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:
A lot to discuss but I am going to have to watch it again to point out all the things I noted and doubt I'll get time.

Imo they cut through the defense b.s. big time.

RA is ONLY advised and BY his old d when he claims to know what he is doing choosing them. THAT was a point that has long needed to be made. Of course he chooses them when they give their story to him and are the only ones telling him.
 
IMO RA prevailed and the Old D is being reinstated. (Likely with instruction to the Court about how that happens.)
Also, IMO - this Court was prepared in advance - based on papers - that they would reinstate the Old D, finding for RA on that request.

The Court (IMO) indicated their concern that Gull's actions/lack of proper hearing process - followed by her dismissal of Old D - created structural error(s).
(Structural errors typically lead to automatic reversals of convictions because they compromise the fundamental fairness and integrity of the trial process. )

(SCOIN even thanked the AG repping Gull for all he does supporting all judges in the State ... but ... the Court said ... not this one - we (the SCOIN) will take this one.)

IMO, we will see an immediate ruling, they've already written a quick decision ... and they have the option of ruling, getting speedy trial back on track, and later provide a longer brief.

If I'm correct here, Abby and Libby's opportunity for justice here, and the decision resulting under RA's trial, has been preserved - at least from the very heartbreaking outcome of automatic reversal due to structural error.

As I've been saying all along, the very best thing for Abby and Libby and their families is for this higher court to rule against Gull's violation of due process.

The SCOIN spent little to no time hearing argument on RA's final request to remove Gull. Depending on the ruling and how far SCOIN goes, it seems to me they may rely on Gull to take their decision regarding structural error and move forward with their instructions on resetting and mitigating that error.

However, SCOIN comments IMO - also indicate they do not agree with Gull's finding of gross negligence/incompetence -based upon her papers. So will they also rule on her finding there? It's a question, have to wait to see.

IMO - Here's the LEAST that SCOIN will rule on : SCOIN - for that critical structural reason - will rule there needs to be a rewind/reset and the hearing to remove Old D process needs to be followed.

Playing it out in my head...
It will be interesting to see if SCOIN determines a reset for the entire cast of characters to go back in time (roll back) and hold a gross negligence hearing ...
OR ...
if SCOIN goes further and rules that Gull's finding of gross negligence was incorrect ... thus overruling her finding.

If the reset involves rolling everything back to holding a gross negligence hearing, IMO, SCOIN may instruct exactly how to make that hearing unprejudiced (because SCOIN acknowledged that Gull's mind is clearly made up about the Old D.) That may involve a temporary judge for a gross negligence/incompetence hearing. :thinking:

Gotta go hide again from the arrows on this thread.

:cowcouch: JMHO
 
Last edited:
IMO RA prevailed and the Old D is being reinstated. (Likely with instruction to the Court about how that happens.)
Also, IMO - this Court was prepared in advance - based on papers - that they would reinstate the Old D, finding for RA on that request.

The Court (IMO) indicated their concern that Gull's actions/lack of proper hearing process - followed by her dismissal of Old D - created structural error(s).
(Structural errors typically lead to automatic reversals of convictions because they compromise the fundamental fairness and integrity of the trial process. )

(SCOIN even thanked the AG repping Gull for all he does supporting all judges in the State ... but ... the Court said ... not this one - we (the SCOIN) will take this one.)

IMO, we will see an immediate ruling, they've already written a quick decision ... and they have the option of ruling, getting speedy trial back on track, and later provide a longer brief.

If I'm correct here, Abby and Libby's opportunity for justice here, and the decision resulting under RA's trial, has been preserved - at least from the very heartbreaking outcome of automatic reversal due to structural error.

As I've been saying all along, the very best thing for Abby and Libby and their families is for this higher court to rule against Gull's violation of due process.

The SCOIN spent little to no time hearing argument on RA's final request to remove Gull. Depending on the ruling and how far SCOIN goes, it seems to me they may rely on Gull to take their decision regarding structural error and move forward with their instructions on resetting and mitigating that error.

However, SCOIN comments IMO - also indicate they do not agree with Gull's finding of gross negligence/incompetence -based upon her papers. So will they also rule on her finding there? It's a question, have to wait to see.

IMO - Here's the LEAST that SCOIN will rule on : SCOIN - for that critical structural reason - will rule there needs to be a rewind/reset and the hearing to remove Old D process needs to be followed.

Playing it out in my head...
It will be interesting to see if SCOIN determines a reset for the entire cast of characters to go back in time (roll back) and hold a gross negligence hearing ...
OR ...
if SCOIN goes further and rules that Gull's finding of gross negligence was incorrect ... thus overruling her finding.

If the reset involves rolling everything back to holding a gross negligence hearing, IMO, SCOIN may instruct exactly how to make that hearing unprejudiced (because SCOIN acknowledged that Gull's mind is clearly made up about the Old D.) That may involve a temporary judge for a gross negligence/incompetence hearing. :thinking:

Gotta go hide again from the arrows on this thread.

:cowcouch: JMHO
I just got home so haven't watched it. Lots of opinions I'm reading agree with yours.

Fair trials are absolutely critical for justice.
 
You can even bring in the Mafia and the MS13 group as well as the Irish if you like, it won't change the facts that RA was the only adult male on the trail at the specific time of the abduction and murders and was seen by witnesses, who he also admits he saw, and was caught on camera by Libby's phone. And he admitted he was on that trail and has since confessed that he committed the murders. Nothing is going to change those facts.

I expect the P will argue exactly these things!

Because LE believed BG could very well be many other previous suspects over 5 years ... IMO, the most important part of that video is that it locks in timeline evidence, solidly documents that THIS is when the kidnapping/murder sequence begun. Libby says "gun" (although we've not heard that, it's documented).

I would think, we'd see eyewitnesses agree with the footage being the guy they saw on the trail, and the guy they saw on the trail to be RA - in a personal ID of RA on the stand. Assuming that all comes together, and witnesses and video experts survive cross ... it's gonna be very powerful.

I'm always reminded when talking about BG on video ... that we haven't seen/heard anything official about the other 40 seconds of that video evidence... except that Libby says "gun".
 
I thought the second guy (the one for Judge Gull) was excellent and he had answers for everything and knew the precedents.

The first guy for Old D seemed to make a big deal about speedy trial and ineffective counsel and trying to relate that to the case.

Nothing at all was mentioned about the suicide outcome of one of the leakers or the charges against Mitch Westerman.

Based on precedent I think they will rule that Gull was within her power to ask them to back down from the case. They made a point that it could have been dealt with at trial court but it wasn't really explained why they brought it to the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
I just got home so haven't watched it. Lots of opinions I'm reading agree with yours.

Fair trials are absolutely critical for justice.
Adding ... b/c I didn't mean to forget to point out, that IMO, the SCOIN seemed very very concerned about speedy trial.
SCOIN seemed not to buy Gull's argument that RA's attnys advised verbally but technically didn't paper-file for one before Gull told them to quit working for RA (oct 10?).

IMO ... I think it's another important consideration for SCOIN b/c a Speedy trial denial would be another structural error ... FWIW.

Another interesting exchange or 2:
RA's appellate lawyer said that RA's trial lawyers - Old D - were in a position to slam the P with a speedy trial the P was obviously not ready for ... and they've already lost that advantage. That was kind of a jaw-dropper disclosure for me, but ... SCOIN just nodded ... as to agree that - of course - catching the P without enough time to prepare ... is a normal D strategy.

That SCOIN comment happened as SCOIN interrupted the AG's first argument.
AG was arguing the SCOIN venue was wrong and RA's appeal belonged in a lower court so SCOIN shouldn't hear it. (Odd b/c SCOIN already decided - after reading the papers - to do all this work to prep for this hearing ... and out of the gate AG is arguing "we shouldn't be here". To me that seemed awkward. LOL. But likely, Gull's AG was arguing the hypotheticals of SCOIN hearing "a case such as this one" ... for the record ... which would burden SCOIN with future inappropriate Writs being submitted at the wrong appellate level.

Most remarkable - that SCOIN then interrupted the AG's above venue argument and basically said: SCOIN appreciates your years of service having the backs of all Indiana Judiciary ... but ... on this one ... we'll take it from here.

I sensed a ton of unspoken inside-baseball stuff going on under that backwards complement to the AG. :thinking:
 
Interesting. The prosecution amended charges today. Added kidnapping.





Wow, thanks RoundPeg.

Couple of things to ponder here:

1) Does a kidnapping charge allow the jury to find that lesser charge without a doubt, but to the murder part ... the jury could find doubt?

2) - more obvious to me - this filing at this time, before SCOIN rules - as a STRATEGY ... seeks to firm up 9 months for the P to prepare, regardless of a potential SCOIN decision to rewind, reinstate the Old D and proceed to speedy trial.

3) - I think this puts Death Penalty on the table. Before it was sort of murky and as I recall - that part was confusing. Something new to plea about?

Looks to me like #2 - the P is also moving for more time for trial in the event the Old D is reinstalled. Just my immediate take and JMHO.

JMHO and a super quick read.
 
Last edited:
Wow, thanks RoundPeg.

Couple of things to ponder here:

1) Does a kidnapping charge allow the jury to find that lesser charge without a doubt, but to the murder part ... the jury could find doubt?

2) - more obvious to me - this filing at this time, before SCOIN rules - as a STRATEGY ... seeks to firm up 9 months for the P to prepare, regardless of a potential SCOIN decision to rewind, reinstate the Old D and proceed to speedy trial.

3) - I think this puts Death Penalty on the table. Before it was sort of murky and as I recall - that part was confusing. Something new to plea about?

Looks to me like #2 - the P is also moving for more time for trial in the event the Old D is reinstalled. Just my immediate take and JMHO.

JMHO and a super quick read.
I think option 3. Murder with the special circumstance of kidnapping.

Also, @Olenna I'm still waiting on info regarding "fires" set by white supremacists in the Delphi area. I'm not familiar with that aspect at all.
 
IMO RA prevailed and the Old D is being reinstated. (Likely with instruction to the Court about how that happens.)
Also, IMO - this Court was prepared in advance - based on papers - that they would reinstate the Old D, finding for RA on that request.

The Court (IMO) indicated their concern that Gull's actions/lack of proper hearing process - followed by her dismissal of Old D - created structural error(s).
(Structural errors typically lead to automatic reversals of convictions because they compromise the fundamental fairness and integrity of the trial process. )

(SCOIN even thanked the AG repping Gull for all he does supporting all judges in the State ... but ... the Court said ... not this one - we (the SCOIN) will take this one.)

IMO, we will see an immediate ruling, they've already written a quick decision ... and they have the option of ruling, getting speedy trial back on track, and later provide a longer brief.

If I'm correct here, Abby and Libby's opportunity for justice here, and the decision resulting under RA's trial, has been preserved - at least from the very heartbreaking outcome of automatic reversal due to structural error.

As I've been saying all along, the very best thing for Abby and Libby and their families is for this higher court to rule against Gull's violation of due process.

The SCOIN spent little to no time hearing argument on RA's final request to remove Gull. Depending on the ruling and how far SCOIN goes, it seems to me they may rely on Gull to take their decision regarding structural error and move forward with their instructions on resetting and mitigating that error.

However, SCOIN comments IMO - also indicate they do not agree with Gull's finding of gross negligence/incompetence -based upon her papers. So will they also rule on her finding there? It's a question, have to wait to see.

IMO - Here's the LEAST that SCOIN will rule on : SCOIN - for that critical structural reason - will rule there needs to be a rewind/reset and the hearing to remove Old D process needs to be followed.

Playing it out in my head...
It will be interesting to see if SCOIN determines a reset for the entire cast of characters to go back in time (roll back) and hold a gross negligence hearing ...
OR ...
if SCOIN goes further and rules that Gull's finding of gross negligence was incorrect ... thus overruling her finding.

If the reset involves rolling everything back to holding a gross negligence hearing, IMO, SCOIN may instruct exactly how to make that hearing unprejudiced (because SCOIN acknowledged that Gull's mind is clearly made up about the Old D.) That may involve a temporary judge for a gross negligence/incompetence hearing. :thinking:

Gotta go hide again from the arrows on this thread.

:cowcouch: JMHO
Which hearing did YOU watch? I think they MAY stay and it may be remanded to remove them by evidentiary hearing on the reasons why.

The speedy trial thing is especially iffy since one was never filed for.

They asked a LOT of questions of D's attorney as to a judge's authority.

I do agree it may be sent back to have the hearing that B & R hightailed it out the back door over, etc. and any further hearings.

I think we saw the higher court blow through the defense b.s. quite effectively. Their attorney almost melted imo and was not great on the spot. He was told pretty continually he could not have it both ways.

The other side's attorney was very prepared and great on his feet with answers to questions thrown and citations and knowledge of the cases and D's atty had little of that.

I don't know what they will do but there will be no ruination of Gull like you wish. The record was clearly though I admit an issue. That however was also used against the defense with constant questions of the defense claiming they can't show this or that because of no record but then they can say this or that or claim this or that despite having no record? Those were GOOD questions on that issue.

There were a lot of questions and inference that she does have the authority and discretion to do as she did.

I'm fine with a total reset or remanding it back to the parties BUT I think it should result in B & R being ousted for all the reasons they had ready. B & R should not be representing Allen and the ISC touched on the number of issues ongoing related to them as well in their questions. I personally would like to hear them all as well as details of the investigation.

One thing has become clear to me. I FEEL about Old D/B & R as you do about Gull. They flat out disgust me.

On the other hand, they may even affirm her right to rid them of their representation and state that nothing stopped them from proceeding to that hearing that day but themselves and their choice.

It will likely be sent back as I predicted before we saw this. Who knows though.

D's attorney even took attitude towards the justices, acted as if he knew better and was TELLING them and INFORMING them they were wrong. Wow.

I personally didn't think he did anything effective. He started out seeming composed but it didn't last long.

It doesn't matter though as they aren't going to rule based on that lucky for him.

There was also a LOT said about ineffective counsel appeals claims IF the two should remain.

I'm not going to go back and rewatch it right now, but there was a lot more in this than you are taking it down to.

And you know what? I don't think Old D wanted that hearing or want one now. So if that's where it goes, bring it on.

One of the best points made was that RA and his opinion/decision is second hand info. This ALONE is the worst and scariest part of all of this. RA has/had ONLY Old D to listen to and no other avenue, outlet, information or advice other than from those two with their own tails to save. I also think they had a fit at him, "handled" him after his confessions. Contrary to popular belief, this is scary and unfair to Allen. He needs to be informed of ALL.

B & R did not want to proceed to court that day for reasons we don't know yet imo.

Well, we shall see and if remanded that will be interesting.

I do not think they will win on the speedy trial thing. They never asked for one.

I don't care if there is a document signed by RA in August, they did not file it and even could have made it after the fact. With no filing date,it is just a document that proves nothing other than what one side would claim as to intent or date of signing.

I watched Tom and it was interesting to watch chat. If the public is representative of a jury then OH BOY as there are some that can't see a thing clearly. Smoke and mirrors work for some I guess. However, others thankfully see it all as clear as day.
 
You can even bring in the Mafia and the MS13 group as well as the Irish if you like, it won't change the facts that RA was the only adult male on the trail at the specific time of the abduction and murders and was seen by witnesses, who he also admits he saw, and was caught on camera by Libby's phone. And he admitted he was on that trail and has since confessed that he committed the murders. Nothing is going to change those facts.
Lol very good points. And very true.

They can't remove him for all of this bluster and trouble and chaos they've caused AND they can't place the Os or even the Irish there. You are doing what I constantly talk about, remove the blizzard, the storms, the b.s. and the smoke and mirrors and dial back to the basic facts and there ya have it.

I myself have had to clear out the b.s. look at timing and reason and take it back to the bare bones as they try to sn*w the whole thing.

It's downright scary how fast some can believe a TON of various explanations for many things (too many) and conclude a conspiracy. With a man who WAS there admittedly. And so much more.

I'm still waiting for the girls and women on the trail, etc. to come and say now that you mention it, there was this bunch of Os we forgot we saw...

I will debate it somewhat nicely but it is all so ludicrous I sit while I do and shake my head at it and despair for mankind and logic.
 
I expect the P will argue exactly these things!

Because LE believed BG could very well be many other previous suspects over 5 years ... IMO, the most important part of that video is that it locks in timeline evidence, solidly documents that THIS is when the kidnapping/murder sequence begun. Libby says "gun" (although we've not heard that, it's documented).

I would think, we'd see eyewitnesses agree with the footage being the guy they saw on the trail, and the guy they saw on the trail to be RA - in a personal ID of RA on the stand. Assuming that all comes together, and witnesses and video experts survive cross ... it's gonna be very powerful.

I'm always reminded when talking about BG on video ... that we haven't seen/heard anything official about the other 40 seconds of that video evidence... except that Libby says "gun".
I think Abby said gun but it doesn't matter who, one of them did. Was it Libby?

I think the public made BG to be far more possible subjects through the years than LE ever likely did. LE and the family disabused the public of the notions many a time when they compared this guy or that guy that was just arrested in another county for child SA etc and compared each to BG.

I almost hope the other seconds of that recording is Libby or the girls putting it all together... That isn't HOT GUY SHOTZ, that's that creepy old pharm drug dude from CVS who always shows up in whatever aisle you and I are shopping in. Man would I love to see evidence like that. Of course that isn't what it is or an arrest would have happened long before....

Tom was saying or speculating today that Allen confessed right after his attorneys showed up with a lot of paperwork and evidence and he theorizes he saw something in it that he knew made him done for and showed that his wife also would not believe him when she saw it, etc. and so on. He knew he was done for and called and confessed when he saw whatever it was. I'm not sure on that but it is what Webster speculates... So in a way his own D caused his confessions...

As far as the rest of the video/sound recording, I think most likely it has disturbing comments by the perp to the girls or screams and fear of the girls. It may even be just a lot of rustling noise and no voices after that but I DOUBT it as why not release it if innocuous?
 
So there could be 5 outcomes with most likely at top, least likely at bottom IMO

They send it back to lower court to decide. They made a big thing of that.

Old D go and Gull stays (status quo).

Both Old D and Gull stay.

Both Old D and Gull go.

Old D stay and Gull goes.

FIrst time ever I have seen a Supreme Court in session. They don't mess around, do they? I love that they time limit them.
 
Interesting. The prosecution amended charges today. Added kidnapping.




Wow. That is VERY interesting. So is the remark that trying such charges is at least nine months away giving defense time to prepare.

Why now and not before... New evidence or results? Hmm.

I have a thing about timing but it generally is on the other side but one has to admit the timing here is interesting...
 
I think Abby said gun but it doesn't matter who, one of them did. Was it Libby?

I think the public made BG to be far more possible subjects through the years than LE ever likely did. LE and the family disabused the public of the notions many a time when they compared this guy or that guy that was just arrested in another county for child SA etc and compared each to BG.

I almost hope the other seconds of that recording is Libby or the girls putting it all together... That isn't HOT GUY SHOTZ, that's that creepy old pharm drug dude from CVS who always shows up in whatever aisle you and I are shopping in. Man would I love to see evidence like that. Of course that isn't what it is or an arrest would have happened long before....

Tom was saying or speculating today that Allen confessed right after his attorneys showed up with a lot of paperwork and evidence and he theorizes he saw something in it that he knew made him done for and showed that his wife also would not believe him when she saw it, etc. and so on. He knew he was done for and called and confessed when he saw whatever it was. I'm not sure on that but it is what Webster speculates... So in a way his own D caused his confessions...

As far as the rest of the video/sound recording, I think most likely it has disturbing comments by the perp to the girls or screams and fear of the girls. It may even be just a lot of rustling noise and no voices after that but I DOUBT it as why not release it if innocuous?
I bet it was the bullet and the underwear. In that paperwork I posted the other day it states the bullet was poking out of the ground between the bodies and an article of underwear was missing.
 
I thought the second guy (the one for Judge Gull) was excellent and he had answers for everything and knew the precedents.

The first guy for Old D seemed to make a big deal about speedy trial and ineffective counsel and trying to relate that to the case.

Nothing at all was mentioned about the suicide outcome of one of the leakers or the charges against Mitch Westerman.

Based on precedent I think they will rule that Gull was within her power to ask them to back down from the case. They made a point that it could have been dealt with at trial court but it wasn't really explained why they brought it to the Supreme Court.
Second guy was excellent. Prepared, could think on his feet, not rattled ever, etc. Agree. And knew every case put to him the details and the precedents.

Guy for Old D melted imo and then became almost hostile and argumentative.

I think there also is a chance they will leave it. Much was asked about a judge's authority and discretion and pretty much told to first guy he couldn't have the things both ways either.

Yet I suspect they well may send it back to finish out. To hit a happy medium and because there was not a hearing EVEN THOUGH Old D themselves decided that and hightailed it out of the back door concerned I suspect on what they had on them and what would be shown.
 
Not surprised by this, as I had just read and mentioned that yesterday in the Affidavit that I linked yesterday. Of course it does beg the question "to where was he planning to take them?"
Kidnapping could be as simple as controlling them from the point he took over.

However, one of my theories that I can't quite let go of is this was a grander scheme, it was sexual, it was pedo/s and the plan was more than how it went.

Timing is interesting one has to admit.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,551
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom