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'm guessing it's as simple as he took them by force from where they were to where they were found. That's kidnapping.
I agree that is all it may be. But then why not charge it back when?

It's really hard in this case to exclude a bigger plan or movement. They weren't found the first night. Much talk in the beginning about all that.

But really why not charge kidnapping a year ago?
 
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:
I will agree that the AG rep atty. was different than either side's attorney and there were undercurrents perhaps. Let's just be real and say politics most likely.

As to some of your other stuff, I don't agree at all and feel we watched different hearings. Did you notice the difference at all in each justice's questions and (perceived) positions and focus? We all know when they do hand down a decision it may be unanimous and it may be two versus three, etc. I think it bears pointing that out. Again too, politics which imo should NEVER play into justice an right and wrong but it sure does these days.

You kind of have rose colored glasses. OR want to just influence with a narrative and I don't mean that in a bad way. Our own state supreme court has had what I'd call a coup go on, dirty and illegal in the past months but let's just remember one side or another appoints justices and I think that bears pointing out. And an AG is elected as well. And our system sucks in the sense most elected officials feel they need to BACK their BACKERS that got them into office. I know it is a bit of a sidetrack but it makes it hard to trust justice as that isn't first and foremost with SOME/MANY.

So as to to the ISC, and the AG, well my first guess would be politics. As you say, insider stuff. And that's our world today and it comes before justice.

How far any will go though is the question. So many are run by others it isn't even funny. Quite honestly I feel power and politics in the entire Old D and Gull and DA play by plays.

You know I think Allen guilty and don't hold great concern for him but even so, when his own attorneys and others have an agenda, that is not fair to a defendant EVEN when it would seem to be on his behalf. It isn't.

I don't want to talk politics but one has to realize they exist majorly in our justice system and I think that's a huge problem.
 
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.
They wouldn't have to be tried at the same time would they?

However they could be and charges or alternate charges in my state can be added right up to the time of trial. Meaning if you want to charge first degree murder, right before trial they can add second degree for choices by the jury as to what was proven or can be agreed on...

I'm big on timing of things that are done/happen but usually it is to the other side of cases and not the P side.

The timing is interesting to say the least...
 
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.
I didn't get to go all the way back so didn't see that. The man fire talked of was in Flora. Is that what she means? There's no evidence of any such thing.

I too think it possible this may be a DP move... With adding special circumstance or aggravating factor.
 
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.
I agree with your outcomes and order of them.

I've seen SC stuff before but it has been a long time. I probably saw US SC the last I ever had one I could watch and did. I don't care if you are even a lawyer who knows a justice or two it is daunting to appear before the panel, argue and face the time limits imo. And in this one, televised no less.
 
I agree that is all it may be. But then why not charge it back when?

It's really hard in this case to exclude a bigger plan or movement. They weren't found the first night. Much talk in the beginning about all that.

But really why not charge kidnapping a year ago?

A guess:
Possibly due to McL's inexperience; The P, McL was recently joined by a more seasoned asst Prosecutor.
 
I agree that is all it may be. But then why not charge it back when?

It's really hard in this case to exclude a bigger plan or movement. They weren't found the first night. Much talk in the beginning about all that.

But really why not charge kidnapping a year ago?
Kidnapping charge maybe required the ejector mark evidence which they probably had to wait for.
 
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 think so too/think there is more. One has to read between the lines in defense filings. They put out what IS NOT THERE or they don't have but don't mention what they do have. I think it likely RA panicked at seeing something they did have. And confessed due to that or due to pressure from wife, etc. And I think Old D went all out to get warrant dismissed for a similar reason and of course had to pull out all stops due to confessions.

I honestly think his D failed him. They left him adrift not doing their job with no one until they HAD to do damage control.

The "other side" I think thinks I don't care about defendant's rights but I do, not over victim's rights or to excess or over what they are meant to be but I do. I HONESTLY don't think Allen is in good hands with them.

But back to evidence. It is counterintuitive but I have to remind myself always to look at what isn't said or shared. For instance every defense filing is only going to highlight things that help them and they are going to leave out things that would do the opposite.

We don't know what more there is in this case but D does and Allen definitely does as to evidence, things defense never mentioned. Like underwear, physical photographs, souvenirs, etc. Even AFTER all these years, what did they find...

I've said it before but will again, I am interested in any interviews of daughter and wife. What WAS that day like? Where WAS dad? When did he get home? HOW was he? What did you have for dinner and when? Did ya all go search when you heard about these missing girls in your small town? Did anyone do any laundry? Who? Is that typical? When and of what? Etc. What was each person's schedule that day? I want the mundane daily life answers.

There is a TON we don't know here yet. Prosecution is going to keep it close to the vest and defense is ONLY going to use or OUT what helps them, not what doesn't.

And you know, I'm sorry for her but that pic of his daughter on the bridge in a tie dye shirt like Libby's is downright disturbing which happened AFTER this tragedy. Even if you were NOT involved, what parent or child from this small town would want a pic there??!!!`
Oh no you don't!

🥰 No hiding Olenna, I love reading your opinion on this! I love reading everyone's opinions on this case!!!
Who has arrows? I don't so apparently some archer needs to be contained.
 


 


I'm genuinely surprised they didn't remove Gull, too.
 
Good. The more charges the better and all that applies should be charged.

This also says a decision was rendered that D stays on and Gull does as well but then later says a decision is awaited.

I watched the hearing, all of it, but have not checked news since. WAS there a decision? I've had things I had and still have to get done and also tried to catch up on Daybell events today and am still at that.
 


Aha, now I see the news. Not surprised.
 
I'm genuinely surprised they didn't remove Gull, too.
I'm not, her staying was the one thing I was pretty sure of BUT I did expect it to be remanded or sent back to the trial court and that's pretty much what happened if I follow this right.

I am tickled with the new charges. I'd agree that this may be due to the assistance the prosecution received a bit ago.

Not sure but I'd expect things to pick up where they left off. Meaning a hearing as to why defense should be removed. Or not. No?
 

And no speedy trial which I entirely figured would not fly and it did not.

Hmm. Well I wonder how Allen feels. He got his attorneys back but has a slew of new charges. That would sure be a mixed day wouldn't it. I wouldn't call it a good one. Jmo.
 
Hey all.
I'm baaaaaaaaaaaak. I was at a meeting tonight, missed the 6 pm (expected, but maybe not that fast).

So,
They're baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!! (old D)
Back as court-appointed attny. (better than pro-bono.)
They're back - seemingly without having to endure the indignity of a hearing on gross negligence and incompetence.
Bottom line: Gull's judgement has been overruled by SCOIN. - specifically her findings that Old D is grossly negligent and incompetent.

If I understand things correctly, (no hearing necessary) this means the SCOIN disagreed with gross negligence and no incompetence and reinstated Old D with no need for a hearing on those topics. SCOIN overrules her.

THIS IS HUGE AND THE MOST IMPORTANT SCOIN VICTORY, imo but I'll tell you why I think so!!!

Gull is not gone by order of SCOIN, but for all intents and purposes, IMO, Gull has been shown the graceful recusal door by SCOIN.

IMO SCOIN has given Gull the room to do the right thing (recuse), rather than Gull suffer the indignity of SCOIN ordering her removal. That's grace towards Gull from the upper Court. Gull has to wrestle with her judgement once more. She's on the record saying she has zero confidence in old D. She's on the record explaining her deep deep bias against them. She really has no choice, now that they've been reinstated.

Inside baseball theory:
Not sure if I previously mentioned: I've felt SCOIN gave AG signal in advance how this thing would likely go (end of last year).
AG massaged the way for Gull to gracefully recuse into a higher and more time-committed admin role (2 admin roles, actually). She'll have less courtroom time for the next 2 years. And her high admin obligations would support her recusal explanations. That lets all this blow over.

In the event Gull doesn't recuse ... on behalf of their client, Old D is obligated (really they have no choice) to seek Gull's recusal; they can and they should; they'd be failing their client if they let a prejudiced judge oversee his case. She's documented clearly her bias; SCOIN's even taken exception to her bias findings and her coercive attempt to avoid due process for RA's team.

Speedy Trial still alive:
Gull stopped the clock b/4 the speedy trial deadline; I imagine Old D will move for speedy trial formally ... with all the proofs that they were wrongly blocked from meeting the deadline, so they're declaring now.

Finally, with this same-day SCOIN decision - in outline form - it's pretty clear the the SCOIN has expedited this case.

Congratulations to all for SCOIN's decision to get rid of structure problems with this trial, that could have resulted in reversing a guilty verdict.
I know it's awful there was this delay for all. But I hope the family's counsel has helped them understand ... its a good thing.

I'm just sayin'. :cowcouch: Don't shoot me. JMHO
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,549
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom