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:
So you believe it is cronyism and giving one of their own an unfair break?

They aren't ensuring it so what if she doesn't?

But ya know I think likewise the other way, I think they tried to give a bit too for the idiot D attorneys as part of the system too and let them save some face and get a bit of boost to their damaged reps. They could have very EASILY let Gull's authority and decision stand. No matter how you try to rosy it up or spin it, the D did not win here. I figured it would be remanded and said it beforehand. I even asked you if you thought so. I based that on the role of the higher court and where it really belonged and that's exactly what happened.

B & R did buy time with their filing to the wrong authority, I hope they used it to be ready and get this trial underway pronto.

Maybe Gull will remove herself or not, hard to say, I mean I couldn't blame he for not wanting to deal with these clowns/bozos. Who else deserves to have to or would want to though. First judge stepped down let's remember.

There is NOTHING that makes it so she has to though.

Like most on your side of the coin expected.

You say you don't take sides before all is known but you do Olenna. Maybe not with the defendant but with all else and we do not know all. We don't know everything about the leak investigation and more.

I'm comfortable though with you having a Gull hard on and my less than impressed opinion of two defense bozos who use an unlicensed bar failing buddy to do their dirty work.
I'm saying there's inside baseball within the justice system amongst peers. Why wouldn't there be?

yeah I have a side that's anti-gullish - she'll be gone soon. no worries.


Do you even know what a hard on is? @Cousin Dupree - can you tell her please? everyone is lucky i'm not providing links at the moment. :troutslap:
 
Last edited:
What do you think she did wrong? She is still on the case.
There was not a sanction or word said about her.

She was never removed nor had to be put back. \

They did imo what their role is in what this was.

Sent it back to where it went wrong for a redo.

IMAGINE if B & R had went to hearing that day. WHY didn't they? There's more here mark my words. Cameras and coverage would have been on all for all of us to determine the truth.

Gull has not had a remark by ISC against her nor a sanction.

I don't know but it is possible they will come out later with a more detailed written decision but I kind of doubt it. For all this was to be precedent setting as to constitutional rights, etc. it wasn't. It didn't belong there in the first place. Imo.

These attorneys go for show and publicity and not the right avenue for justice for their client. A problem with the prison? They make a publicly known whining to the judge instead of the prison. A problem with the judge? They whine to the supreme court of IN before pursuing the first avenues they are to do. A confession or five? I do get frustrated as it is soooooo obvious.

Personally I think Allen confessed due to his attorneys screw ups and failures. I have an opinion theory on that. Maybe one day I will share it. Been a hard day and I had it off but a lot going on in real life as always and the bit of time I've taken several cases have things going on right now that i've been unable to keep up with.
 
the utube lawyers: on MS, on Prosecutors, on Defense Diaries ... have seen them all scratch their heads and wonder why charges were left out.
and here they are!
pls don't ask me for links. I've provided tons and I'll provide more when time allows..
It's not difficult to confuse them or to confuse R & B IMO. Don't worry, I won't ask you for links or anything else.
 
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.
Yes I do. I think that could happen and the leaks and investigation and all else could play in but there should have been a hearing and they shouldn't have run out the back door. They should be thankful

I listened to that in chambers thing and I think it was @Imamazed said it too, I did not take it at all as Old D put it or press presented it and it was recorded.

Yes not unanimous at all for Old D. Unanimous for judge though right? Haven't had a chance to read it.

I am being honest when I say if I was a murder defendant i would NOT want Old D on my case knowing what we know. Of course RA only knows what comes from them.

Like you said earlier be careful what you wish for.

Gull still has this case and Old D is still the same leak prone negligent attorneys they always were.
 
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.
Baldwin and Rozzi asked for her to be booted. She asked the ISC for nothing. She didn't get booted. I'd say it is debatable who won.

I will agree her record needed help but that was not argued, nor did a case commence and it's debatable what it was due to as nothing was heard or accepted on that. She had medical issues, the clerk played in supposedly and I agree when they were booted that nothing they filed henceforth should be on the record as they weren't parties or attorneys for a party.

I'm not from IN as you know and you are. You have struggled at times here to believe Baldwin and Rozzi have done as they have. Yet Gull is from there too with quite a good record. Why is it you don't struggle there? Is it political? I honestly don't know what party any are or anything about all other than what has been shared here.

I am seriously, without innuendo or sarcasm asking.

I want to know why you thought Rozzi such an A-1 guy but are quick to believe he judge isn't. For me, other than @Tresir and @Imamazed everyone has bought into this obvious b.s. hook line and sinker. Even @Cousin Dupree and some others think this leak was planned and intentional.

I feel sorry for her or any judge that gets this case and this duo. And I feel sorry for RA which is not a typical feeling for me with an accused perp. These guys are BAD news. Imo.
 
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
What are you talking about?

It is not unusual for Ps on one side and Ds on the other to support each other. They have huge conferences together as to the newest and best strategies. I actually just learned that in the past few months. It was eye opening and explains a LOT being done by the D in many cases I follow. But you only follow this one right? I meant to ask you why and think I may have but if not am asking now.

Take me right please, but you're a bit over the top. You talk of denigration but Gull only went to take them off the case of Allen and nothing more and gave them chance after chance and even ruled in their favor at times but they went to the ISC and if they had their way would have ruined her. Which did not happen now did it?

New D's endorsement or the endorsement of public defenders is so not amazing or unpredictable. Again they are all for one and one for all, JUST as you say the ISC was with giving Gull a graceful way out. Don't not use your logic in both directions.


There will be no new referee unless Gull CHOOSES to leave or Old corrupt D files something at the lower court level (where it belonged but they wanted fireworks) and it gets ordered or agreed with.

Personally, just based on your very one sided view of it all, I hope she stays and sees it out.

I'm not sure what you are on but I don't want any of it lol. :hugs:

Not dull at least guess. :D
 
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
Are you talking of the live ISC hearing yesterday? OMG is that so far from the truth.

As far as the AG that was interesting. Also I am waiting to hear your take on the different justices and their questions as that was telling as well.

Gull's side/attorney rocked. D's side they melted him but did not take down and tear apart as the masses were watching. He didn't know his sh*t and could not think on his feet nor cite anything.

You weren't on the wrong channel were you? Wrong case?
 
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.
Yep. They were worried about reporters and getting out without their leak shenanigans questioned, etc. And asked for Gull's help and giving time to do so.

Reinstating the D was a gift to them imo and yes, not all agreed with it.

Olenna says Gull is going to be under watch now. Maybe by all that fall for Os and the defense, etc but Old D is going to be under scrutiny by a ton of people who aren't the loud ones. It's kind of like voters. You don't have to yell to be the silent majoriy.

I think first of all before they get to work they need to go see suicide guy's wife and family and kneel down and ask forgiveness. Then they need to get to work and study LEGAL and ethical ways to do their job.

Sorry but it is SOOO obvious. Baldwin particulary. But I do not excuse Rozzi.
 
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
It's good on occasion to remember the victims. Children in this case. We can argue anything else at any time but two young girls are dead and were likely terrified right up to the moment of their death.
 
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.
You know the emu lost us the eyeroll and I'd really like to use it right now.

I can take an extra step or two though and go get one even though very tired. :thud::bored::rolleyes:
 
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.
Did you listen to the in chambers thing because she never said any such thing directly or near to it.
 
What are you talking about?

It is not unusual for Ps on one side and Ds on the other to support each other. They have huge conferences together as to the newest and best strategies. I actually just learned that in the past few months. It was eye opening and explains a LOT being done by the D in many cases I follow. But you only follow this one right? I meant to ask you why and think I may have but if not am asking now.

Take me right please, but you're a bit over the top. You talk of denigration but Gull only went to take them off the case of Allen and nothing more and gave them chance after chance and even ruled in their favor at times but they went to the ISC and if they had their way would have ruined her. Which did not happen now did it?

New D's endorsement or the endorsement of public defenders is so not amazing or unpredictable. Again they are all for one and one for all, JUST as you say the ISC was with giving Gull a graceful way out. Don't not use your logic in both directions.


There will be no new referee unless Gull CHOOSES to leave or Old corrupt D files something at the lower court level (where it belonged but they wanted fireworks) and it gets ordered or agreed with.

Personally, just based on your very one sided view of it all, I hope she stays and sees it out.

I'm not sure what you are on but I don't want any of it lol. :hugs:

Not dull at least guess. :D

I have no idea what you are talking about.
You said it first, we're ships passing in the night.
 
Yep. They were worried about reporters and getting out without their leak shenanigans questioned, etc. And asked for Gull's help and giving time to do so.

Reinstating the D was a gift to them imo and yes, not all agreed with it.

Olenna says Gull is going to be under watch now. Maybe by all that fall for Os and the defense, etc but Old D is going to be under scrutiny by a ton of people who aren't the loud ones. It's kind of like voters. You don't have to yell to be the silent majoriy.

I think first of all before they get to work they need to go see suicide guy's wife and family and kneel down and ask forgiveness. Then they need to get to work and study LEGAL and ethical ways to do their job.

Sorry but it is SOOO obvious. Baldwin particulary. But I do not excuse Rozzi.
That blaming the D for a dude's suicide thing is just embarassing.
 
Member of SCOIN panel described (during the hearing) Gull's coercive tactics - with disdain. One of many signals that Gull would be reversed. JMHO.
Good Lord I watched it and I am pretty sure @Tresir did, are you talking of purposefully certain types of questions to BOTH sides? They render NO opinion during the heariing but question each side to get into what they are saying or claiming.

WTH were you watching?
 
I rarely get time to watch a live court proceeding much less a live covering one. I watched on Tom Webster's yesterday and enjoyed it and the chance to see live and read chat and listen after.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,499
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom