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 genuinely surprised they didn't remove Gull, too.
As i mentioned above ... they're giving her the grace to do it herself. JMHO MOO and stuff.

Recusal is a Judge using best Judgement - it's a Judge thing and it's an admirable thing to do. It's a no-fault decision for her - may she take the grace and run.
 
Last edited:
As i mentioned above ... they're giving her the grace to do it herself. JMHO MOO and stuff.

Recusal is a Judge using best Judgement - it's a Judge thing and it's an admirable thing to do. It's a no-fault decision for her - may she take the grace and run.
Well, maybe or maybe not. She has been shamed in front of the whole world, essentially. Put on notice "we're watching you". She may decide to stay, who knows. She's going to have to toe the line if she does.
 
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.

IMO - Any defense atty worth their salt knew this new charge was coming - I'm surprised it wasn't corrected earlier.


Prediction: :unsure: Accelerated trial date TBD; it may need some allowance for a newly appt. Judge to catch up on the docket. That stuff is pretty administrative and defined by local protocols. :unsure:
 
Well, maybe or maybe not. She has been shamed in front of the whole world, essentially. Put on notice "we're watching you". She may decide to stay, who knows. She's going to have to toe the line if she does.

I think the death penalty in play also helps Gull gracefully recuse. She can say, and it would be true, that by the mere "appearance of bias" - by Gull not recusing that door is WIDE OPEN for APPEALS to reverse conviction. DEATH PENALTY!!!

Yeah, I understand but ... in the world of Judging ... if you - a judge - are spanked THIS HARD over your judgement over 2 critical officers of the court and over the Defendant in what is now a DEATH PENALTY case ... you have a very serious judicial obligation to recuse.

Gull has a state-paying desk admin leadership job for the next 2 years. She'll be fine. Literally no professional downside to recusal.

In fact, old D has a pending motion for Gull to recuse herself - on the docket - from 10/31.
A little gift waiting to be re-opened upon the old D's reinstatement, from the old D.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
Well, maybe or maybe not. She has been shamed in front of the whole world, essentially. Put on notice "we're watching you". She may decide to stay, who knows. She's going to have to toe the line if she does.
What do you think she did wrong? She is still on the case.
 
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?
Oh you think they could still go then? I hadn't thought of it like that. Interesting.

I just re-read the decision, it was a majority decision that the Old D stay on but unanimous on all the rest. So there were some against them staying on.
 
Last edited:
What do you think she did wrong? She is still on the case.
Well, the Supreme Court reversed her decision to boot Baldwin and Rozzi. That's one thing. So, I'd say the Court agrees with me.

In the other case, they provided instructions for her to follow in the future regarding her willy nilly sealing, hiding, and generally doing her own thing with case records. Since she jumped to get into legal compliance, the Court saw no need to hear a case that was corrected.

She also has proven she isn't an impartial judge. She had no business whatsoever asking the prosecution what they thought of Baldwin and Rozzi.
 
Not me. I am amazed at the speed of the decision though, which seemed to take less time than it did for me to type out my choices LOL.

For RA, careful what you wish for as he is stuck with these guys now.

I'm assuming we're all glad to be "stuck" with the erasure of one serious structural error in this case.
This was never about old D vs new D - not for me anyway. It was about stopping the crooked referee and playing on.

An upside: The new D's endorsement of the Franks Memo and Exhibits and Indiana's highest court's endorsement of both Rozzi & Baldwin as skilled/respected attorneys should put an end to the sniping of the D's abilities.

In any fight, it's wise to respect and fear your opposition; exaggerated denegration rather than measured critique of one's opponent is nothing but projection. Best take the D and their strategy very seriously; as the P will; as the Court must.

The P's inexperience and lack of support/time shows ... but I don't dislike the P. McL's overworked, only recently got the legal support he needs for this case. (I think McL's by nature a political animal - aspirational - and this case brings career pressure as well as overwhelming workload.) The P's taken an entire year to get their charges technically correct. Fair to say McL really needed that 2nd chair (an investment for the state), had to fight for a few weeks of clerical funding, didn't get this support until it was clear the D was coming hard after the entire investigation. The trial will benefit from the P having that new technical legal support.

IMO, good to have even-steven teams; now the trial just needs a new referee.

JMHO
 
Well, the Supreme Court reversed her decision to boot Baldwin and Rozzi. That's one thing. So, I'd say the Court agrees with me.

In the other case, they provided instructions for her to follow in the future regarding her willy nilly sealing, hiding, and generally doing her own thing with case records. Since she jumped to get into legal compliance, the Court saw no need to hear a case that was corrected.

She also has proven she isn't an impartial judge. She had no business whatsoever asking the prosecution what they thought of Baldwin and Rozzi.

Hear, hear!

Rewind that hearing and you'll here that Supreme Court criticize Gull's process and decision and overreach and abuse of discretion, and you'll hear how the members of this highest Indiana court holds old D and old D's past work and reputation in their long careers as defenders ... in relative esteem. There was so much undertone going on ... even direct sympathy from the Court that the AG had to stand there and try to support Gull's nonsense. JMHO
 
Last edited:
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".
Didn't we hear at some point that there was some normal conversation between the girls? Not sure if that was before the "gun" being mentioned.
 
I'm assuming we're all glad to be "stuck" with the erasure of one serious structural error in this case.
This was never about old D vs new D - not for me anyway. It was about stopping the crooked referee and playing on.

An upside: The new D's endorsement of the Franks Memo and Exhibits and Indiana's highest court's endorsement of both Rozzi & Baldwin as skilled/respected attorneys should put an end to the sniping of the D's abilities.

In any fight, it's wise to respect and fear your opposition; exaggerated denegration rather than measured critique of one's opponent is nothing but projection. Best take the D and their strategy very seriously; as the P will; as the Court must.

The P's inexperience and lack of support/time shows ... but I don't dislike the P. McL's overworked, only recently got the legal support he needs for this case. (I think McL's by nature a political animal - aspirational - and this case brings career pressure as well as overwhelming workload.) The P's taken an entire year to get their charges technically correct. Fair to say McL really needed that 2nd chair (an investment for the state), had to fight for a few weeks of clerical funding, didn't get this support until it was clear the D was coming hard after the entire investigation. The trial will benefit from the P having that new technical legal support.

IMO, good to have even-steven teams; now the trial just needs a new referee.

JMHO
There was no mention of a "crooked referee" by the SC was there? I may have missed it though, so if you have a timestamp in the hearing, I can listen again.
 
Well, the Supreme Court reversed her decision to boot Baldwin and Rozzi. That's one thing. So, I'd say the Court agrees with me.

In the other case, they provided instructions for her to follow in the future regarding her willy nilly sealing, hiding, and generally doing her own thing with case records. Since she jumped to get into legal compliance, the Court saw no need to hear a case that was corrected.

She also has proven she isn't an impartial judge. She had no business whatsoever asking the prosecution what they thought of Baldwin and Rozzi.

She didnt boot them - she offered the option of a hearing or they could stand down - they chose the back door IIRC.

Also, it was not unanimous to reinstate the D, but a majority decision.
 
Last edited:
Didn't we hear at some point that there was some normal conversation between the girls? Not sure if that was before the "gun" being mentioned.

I've not heard - from LE source - about any conversation other than distributed suspect audio "dth" and "guys" and the PCA describing victims voicing "gun".

Beyond the tape being 43 seconds (IIRC); but (also IIRC) Barb McD gave some tidbit descriptions of the tape. Maybe you heard about it via her reporting?

I cannot remember if it was Barb, but a comment made by a reporter stuck with me; the video caught an facial expression from the girls (or one of the girls) that convinced the reporter that they knew they were in fatal danger upon being confronted on the bridge. JMHO
 
She didnt boot them - she offered the option of a hearing or they could stand down - they chose the back door IIRC.

Also, it was not unanimous to reinstate the D, but a majority decision.

yes, you're correct about majority.

So ... the majority isn't buying that the argument (Gull's argument) in your first line = legit judicial process.
 
She didnt boot them - she offered the option of a hearing or they could stand down - they chose the back door IIRC.

Also, it was not unanimous to reinstate the D, but a majority decision.
She didn't offer them a hearing. She told them they could withdraw or she would read a statement disqualifying them.

A majority decision still wins. It doesn't matter to me if it was unanimous or majority.
 
There was no mention of a "crooked referee" by the SC was there? I may have missed it though, so if you have a timestamp in the hearing, I can listen again.
oh yes, absolutely, the panel came right out and called Gull a crooked referee. At 4 hrs 38 min 22 seconds. lol. (nope, not giving you a timestamp)

How's a timestamps useful in judicial argument? The whole of the arguments in context, case law, hypotheticals and in both subtext and direct questioning, focus on the panel's rejection of Gull's approach, and her assessment of the old D, and then immediate Orders that reverse Gull's decision to remove the
old D.

Listen to the SCOIN's criticism of Gull's judicial process, her misuse of judicial discretion an powers to remove counsel, and her erroneous assessment of old D as incompetent/grossly negligent. Reference the case law SCOIN's quoting from the bench. Look at the order vs their options. They reinstated the old D - reversed Gull's decision. SCOIN did not instruct Gull to correct her process and hold a proper hearing (as was discussed by SCOIN as a remedy). That remedy/opportunity for Gull to conduct a process the right way and still decide against the old D - IMO - has disappeared with the reversal of Gull's decision to remove the old D.

JMHO
 
yes, you're correct about majority.

So ... the majority isn't buying that the argument (Gull's argument) in your first line = legit judicial process.
The majority decision was to reinstate the defence so there were a minority against. There was no decision about Gull AFAICS but see my post above asking for a timestamp.
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

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