also care that 2 defense attnys w/ 50 years between them actually believe RA is innocent (as MS has described ... from speaking w/ the Leaker Westerman). You don't hear that passion from a double murder defense attorney team very often.

Your turn to frying pan me. Do your best. :D
What do you think LE f'd up?

They searched KK's property immediately then had to get that whole sh!t done and dusted before they concentrated on/found RA. Not sure when they actually identified him as a suspect but I guess they had to keep that all under wraps in order to get the KK conviction first.
 
Remains to be seen if they've sent an interlocutory appeal up to the Appellate. But I believe the reason for end of week mad filings motioning Gull were about exhausting remedies w/ Gull's Court ... so they COULD go up to Appellate Court. They have what they need now. The didn't have it until Thursday when they forced it out of Gull via motion after motion after motion, which she opted to call "filed in error". This is too high profile a case for the Appellate not to look at this decision. Also, the new D's are her best friends and (while I'm cool with it), THAT's NOT GONNA HELP GULL - and will be one more argument why she should recuse herself.
While I appreciate and even agree on your reasoning as to why this case will likely be chosen for review by the appeals court, I am also pretty certain such is not a basis by which they are to decide which cases to review. If they decide to do so based on such a thing, we have yet another entity guilty of wrongdoing in this case. I could be wrong of course, maybe too high profile is a sound basis versus some poor soul stuck in a case that does not have such attention that begs for review.

They do though have a basis and that is picking a case with questions that don't often nor maybe ever have come up or before them prior and so one that may need precedent set no?

I don't know all the ins and outs and rules re such just guesses.

Also this is not an appeal by a defendant post conviction, not even close. This is an active ongoing case and the appeal would be as to rights of counsel. I am not sure the same rules apply at all.

They may even HAVE to answer to it, not sure on that either but DURING a case, one can appeal for a decision on an issue to a higher court and I'm not so sure the appellate court doesn't have to provide responses to those types of appeals. We had it happen during our case, defense appealed during the case and we all had to wait for the decision from the higher court. They did not win on it and the judge's ruling stood.

All these fine points are beyond me as to the rules of law, I have no idea. I am saying though that this is not an appeal by a convicted defendant and that they may be required to rule on such as this in an ongoing case. But again, I have no idea.

My guess is you have watched or read things that may have talked on this but I haven't had a chance to so maybe you have the answers although it depends on what talking head you listen to as to if they have it right.

It is very early morn and no coffee yet and tired as all get out as usual and little sleep. Maybe I make not a bit of sense at all. No idea.

And I am still stuck on the somewhat unpolished, out there diatribe the length or surpassing Gone With the Wind that their office filed about Frank--lol--I mean the Frank's thing versus the filings now with citations and more brevity and professionalism as to what one would expect from a lawyer/s. The stark contrast sticks with me... I mean I am the type who can write the length of Gone With the Wind but I am no lawyer who knows it best not to and I just feel whoever wrote it isn't either and/or lacked time to edit or have someone more experienced edit their long "manuscript" and high schoolish type of wording. It is like someone threw all the garbage in they could but left out the dumpster it came from or that which could at least hold and contain it all.

And each and every time when one takes away all the fake sn*w and subsequent blizzard manufactured by the defense's Hollywood like sn*w machine rather than by Mama Nature, the same facts remain.

And the crux of it all and what their thousands of pages failed to take away is that Allen was THERE. And it isn't like they had their eyes and sight on him only for all of these years. And his bullet was found and by the way, it was not found AFTER he came under radar but YEARS before. And then after being caught, and putting family through heck and probably being given ultimatums and his own years of containing this, he confessed.

It just isn't that complicated at its core. You just have to shelter for a moment from the blizzard and look whence and hence it came and more. MIGHT there be more to it or someone else involved? Sure, MAYBE. But Allen was there. He placed himself there back when and reconfirmed. They had his bullet back then.
 
That chair has been MINE for 14 years! :chair:
Really? I just got it out of the closet and used it on you quite easily. I guess your security is quite lax then. But then we know that, I am talking to a dodo who constantly let Blue escape his clutches who I might also add is not HIS horse!

14 years huh? Yet lately at least I am constantly seeing it in the hands of others as if it belongs to the people of this site. See below... You are the yellow naked without pants guy...

:chair:
 
This article is basically saying the judge forced the defence to withdraw. RA wanted to keep them. They have requested the judge recuse herself. So now I don't know what to think really.


The sole defense attorney who remains on the Delphi murders case is claiming the judge forced the defense team to withdraw before last week’s hearing.
Allen was arrested on Oct. 28, 2022, on two charges of murder in the 2017 killings of Liberty German, 14, and Abigail Williams, 13. The two girls went missing while hiking on Feb. 13, 2017. Their bodies were found the next day in a heavily wooded area near the trail by the Monon High Bridge.
READ: Delphi double murders case timeline
Attorney Bradley Rozzi claims in a Thursday filing that Special Judge Fran Gull of Allen County ordered him and fellow attorney Andrew Baldwin to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” on Oct. 12 until they were set to appear in court on Oct. 19.
That hearing on Oct. 19 lasted just a few minutes as Judge Gull said Baldwin had withdrawn from the case and expected Rozzi to do the same in the coming days.


The filing says the judge ordered the defense and Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLleland to appear in chambers at 12:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 — which is 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to start.
According to the filing, the defense and prosecutor met prior to the Oct. 19 hearing when the judge read a prepared statement to Rozzi and Baldwin, identifying various issues throughout the case of the defense exercising “gross negligence” in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen.
The filing says the judge then gave Rozzi and Baldwin two options:
  • Voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing
  • Participate in the 2 p.m. hearing, and the judge would read a prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Rozzi and Baldwin in the presence of Allen, his family and the public

According to the filing, the defense then spoke with Allen, who allegedly reaffirmed he wanted to continue being represented by Rozzi and Baldwin — and Allen allegedly still objects to the judge’s attempt to strip him of his current counsel.
After speaking with Allen, the court filing says Rozzi and Baldwin returned to chambers, at which time Rozzi said the judge “had engaged in an ambush of defense counsel, entirely void of due process,” and Rozzi would withdraw his appearance — noting it wasn’t voluntarily.
Rozzi cites the jury trial in Allen County scheduled to begin Jan. 8, 2024. If Rozzi were to continue representing Allen, the court filing says there will be no need to appoint two new attorneys to dedicate “hundreds and thousands of hours toward a mere review of the discovery.”
The filing states, “Any successor lawyer would have the convenience of working with Attorney Rozzi to become familiar with the subject matter in a much more efficient and fiscally responsible way.”
According to the filing, there are no circumstances under Rule 1.16 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct which warrant Rozzi’s withdrawal in representing Allen.

Request to remove judge​

Rozzi is also requesting Gull remove herself from the case.
The attorney is asking for her recusal, claiming she has shown her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Rozzi goes on to claim Gull violated the Indiana Supreme Court’s Administrative Rules by removing or concealing some of the defense’s pleadings from the case summary.
In the motion to disqualify, Rozzi also points to his claims the judge ordered counsel to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” leading up to the Oct. 19 hearing, which Rozzi claims violates Allen’s Sixth Amendment rights to representation.
Rozzi also accuses Gull of a lack of concern to protect the physical and mental health of Allen and has shown bias against Allen.
Copyright 2023 WPTA. All rights reserved.

ETA. I have read the filing and I think the judge should allow Brad Rozzi to continue in the defence but that she should recuse herself.
 
Last edited:
Really? I just got it out of the closet and used it on you quite easily. I guess your security is quite lax then. But then we know that, I am talking to a dodo who constantly let Blue escape his clutches who I might also add is not HIS horse!

14 years huh? Yet lately at least I am constantly seeing it in the hands of others as if it belongs to the people of this site. See below... You are the yellow naked without pants guy...

:chair:

@Kimster Will tell you that's MY chair!!

As for you @GrandmaBear animated-smileys-brutaler-violent-354.gif
 
This article is basically saying the judge forced the defence to withdraw. RA wanted to keep them. They have requested the judge recuse herself. So now I don't know what to think really.


The sole defense attorney who remains on the Delphi murders case is claiming the judge forced the defense team to withdraw before last week’s hearing.
Allen was arrested on Oct. 28, 2022, on two charges of murder in the 2017 killings of Liberty German, 14, and Abigail Williams, 13. The two girls went missing while hiking on Feb. 13, 2017. Their bodies were found the next day in a heavily wooded area near the trail by the Monon High Bridge.
READ: Delphi double murders case timeline
Attorney Bradley Rozzi claims in a Thursday filing that Special Judge Fran Gull of Allen County ordered him and fellow attorney Andrew Baldwin to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” on Oct. 12 until they were set to appear in court on Oct. 19.
That hearing on Oct. 19 lasted just a few minutes as Judge Gull said Baldwin had withdrawn from the case and expected Rozzi to do the same in the coming days.


The filing says the judge ordered the defense and Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLleland to appear in chambers at 12:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 — which is 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to start.
According to the filing, the defense and prosecutor met prior to the Oct. 19 hearing when the judge read a prepared statement to Rozzi and Baldwin, identifying various issues throughout the case of the defense exercising “gross negligence” in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen.
The filing says the judge then gave Rozzi and Baldwin two options:
  • Voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing
  • Participate in the 2 p.m. hearing, and the judge would read a prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Rozzi and Baldwin in the presence of Allen, his family and the public

According to the filing, the defense then spoke with Allen, who allegedly reaffirmed he wanted to continue being represented by Rozzi and Baldwin — and Allen allegedly still objects to the judge’s attempt to strip him of his current counsel.
After speaking with Allen, the court filing says Rozzi and Baldwin returned to chambers, at which time Rozzi said the judge “had engaged in an ambush of defense counsel, entirely void of due process,” and Rozzi would withdraw his appearance — noting it wasn’t voluntarily.
Rozzi cites the jury trial in Allen County scheduled to begin Jan. 8, 2024. If Rozzi were to continue representing Allen, the court filing says there will be no need to appoint two new attorneys to dedicate “hundreds and thousands of hours toward a mere review of the discovery.”
The filing states, “Any successor lawyer would have the convenience of working with Attorney Rozzi to become familiar with the subject matter in a much more efficient and fiscally responsible way.”
According to the filing, there are no circumstances under Rule 1.16 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct which warrant Rozzi’s withdrawal in representing Allen.

Request to remove judge​

Rozzi is also requesting Gull remove herself from the case.
The attorney is asking for her recusal, claiming she has shown her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Rozzi goes on to claim Gull violated the Indiana Supreme Court’s Administrative Rules by removing or concealing some of the defense’s pleadings from the case summary.
In the motion to disqualify, Rozzi also points to his claims the judge ordered counsel to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” leading up to the Oct. 19 hearing, which Rozzi claims violates Allen’s Sixth Amendment rights to representation.
Rozzi also accuses Gull of a lack of concern to protect the physical and mental health of Allen and has shown bias against Allen.
Copyright 2023 WPTA. All rights reserved.
I'm really not convinced Rozzi did anything wrong. Baldwin is the one with the needless security breach.
 
I went into a whole diatribe with a Cheerio about this. It makes no sense to me at all why finding the brand of bullet is more important than the bullet. Ya couldn't even know a brand if you didn't HAVE the bullet so that adds another level of "ridiculosity" to it.

The bullet was at the scene and matched to the gun, whether the brand or box of them, etc. was found many years later I think is small taters. If it was, that would certainly be somewhat big but if not, not a huge surprise and doesn't mean much. That certainly isn't MORE important than the bullet because you wouldn't even know brand without the bullet in the first place and it's the bullet that is at the scene, and is utmost important, not the box of branded ammo.

A bird making no sense and if this is direct info from Vinnie then I'd have to come down on Vinnie on how that is MORE important than the bullet itself.
I know just one example. “The Night Stalker” He used a brand of ammo that was extremely rare. IIRC. Not made anymore. If it is rare. They could possibly tie it to someone. Follow a paper trail they bought the ammo a certain date. Shells can be important for the same reason.
 
IIRC, the argument from Old Defense to disqualify the bullet included these objections:

a) every cop's gun takes that bullet and there were bunches of guns at the crime scene.
and
b) chain of custody; bullet discovered late and showed up without a proper chain of custody paperwork as to how it suddenly showed up.

Feel free to correct me on that one b/c I sped-read the D papers raising these objections ... but have heard these arguments consistently explained via a few podcasters
But it depends where it was found. Eg. Under the clothes? Between the bodies? Under one of the bodies? Under the leaves and dirt when they scraped up the surface?
I don't think it is exactly known where, when or how it was found. They must have a chain of custody for it which may not be revealed till trial.
 
:panic:

Old Defense and RA hired Expert Appellate Lawyers (3 of 'em), filed a brief this AM with (Appellate) Superior Court, and were immediately granted their Appellate Review !!!

The ask is for more transparency for the public on the docket. The big news is that RA states he can't bring this motion for transparency to Gull, because Gull won't let his chosen lawyers post their briefs on her docket (b/c she removed them, against his will), so he's asking the Higher court to use the loop-hole in the law that lets the Supreme Court decide his motions in front of Gull, since she won't accept his motions (from Rizzo, etc) on her docket.

All papers due Nov 9th.

Now we're playing Chess and not whack-a-mole.

Here's the Appellate docket link:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...3bnZxdTRWNlJlNG5ESTNtTFFWQ2s1alhJeEo1V0kxIn19
Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase
 
This article is basically saying the judge forced the defence to withdraw. RA wanted to keep them. They have requested the judge recuse herself. So now I don't know what to think really.


The sole defense attorney who remains on the Delphi murders case is claiming the judge forced the defense team to withdraw before last week’s hearing.
Allen was arrested on Oct. 28, 2022, on two charges of murder in the 2017 killings of Liberty German, 14, and Abigail Williams, 13. The two girls went missing while hiking on Feb. 13, 2017. Their bodies were found the next day in a heavily wooded area near the trail by the Monon High Bridge.
READ: Delphi double murders case timeline
Attorney Bradley Rozzi claims in a Thursday filing that Special Judge Fran Gull of Allen County ordered him and fellow attorney Andrew Baldwin to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” on Oct. 12 until they were set to appear in court on Oct. 19.
That hearing on Oct. 19 lasted just a few minutes as Judge Gull said Baldwin had withdrawn from the case and expected Rozzi to do the same in the coming days.


The filing says the judge ordered the defense and Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLleland to appear in chambers at 12:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 — which is 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to start.
According to the filing, the defense and prosecutor met prior to the Oct. 19 hearing when the judge read a prepared statement to Rozzi and Baldwin, identifying various issues throughout the case of the defense exercising “gross negligence” in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen.
The filing says the judge then gave Rozzi and Baldwin two options:
  • Voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing
  • Participate in the 2 p.m. hearing, and the judge would read a prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Rozzi and Baldwin in the presence of Allen, his family and the public

According to the filing, the defense then spoke with Allen, who allegedly reaffirmed he wanted to continue being represented by Rozzi and Baldwin — and Allen allegedly still objects to the judge’s attempt to strip him of his current counsel.
After speaking with Allen, the court filing says Rozzi and Baldwin returned to chambers, at which time Rozzi said the judge “had engaged in an ambush of defense counsel, entirely void of due process,” and Rozzi would withdraw his appearance — noting it wasn’t voluntarily.
Rozzi cites the jury trial in Allen County scheduled to begin Jan. 8, 2024. If Rozzi were to continue representing Allen, the court filing says there will be no need to appoint two new attorneys to dedicate “hundreds and thousands of hours toward a mere review of the discovery.”
The filing states, “Any successor lawyer would have the convenience of working with Attorney Rozzi to become familiar with the subject matter in a much more efficient and fiscally responsible way.”
According to the filing, there are no circumstances under Rule 1.16 of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct which warrant Rozzi’s withdrawal in representing Allen.

Request to remove judge​

Rozzi is also requesting Gull remove herself from the case.
The attorney is asking for her recusal, claiming she has shown her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Rozzi goes on to claim Gull violated the Indiana Supreme Court’s Administrative Rules by removing or concealing some of the defense’s pleadings from the case summary.
In the motion to disqualify, Rozzi also points to his claims the judge ordered counsel to “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” leading up to the Oct. 19 hearing, which Rozzi claims violates Allen’s Sixth Amendment rights to representation.
Rozzi also accuses Gull of a lack of concern to protect the physical and mental health of Allen and has shown bias against Allen.
Copyright 2023 WPTA. All rights reserved.

ETA. I have read the filing and I think the judge should allow Brad Rozzi to continue in the defence but that she should recuse herself.
I posted a video some days back in which they read these filings and then went over them.

I'm not sold the way you are yet. It's a one sided defense filing plus we don't even know if the statutes or rules cited fit the situation, are the right ones, what all they contain and say, etc. However the show I watched was more defense minded, at least he was, and they did show and say a lot of things about this judge and her practices. But the defense had been warned before too....
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,368
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom