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:
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.

Member of SCOIN panel described (during the hearing) Gull's coercive tactics - with disdain. One of many signals that Gull would be reversed. JMHO.
 
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
It was an hour long. A timestamp is so I can listen to the Gull criticism you say is in there. The only bit I didnt hear well was the female testifying as there was a problem with the video when i watched that bit. So when was the Gull criticism?
 
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.
She offered them the open court hearing which they refused. I still see no criticism of Gull in the SC decision.
 
I wasn't able to load the Fox59 article so here's another link regarding the leaker in court yesterday. Funny it was the same day as the SC decision.


From the article above -

JOHNSON COUNTY, Ind. — The man behind a Delphi murders case evidence leak was in court Thursday.

Mitchell Westerman has been charged with one count of conversion. He’s accused of walking into attorney Andrew Baldwin’s office and taking pictures of case evidence, then sending it to several people.

Westerman was an old friend and colleague of Baldwin’s and admitted to the crime when questioned by police.

Some of that evidence fell into the hands of YouTubers and podcasters. One man from Fishers received the leaked evidence and, in fear of being arrested, committed suicide in October of 2023.



This chain of events led to Westerman being arrested and Special Judge Fran Gull removing attorneys Baldwin and Brad Rozzi from the Delphi murders case. The men represented suspect Richard Allen, who wanted both men to stay on as his legal representation.

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Baldwin and Rozzi can rejoin the case, but they denied Allen’s requests to remove Judge Gull and for a speedy trial. The trial is supposed to begin October 15th.

Westerman’s pretrial conference is set for March 7th.
 
She offered them the open court hearing which they refused. I still see no criticism of Gull in the SC decision.
I wonder if we have the same definition of a hearing.

I see her saying "you can withdraw or I will read this statement to the conveniently assembled press" as an ambush.

My definition of a hearing would have been both sides presenting their arguments. That never happened.

As far as criticism, the Supreme Court took no time reversing her decision. I'd call that a criticism of her procedure.
 
It was an hour long. A timestamp is so I can listen to the Gull criticism you say is in there. The only bit I didnt hear well was the female testifying as there was a problem with the video when i watched that bit. So when was the Gull criticism?
I'm sorry, I really have no time to re-listen or timestamp.

This was a hearing on an action against Gull. Critique of the lower Court ... throughout. SCOIN's boundaries and interest in doing the least necessary to reinstate RA's representation rights and get the lower court case back on a speedy trial track ... with tacit recognition that the SCOIN was the only appellate court venue in the position to get this thing quickly back on track ... was clearly expressed, JMHO.

Via the order, it appears they felt the least that was necessary was to fully reverse Gull's decision to remove the old D. Again, we'll know more when the full SCOIN Decision (w/ dissent) is released.
 
I wonder if we have the same definition of a hearing.

I see her saying "you can withdraw or I will read this statement to the conveniently assembled press" as an ambush.

My definition of a hearing would have been both sides presenting their arguments. That never happened.

As far as criticism, the Supreme Court took no time reversing her decision. I'd call that a criticism of her procedure.
It was their own decision to stand down that the SC reversed because they changed their mind. I guy killed himself because of what they did.
 
I'm sorry, I really have no time to re-listen or timestamp.

This was a hearing on an action against Gull. Critique of the lower Court ... throughout. SCOIN's boundaries and interest in doing the least necessary to reinstate RA's representation rights and get the lower court case back on a speedy trial track ... with tacit recognition that the SCOIN was the only appellate court venue in the position to get this thing quickly back on track ... was clearly expressed, JMHO.

Via the order, it appears they felt the least that was necessary was to fully reverse Gull's decision to remove the old D. Again, we'll know more when the full SCOIN Decision (w/ dissent) is released.
Fine, no timestamp I will just take as your opinion then. No problem.
 
Last edited:
I'm genuinely surprised they didn't remove Gull, too.
Why? I'd like to have seen Old D removed but if I'm honest, I don't think they had enough reason to remove either and I think it needs to play out in the lower court/trial court. I haven't read anything late yesterday or today or watched more but that's my read on it. I don't think they even disagree she perhaps had good reason but they went out the back door rather than those reasons ever being shown at hearing or provided. Again just my take.

I think the ISC did the guys a favor and gave them that chance and I personally don't believe this belonged with the ISC to begin with. The defense should have went to the hearing and then filed in the local court if the result and proceedings were unfair in their opinion.

This is imo the perfect answer and it is kind of like let's see how it plays out and should have played out had it proceeded without D's claimed coercement and their election to sneak out of the courthouse and avoid media and all of it.

Jmo.
 
Well they have it now so let's see the defence they put on for him. If it is anything like they have done so far, then I feel a bit sorry for RA. I know I shouldn't but everyone deserves a robust defence.
 
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
Boy I laughed out loud sorry. You sure can turn things with a major bias. For someone who makes no decision until they have the evidence, sees trial, etc.

No offense of course.

I said for days they were apt to remand this to the lower court and that's exactly what they did. It is pretty much all they did.

There's many other things here that are going to be quite interesting to see. Like if Old D is really ready for trial with this lol "expedited" decision and doesn't try to delay it for one.

I also don't know how many people out there thought where RA is incarcerated would be something the ISC brought up or in. Of course not.

You've got a real hard on at Gull, excuse my terminology. It's clear and it's obvious. I have one at the defense but nowhere near as bad as you do at Gull.

You interpret every single thing in a slanted way. The ISC did what they should. Part of me thinks they should have endorsed Gull's decision BUT remanding it with ALL in place was the more likely outcome to let it hash itself out and finish itself out.

Her new appt. may or may not have her leaving or recusing herself. The ISC did nothing to ensure she leaves the case so you are really out there with those thoughts and there is nothing that will force it. In fact proceeding with what she was willing to have televised against the two D attorneys that fateful day and the investigation results and all they have pulled may well finish it the right way if they don't hightail it out the back door.

Imo the ISC did the Old D a slight favor they could have endorsed her decision but they more or less did but just a bit less. Now they can go back and deal with it as they were too scared to do (the D and actually vocally asked how to have time and get out without reporters). They can put their money or lack of it where their mouth is, or their eggs in the basket or whatever.

Let's see their outrageous next behavior or perhaps lack of it if they want to stay on the case.

It was sent back to finish playing out imo to the hearing it should have had.

There are actually people out there that don't understand why the ISC didn't do other things like address RA's place of holding and treatment, or the O thing. LMAO.

Anyhow, I don't see it as you do. Every filing by the defense with the ISC you thought was a win and a decision and wanted people to think so long before the ISC decided a thing. Influence I guess was your objective.

No offense. Love the debate. I definitely disagree of course.

I have no problem seeing Old D get in more trouble and yes let's see that SPEEDY feb trial!

It's very interesting all the new charges yesterday coming down on RA AND Westerman in court as well.
 
Last edited:
If they don't remove Gull I could see a major argument made in the appeals process that the judge was against the defense. She has to be removed or a second trial could be ordered.
Yeah okay. But lol there's a bunch of new charges that will put him in prison for life that she has had nothing to do with.

Sarcasm plus I love it.

But I disagree.

I mean if that was the case, it was appealed already and the ISC left her to remain no?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,523
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom