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:
From the link -

Madeira said one factor in the quick decision was the amount of court filings the justices had handled on both sides prior the hearing. “The Supreme Court sort of knew the lay of the land when they walked into the courtroom that day,” Madeira said Friday.
Although Allen’s attorney’s are back on the case, Madeira said, the fight to get them off the case might not be over. “Baldwin and Rozzi, my guess is, are not out of the woods. I do believe, and I might eat these words, that Judge Gull will, rather than moving forward with Baldwin and Rozzi, will attempt to initiate other proceedings for removal. You know, dot the eyes, cross the t’s.”
According to attorney Kevin Greenlee, co-host of the Murder Sheet podcast, one potential outcome of the Supreme Court decision could be a faster pace to the case moving forward. A trial has been set for Oct. 15 in Carroll Circuit Court.

“I think potentially we are looking at the possibility of a trial sooner rather than later. If they thought they could do a trial within 70 days in November (2023), I think there’s every possibility that we’re looking at a trial happening before the scheduled October date.”
However the case pans out, the twists and turns of having Baldwin and Rozzi removed amid leaks of case information and then reinstated by the Supreme Court will cast a shadow over how this case is looked at in the end.
Aine Cain, the co-host of the Murder Sheet podcast, said that the state Supreme Court decision is “just something that’s going to be absolutely a lasting mark on the case.”
 
From the link -

Madeira said one factor in the quick decision was the amount of court filings the justices had handled on both sides prior the hearing. “The Supreme Court sort of knew the lay of the land when they walked into the courtroom that day,” Madeira said Friday.
Although Allen’s attorney’s are back on the case, Madeira said, the fight to get them off the case might not be over. “Baldwin and Rozzi, my guess is, are not out of the woods. I do believe, and I might eat these words, that Judge Gull will, rather than moving forward with Baldwin and Rozzi, will attempt to initiate other proceedings for removal. You know, dot the eyes, cross the t’s.”
According to attorney Kevin Greenlee, co-host of the Murder Sheet podcast, one potential outcome of the Supreme Court decision could be a faster pace to the case moving forward. A trial has been set for Oct. 15 in Carroll Circuit Court.

“I think potentially we are looking at the possibility of a trial sooner rather than later. If they thought they could do a trial within 70 days in November (2023), I think there’s every possibility that we’re looking at a trial happening before the scheduled October date.”
However the case pans out, the twists and turns of having Baldwin and Rozzi removed amid leaks of case information and then reinstated by the Supreme Court will cast a shadow over how this case is looked at in the end.
Aine Cain, the co-host of the Murder Sheet podcast, said that the state Supreme Court decision is “just something that’s going to be absolutely a lasting mark on the case.”
If I was Gull, I would think twice about metaphorically thumbing my nose at the Supreme Court. But, I'm not Gull. Who knows.
 
This reminds me a bit of that famous Winston Churchill/Lady Astor altercation. Went something like this.

Lady Astor. If I was your wife, Winston, I would poison you.
Winston: Ma'am, if I was you husband, I'd drink it.

I don't necessarily understand the reference, but I love, and shall now steal this joke, while creating many opportunities out of whole cloth just to use it.
merci' 🙏
 
I don't necessarily understand the reference, but I love, and shall now steal this joke, while creating many opportunities out of whole cloth just to use it.
merci' 🙏
Roundpeg said if I was Gull etc... you said thank goodness you're not Gull etc... and I said if I was R&B etc and it just made me think of it. There were many such ripostes in Parliament between those two.
 
This reminds me a bit of that famous Winston Churchill/Lady Astor altercation. Went something like this.

Lady Astor: If I was your wife, Winston, I would poison you.
Winston: Ma'am, if I was you husband, I'd drink it.

You messed up Lady Astor's line: It was: If I was your wife, Winston. I should poison your tea.
Winston: Ma'am if I were your husband I should drink it.

Probably not exact, but closer.
 
You messed up Lady Astor's line: It was: If I was your wife, Winston. I should poison your tea.
Winston: Ma'am if I were your husband I should drink it.

Probably not exact, but closer.
Some examples say coffee. Here's a link of some of his best ones. One that isn't on this link and he sent to Shaw said "Can't make the first night. Will attend the second, if there is one."


Probably enough OT for now.
 
Per eye-witness accounts, he'll need a bit of time to change outfits, including his hair, his beard, his age and his height.
(I'm just pointing out things P's evidence must explain. We've all made these points before, and I remain open and super interested in hearing our witnesses.)
There's only 4 trail witnesses, 3 of which he admits he saw himself so the changing outfits explanation won't be relevant, that was just one of the young girls remembering it wrong.

Now the kidnapping has been charged, I am reposting this DM article, which is from a year ago. Makes a bit more sense now.

 
Last edited:
I get LE's theory here. I've studied it. I've "walked" via the videos showing various terrains and locations and roads involved. I've seen amateur gis timelines on line.

It seems to me, the timeline is very tight and relies heavily upon eyewitnesses who will be on the stand 8 years post-incident. I'm concerned the theory/timeline is vulnerable in that one waffling witness takes it down. JMHO

Beyond timeline - FM depositions of LE suggests lots more challenges for the P re crime scene evaluation, including evidence preservation and chains of custody and lack of dna connections, and no relevant digital evidence on RA. JMHO

This presumption of innocence thing makes It more than okay to wait for trial and evidence to evaluate each key part of LE's theory ... which is what I intend to do.

I think everyone having a different level of comfort at this time is normal, acceptable, and I appreciate everyone's thoughts and theories and see no reason to reject anyone's thinking that's different than my own. In fact, the opportunity to check my thinking against others' thinking is the reason I post in this forum.

JMHO
Trouble is the trial is still 9 months away so we still have a lot of discussions ahead LOL. I am not sure from where you are getting lack of DNA and digital evidence. Search warrant revealed several phones taken by LE, for example.

I cannot take the FM seriously at all to be honest. By accusing people who have alibis and have not been charged, it just makes me doubt the whole shebang. It is like slinging mud and see what sticks methodology.
 
Last edited:
Here's my thinking on any Gull re-up of an RA notice of hearing to remove RA's counsel.

1) SCOIN prioritized it's concern for RA's speedy trial rights - stated SCOIN's ability to expedite for RA was the reason they agreed to hear the case.

2) SCOIN corrected Guttwein (Gull's lawyers) characterization of B & R as very competent, highly respected attorneys as "only incompetent in this case" - suggesting that's not an actual thing. And it would mess up everything if attorneys could be found "circumstantially" incompetent one day and competent the next.

3) Leaks/Westerman case going to trial. LE investigation concluded. No others involved. 250 pages of LE leak investigation, plus 6 video-taped interviews, plus Westerman's admission. Reasonable to conclude LE investigation found one sole leaker.

4) In the Westerman papers, Baldwin/Rossi are listed as victims/witnesses.

For these reasons, I don't think an effort to remove RA's counsel - via a proper due process and a hearing - makes sense. JMHO

Should Gull believe it's wise to revisit and get on the record her underlying concerns and also bring meaningful consequences, Gull has many other lawyer sanction options available to her that do not involve hearings and slowing down RA's due process. JMHO

One of the judges on the appellate characterized Gull's list of complaints against the D as not incompetence, maybe insubordination. Sanctions are the tools available for Judges to deal with what they perceive as lawyer insubordination. JMHO
Please post a link to the Westerman papers you have seen, mentioned in 3 and 4 above. TIA.
 
Some examples say coffee. Here's a link of some of his best ones. One that isn't on this link and he sent to Shaw said "Can't make the first night. Will attend the second, if there is one."


Probably enough OT for now.
This thread benefits from a touch of OT, and I'm still laughing at what you brought in. :LOL:
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,497
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom