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:
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.
Yes, mixing up the main cases I TRY to keep up on lol. I thought I was talking Murdaugh. Darn it. I am actually off the 18th for this one but won't see the Murdaugh one live as it is a Monday and I know i won't have that off. So opposite of what I thought for time off.

Oh well, both unique and interesting, one a state supreme court and arguments and the other a merits hearing on jury tampering, new trial, etc.

I will definitely watch at some point, hopefully I get time to do that but by the time I do with Murdaugh, I will likely have already heard from comments the gist of what happened/stood out. I really would like to see both live.

My schedule is royally messed up due to the holidays. It is not all bad as for instance I ended up with four days off in a week. I just had two off, I work today and then have the next two off. Boy after more than a year, i can use it let me tell you. It is because I worked Christmas Eve and more so I was given both days of New Year's off plus also got my regular two days off. But then going until past mid January, I don't get my usual days off, only one here and here where normally I have two in a row. It takes awhile to straighten back out. Right to the dates of this hearing actually, that Thurs and Fri is the first time in Jan I am back to normal. These four days off are great but then I pay for it by not having two in a row until later in January. Sigh.
 
Does this mean she is off the Delphi case? Sideways promotion ?
I don't think so, she could still serve I'm sure as could any judge put on it or any other case, regardless of what other position they hold but I'm no expert but that's what I'd think. I see it more as showing a a rock solid belief in her and her experience and abilities that she has likely earned and it comes right before the upcoming arguments at the State Supreme Court but likely would have come anyhow.

I think it should be remembered that to date this woman has been found guilty of nothing and she has had an outstanding record up until this point and still does. Despite all the smoke and mirrors, she isn't facing some removal from the bench.

There is a real issue raised as to the defendant's right to counsel of his choice, HOWEVER, there are things in this case imo that also don't make that clear cut by a long shot and also a need to protect him from that very counsel, as well as other issues and they are not private paid attorneys and never were.

All of the hub bub and smoke and mirrors have tried to muddy it all but Gull is on the bench, has been on the bench for years and I am pretty sure will remain a judge regardless of what happens.

I see your thought and point but I don't think it plays in. I think if left on the case she would still have the "promotion" and if she does not remain on the case she will as well. That's my guess anyhow.
 
Ok well not long till the 18th.
This is one of a few things in cases I hope to see this month and this is the one on a day I do not work so I might actually see it live IF I remember.

Even though it will be argued on the 18th, I'm sure there will be no rushed decision that day so Gull will remain on the case until there is one and very well may remain on it then too, depending on what they decide.

It's interesting how all he hue and cry out there just stopped at a certain point. There's nary a soul and hasn't been in some time going on about Gull, Odinists or RA sitting in prison and so on. I think there's a reason for that. Oh I'm sure when more news comes, some will get back to it but the reason for it at the moment is gone. It did not work and so it is debatable if it will come back as strong.

Anyhow, I think it highly unlikely is or will be in any real trouble. Nothing she nor her reasons call for such. I don't know what they will do re reinstating the defense attorneys or not but don't think they found enough solid reason in the filings to agree such needed to be done or they wouldn't be having arguments. If they do, will they think it best the two not be on the case together? I kind of doubt that too, I think they'd remand it back to the lower court where defense could have went through he appropriate avenue to request a different judge. I think the fact they didn't ever do such will play in at some point. Anyhow, these are my thoughts as best as I understand it all anyhow.

The whole claimed exigent circumstances and need for a rushed and immediate decision and intervention and pressure by some of the masses did no good. This is no life and death situation. It makes me remember the Schivo case in Florida where it was life and death and the husband wanting to pull the plug (I THINK it was Florida anyhow) and where it was often of course worried whether the higher court would come down in time AND it makes me think of appeals with death row inmates awaiting appeal decisions and last minute governor interventions. Those things are life and death situations. Richard Allen's situation is not despite the attempts to try to put it on a part with such things/life and death situations.

Just some thoughts this early morn on a case that has went entirely silent for the moment.
 
Screenshots of pages I found particularly relevant. I've been screeching about this prison situation forever.
 

Attachments

  • 20240112_132731.jpg
    20240112_132731.jpg
    52.4 KB · Views: 4
  • 20240112_132744.jpg
    20240112_132744.jpg
    41 KB · Views: 5
  • 20240112_132759.jpg
    20240112_132759.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 5
  • 20240112_132812.jpg
    20240112_132812.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 5
Well I'm sure you won't like it and we won't agree but is this something new first of all? And is this the filing by Old D back when or a new filing as they reference the first two weeks Allen had no rec time and only got one or two showers or some such.

And it is a motion not an order clearly.

Saw it recently in what case was it, Adelson maybe, that if they want or have issues with the housing facility it is not up to the court anyhow, it is up to you to first deal with the warden or sheriff and the jail administration.

My memory could be wrong on this with the other cases also in mind but I believe Old D has pretty much been told this by IN SC. You go to the judge first for remedy or you file to substitute her and for this stuff you deal with the holding facility. Actually I think that last part I got from another couple of recent cases but regardless, Old D doesn't even know how to follow.

So is this from them and is it old? I guess I should go look at the whole thing but I only looked at the pages you put up.

I also don't find a thing in the first two weeks odd as they assess and get him into the system, etc. It was that part that led me to believe this is the old motion unless they redid it anew but added that old initial stuff.

You know what, let's just put him in Carroll County jail. And as a regular inmate and watch the complaints then. OR hire someone to house him and watch him exclusively and give the county money to do so and then let's watch them complain how he is isolated.

I should go look at the entire link for the last page and date as I doubt this is new. If it is, who filed it and who with? Did new D file it? I doubt it as it is comments from first person. "I have never" etc.

As always, not at your or anyone, just asking real questions about what this is and what it contains as when I first saw this I thought it as some new news.
 
I think some things bear repeating in this case. Allen placed himself at the trail long, long ago. Long before an O talk. A bullet or casing was found with the girls years and years ago. Years later it matched to Allen's gun which he admitted own, said no one else ever used or had control of, etc. Also found long before any talk of Os or anything else.

Add to that Allen confessed. Repeatedly.

Not a thing about all the fluff and puff and smoke or smoke screens or divert the topic and change the subject or attention changes ANY of that nor can they. Add to that we don't know all.
 
Well I'm sure you won't like it and we won't agree but is this something new first of all? And is this the filing by Old D back when or a new filing as they reference the first two weeks Allen had no rec time and only got one or two showers or some such.

And it is a motion not an order clearly.

Saw it recently in what case was it, Adelson maybe, that if they want or have issues with the housing facility it is not up to the court anyhow, it is up to you to first deal with the warden or sheriff and the jail administration.

My memory could be wrong on this with the other cases also in mind but I believe Old D has pretty much been told this by IN SC. You go to the judge first for remedy or you file to substitute her and for this stuff you deal with the holding facility. Actually I think that last part I got from another couple of recent cases but regardless, Old D doesn't even know how to follow.

So is this from them and is it old? I guess I should go look at the whole thing but I only looked at the pages you put up.

I also don't find a thing in the first two weeks odd as they assess and get him into the system, etc. It was that part that led me to believe this is the old motion unless they redid it anew but added that old initial stuff.

You know what, let's just put him in Carroll County jail. And as a regular inmate and watch the complaints then. OR hire someone to house him and watch him exclusively and give the county money to do so and then let's watch them complain how he is isolated.

I should go look at the entire link for the last page and date as I doubt this is new. If it is, who filed it and who with? Did new D file it? I doubt it as it is comments from first person. "I have never" etc.

As always, not at your or anyone, just asking real questions about what this is and what it contains as when I first saw this I thought it as some new news.
I think you should look at the screenshots. Your questions are answered there.
 
Screenshots of pages I found particularly relevant. I've been screeching about this prison situation forever.

Thanks RoundPeg:

If you haven't already, you might like to read the investigator's affidavit that accompanies the Motion as an exhibit - link here and see the 4 affidavit pages:



that affidavit is brutal!
 
Last edited:
New D's affidavit:
Allen's been drugged, he doesn't even know what or why he's been drugged.

IMO, biggest challenge to his phone "confessions":
RA's counsel can/will assert RA was drugged, under duress, distraught and phone tapes should not be admitted.
If they're admitted ... and he was medicated/sedated while on the calls ... and then he's found guilty ... prosecution risks immediate appellate overturn.

JHMO
 
New D's affidavit:
Allen's been drugged, he doesn't even know what or why he's been drugged.

IMO, biggest challenge to his phone "confessions":
RA's counsel can/will assert RA was drugged, under duress, distraught and phone tapes should not be admitted.
If they're admitted ... and he was medicated/sedated while on the calls ... and then he's found guilty ... prosecution risks immediate appellate overturn.

JHMO
His assertion he is being drugged is shocking, if true.
 
that New D adopts the Old D's Franks Memo & Exhibits, O-Theory, Prison O-theory, Old D's previous motion with regard to moving RA from prison
:cowcouch:

IMO:
Looks like this motion from New D is setting up yet another appeal avenue for RA - immediate habeaus corpus perhaps.
And a 6th Amendment complaint post-verdict on appeal.
Unless Gull's game is to hand over to D yet another sure-appellate court decision-overturn due to 6th Amendment rights violation ...
one logical solution for the Court (Gull for now) and the Trial (whoever replaces Gull) would be to reverse herself.

eg:
Gull orders RA the heck outta state prison and into a county facility. ASAP.
That deflates a 6th amendment complaint via an immediate habeus corpus hearing.
It's more important to preserve the Trial Verdict than to preserve Gull.
After reversing herself, Gull will have a noble recusal opportunity, due to the appearance of bias against RA (and his Old D) and their earlier request to get RA the same relief for the same issue.

Hey, a girl can dream. :dreaming:
 
His assertion he is being drugged is shocking, if true.
I don't think it's weird he's being drugged so much as it's weird he's being drugged without consult, consent and understanding from a doctor - the purpose and the benefits. And he feels he doesn't recognize the meds from day to day - they change.
Defense will get to the bottom of it, especially now that they've asserted it on his behalf in their motion - they're obligated to do that, I would think. JMHO
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,570
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom