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:
Taking another look at the Writ of Mandemus. Did I get the term right? Agh. Anyway. In reading the SC decision to not accept the case, it was because the filing prompted Gull to correct her errors, so no need to pursue it any longer. Their finding also included instructions about sealing this, that, and the other and when it's appropriate. She didn't emerge lily white even though the case was denied.

Screenshot_20231227-093902_Drive.jpg
 
Taking another look at the Writ of Mandemus. Did I get the term right? Agh. Anyway. In reading the SC decision to not accept the case, it was because the filing prompted Gull to correct her errors, so no need to pursue it any longer. Their finding also included instructions about sealing this, that, and the other and when it's appropriate. She didn't emerge lily white even though the case was denied.

View attachment 20988
Who do you think should go? Gull or Baldie?

(LOL I started to type Baldie and it autocorrected to Baddie)
 
Last edited:
I said not a word about your mother. Unless Gull is your mother and failed you is what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. I know what I said and anyone can backtrack to look through this post as I did wondering what the heck you were talking about and if I said any such thing and I did not. Which I was sure of and know myself that well but double checked anyhow.

So knock it off. Lol.

Don't even tempt me to :catfight: :angry::impatient::fryingpan:

Seriously though, Merry Christmas. This is a day of peace.
A day of peace and panning LOL.
 
Who do you think should go? Gull or Baldie?

(LOL I started to type Baldie and it autocorrected to Baddie)
I definitely think Gull should go. She collaborated with the prosecution before removing the original defense and that is not staying impartial to me.

I'm kind of neutral on Baldwin. There has been no wrongdoing found during a police investigation on his part.
 
I definitely think Gull should go. She collaborated with the prosecution before removing the original defense and that is not staying impartial to me.

I'm kind of neutral on Baldwin. There has been no wrongdoing found during a police investigation on his part.
Ok we have 2 Gulls and 2 Baldies so far. Even stephens.

Maybe both should go.
 
I definitely think Gull should go. She collaborated with the prosecution before removing the original defense and that is not staying impartial to me.

I'm kind of neutral on Baldwin. There has been no wrongdoing found during a police investigation on his part.
I heard this back in the day but it seems it came about ti wasn't fact. I am not swearing to it. As far as ex parte communications. She had contact with them all the way I understood it by email etc. when we knew better. I asked once before for a link (not from you) and never got one. I am not saying it isn't so, I am saying I personally haven't seen evidence that that is true and it seems to me I heard from someone not running out there with the b.s. at the time that waited for facts and that it isn't true. BUT I could be wrong. Please disabuse me of the notion if I am and I will gladly agree to that part.

Baldwin is bad news but I will agree proof is another story but then we do not know all that is known. I don't think. Imo this would still be an ongoing investigation as to area cameras, their phones and a whole lot more and I would think still is.

People reacted over the leak, then the suicide and then lo and behold it got turned in no time flat to being ignored as judge attack occurred distracting from what was a big deal and barely at that point investigated fully and I doubt that stopped. It hasn't just disappeared no matter how much some want it to. Imo. They did the very same thing with the confession. Took them a bit but that's what they did. They get in trouble or their client confesses etc., etc., and they go offense and try to create a big blizzard. The pattern is so obvious. What is pathetic is that so many fall for it and all else is forgotten even if it mattered to them and didn't have answers a moment before. It's clear why they do it as it works.

I know you won't agree but that's fine. I could maybe "except" Rozzi somewhat from this and I am not there either but maybe I could but Baldwin is a given logically and with flat common sense.

Allen is a commodity, nothing more to him/them. Imo.

There are too many things with Baldwin.

I know you'll disagree and not respond and that is fine. Maybe Gull should go too, I don't know. But I am sure the defense should. So just the opposite. No surprise probably lol :)

Hope you and yours had an awesome Christmas and have the best New Year. I am hoping 2024 is a good one for all.
 
What is the status of the request that Prosecution made for Allen's Mental Health record while he was at Westville? The old defence were blocking it so what has happened? Are the new defence supposed to be providing it now? Does anyone know?
 
What is the status of the request that Prosecution made for Allen's Mental Health record while he was at Westville? The old defence were blocking it so what has happened? Are the new defence supposed to be providing it now? Does anyone know?
I don't think much is going on, all is in a holding pattern.

Seems to me Gull actually sided with the defense on that one if I recall. Imagine that for so many who thinks she is biased.

But I can't claim that I'm sure but that's what I seem to recall.
 
Taking another look at the Writ of Mandemus. Did I get the term right? Agh. Anyway. In reading the SC decision to not accept the case, it was because the filing prompted Gull to correct her errors, so no need to pursue it any longer. Their finding also included instructions about sealing this, that, and the other and when it's appropriate. She didn't emerge lily white even though the case was denied.

View attachment 20988
I think Gull published all the documents so this was moot in the end and denied. However, the defence request for the MH records from Westville has not been addressed AFAICS.
 
I think Gull published all the documents so this was moot in the end and denied. However, the defence request for the MH records from Westville has not been addressed AFAICS.
I am pretty sure Gull sided with defense and denied prosecution access. The "appeals'; going on aren't asking for the med records deision as defense hasn't had to provide them and she didn't rule against that, it is prosecution that wants them and prosecution has nothing to do with the appeal/didn't file. I think case as I mentioned is in a holding pattern. New defense, etc. and prosecution are't doing anything much until the other issues are decided in the higher court. Imo.

I will say that it is prosecution that wants mental health records and defense that does not want them provided. I can only guess then they would not benefit Allen but show he is fine..,.
 
I am pretty sure Gull sided with defense and denied prosecution access. The "appeals'; going on aren't asking for the med records deision as defense hasn't had to provide them and she didn't rule against that, it is prosecution that wants them and prosecution has nothing to do with the appeal/didn't file. I think case as I mentioned is in a holding pattern. New defense, etc. and prosecution are't doing anything much until the other issues are decided in the higher court. Imo.

I will say that it is prosecution that wants mental health records and defense that does not want them provided. I can only guess then they would not benefit Allen but show he is fine..,.
If he has confessed though, wouldn't his MH records from jail then be relevant? He is also on suicide watch. And he ate his paperwork. That's not normal is it?
 
The SC hearing on the 18th January is going to be live-streamed. I have lost track whether we knew this or not LOL.

 
If he has confessed though, wouldn't his MH records from jail then be relevant? He is also on suicide watch. And he ate his paperwork. That's not normal is it?
Arghh. I'm no expert but medical records above anything are protected and arguments can be made. As to his confessions, it isn't like that necessarily plays to med records although defense tried to claim (before the O thing) that his mental health or stability played in. If I recall correctly and don't count on it, defense's claims about prison and mental health is why prosecution asked for them to argue it/fight it or see what is true. Again, don't count on me for facts, but I think Gull denied them access. Sided with defense arguments believe it or not. BUT again such records are something as private as anything in trial/life or should be. So I don't know.

But think of like Daybell. Lori went into hospital more than once and said incompetent and then came back restored to competency. We knew that but never had or read the details of her time, diagnoses, treament, drugs given, etc.

I honestly don't know. You'd think in both cases that prosecution would be privy to or be able to see the records if defense claimed such or used as an excuse BUT do they at some point become public then? And they don't' want it in the public? I honestly have no idea. We need a criminal defense attorney on this site or a prosecutor.

I'm sure you could probably look back and find Gull's reasons for denying the prosecution's motion for the records. I do know the best thing you have a chance of keeping private in a case is medical/mental health records. Or the door would have to be opened to them (told that once). One would think the defense claiming some mental health crisis would open them to having to provide to prosecution but they never either claimed outright that he was insane or incompetent (defense).

These are all guesses on my part just based on what any of us have seen in cases and the nonexpert knowledge we have.

Maybe others here have more knowledge and can correct me or know more.

BUT I am pretty sure this is not a pending issue at the moment or in the "appeals".

I will close with saying though that defense tried to use his fragile status as an excuse for the confessions, etc. but fought the records that might prove that being provided to prosecution... So a logical guess would be the records don't support their claim and/or contain things they don't want the other side to see.

Funny isn't it that prosecution has to provide all discovery but no one talks about how the defense doesn't ever have to... Not just this stuff, if a defense does an investigation and maybe some DNA testing, etc. if things prove their client is guilty or likely guilty, has anyone heard of providing such evidence to the prosecution in ANY case.... Both sides are SUPPOSED to...
 
The SC hearing on the 18th January is going to be live-streamed. I have lost track whether we knew this or not LOL.

I did not know it so good to know. Wow I am surprised. I know fed courts do not have to and never do so I figured even a higher state court wouldn't go live.

I am definitely going to watch that one even if I can't do it live, after the fact, I will FIND time somehow.

I'd really like to see how either side does and how well they present and argue and on what basis.

I only would hope Baldwin and Rozzi would speak themselves to see how they fare but believe they are represented just as Gull is. We will see then the arguments, facts one would hope and how each does...
 
I did not know it so good to know. Wow I am surprised. I know fed courts do not have to and never do so I figured even a higher state court wouldn't go live.

I am definitely going to watch that one even if I can't do it live, after the fact, I will FIND time somehow.

I'd really like to see how either side does and how well they present and argue and on what basis.

I only would hope Baldwin and Rozzi would speak themselves to see how they fare but believe they are represented just as Gull is. We will see then the arguments, facts one would hope and how each does...
So will Gull be there on one side and the old D on the other with a SC judge on the bench? I am guessing the new D will not be there unless to observe? It will be a good one to watch.
 
So will Gull be there on one side and the old D on the other with a SC judge on the bench? I am guessing the new D will not be there unless to observe? It will be a good one to watch.
I guess so, not sure. Iti s generally arguments by the lawyers in higher courts. Not sure if the clients have to be there or not...?

I don't think new D would be but there is another side or whatever they call those other filings, is that being addressed here? Like I think the Public Defender's or new D filed something saying she "fired" them wrongly and "hired" new ones in the wrong process when there is a way it is to be done and she did not do it for lack of better words to explain it.

Like when media files a motion in a case, they are not a party but they can file, I believe the PD group filed something so a third thing/group may be present and allowed to argue...?

I readily admit I don't know a lot about it, a little but not a lot. For some reason I don't think the client necessarily has to be there... I could be wrong though.

The bit I know is of ours (we had one but it never ended up in oral arguments) but our loss got overturned on further appeal and of course historic cases one has seen movies about or watched like Rowe vs. Wade. on the fed level. And federal cases never have cameras/live.

Oh and mentioning ours, the outcome/decision here is not necessarily the end of this appeal.

I am not swearing to anything but I truly don't know. I am surprised if it will be aired live but happy it will. It's a good sign imo an in my opinion it keeps things honest and shows hopefully they want no one to wonder about the outcome and we can judge the arguments and process for ourselves.

I can't recall which dates exactly but I took a few days off at the end of the month into a day or two of Feb so I am HOPING I might actually be off to see this live if nothing comes up in life to interfere (which always seems to :( )
 
Pretty sure client does not have to be present at all. I don't expect Allen to be there for instance. And not just because the appeal is more about the lawyers than him and their dismissal but I don't think he will be there. Again, I don't think the clients have to be.

I am more than willing for someone who knows more to correct me if wrong.
 
I guess so, not sure. Iti s generally arguments by the lawyers in higher courts. Not sure if the clients have to be there or not...?

I don't think new D would be but there is another side or whatever they call those other filings, is that being addressed here? Like I think the Public Defender's or new D filed something saying she "fired" them wrongly and "hired" new ones in the wrong process when there is a way it is to be done and she did not do it for lack of better words to explain it.

Like when media files a motion in a case, they are not a party but they can file, I believe the PD group filed something so a third thing/group may be present and allowed to argue...?

I readily admit I don't know a lot about it, a little but not a lot. For some reason I don't think the client necessarily has to be there... I could be wrong though.

The bit I know is of ours (we had one but it never ended up in oral arguments) but our loss got overturned on further appeal and of course historic cases one has seen movies about or watched like Rowe vs. Wade. on the fed level. And federal cases never have cameras/live.

Oh and mentioning ours, the outcome/decision here is not necessarily the end of this appeal.

I am not swearing to anything but I truly don't know. I am surprised if it will be aired live but happy it will. It's a good sign imo an in my opinion it keeps things honest and shows hopefully they want no one to wonder about the outcome and we can judge the arguments and process for ourselves.

I can't recall which dates exactly but I took a few days off at the end of the month into a day or two of Feb so I am HOPING I might actually be off to see this live if nothing comes up in life to interfere (which always seems to :( )
It's not the end of the month - it is on the 18th Jan. It's the Murdaugh hearing that is at the end of the month on the 29th.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,564
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom