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:
Please post a link to the Westerman papers you have seen, mentioned in 3 and 4 above. TIA.

see the Westerman PCA/court docket.

The number of investigation pages and video interviews are stated (as being attached as support for the charges) -followed by the paperwork that puts an immediate gag on them.

I'll post it in this form; otherwise reference the Court's docket, exact same.

MW.pdf
 
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.

I'll briefly explain why I feel there's no DNA/Digital evidence tying RA to the victims/crime.

Firstly, it's not mentioned in the PCA ... and more than a year later ... it wasn't mentioned in the most recent charging documents.

Secondly, the lack of DNA/Digital evidence re RA ... was not denied by the P when raised by D.

I agree that it's reasonable to hold that either party's filings will be written in support of the party's theory(s) - written from that POV, facts interpreted from that POV etc..

But the process/rules of trial argument permits back and forth argument on the record. The P or the D can file a Response to each new filing from their opposition - a Response that can argue against the opposition's filing and the facts/exhibits therein.

LE depositions are referenced in the D's Franks Memo filing (w/ Exhibits) - that state lack of DNA and digital per LE depositions. These depos are referenced in the body of the Frank's Memo.

In the case of the Franks Memo, the P did file a timely Response. The P's Response raised no fact objections as to the FM's DNA/Digital evidence assertions. (The Franks Memo and the P's Response to the FM ... are both available on the public docket. )

IMO, looking at the 2 documents together (D's FM and P's FM Response to it) - is one way to feel out where the parties agree/disagree on certain facts.

(Of course, even agreeing on facts, the parties will still disagree on the theory that they say the facts support. Thus trial/witnesses/experts/jury).

JMHO
 
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.


I'm sorry not to make it more clear; I was referencing the "bloody/muddy walking on side of road" (adult driver) witness - who describes different clothing (color, etc.) than BG's. Thus the need to account for a clothing change for BG himself. JMHO!
 
Last edited:
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.


Its my understanding the KK/RL/RA theory/allegation has been debunked by the Franks Memo ... and LE depositions taken by the D that reviewed list of other potential suspects through the investigation, including KK and RL. And that's JMHO.

From the article:

According to the source, investigators believe that the plan had been for Allen to kidnap the girls and bring them to Logan's home where he and, allegedly Kline, would rape them.

They said: 'The girls were supposed to be kidnapped for the sex ring, but something went wrong, and he knifed and raped one and almost decapitated the other.

We know there was no rape; and, IMO, it's not difficult to surmise that the "SOURCE" for this Daily Mail story is not credible. JMHO
 
Ugh, it's Monday and here comes the things to add to the to-do list.

So ...
Until there's updates or related court filings ... CIAO friends !! :runningaway:
 
I'll briefly explain why I feel there's no DNA/Digital evidence tying RA to the victims/crime.

Firstly, it's not mentioned in the PCA ... and more than a year later ... it wasn't mentioned in the most recent charging documents.

Secondly, the lack of DNA/Digital evidence re RA ... was not denied by the P when raised by D.

I agree that it's reasonable to hold that either party's filings will be written in support of the party's theory(s) - written from that POV, facts interpreted from that POV etc..

But the process/rules of trial argument permits back and forth argument on the record. The P or the D can file a Response to each new filing from their opposition - a Response that can argue against the opposition's filing and the facts/exhibits therein.

LE depositions are referenced in the D's Franks Memo filing (w/ Exhibits) - that state lack of DNA and digital per LE depositions. These depos are referenced in the body of the Frank's Memo.

In the case of the Franks Memo, the P did file a timely Response. The P's Response raised no fact objections as to the FM's DNA/Digital evidence assertions. (The Franks Memo and the P's Response to the FM ... are both available on the public docket. )

IMO, looking at the 2 documents together (D's FM and P's FM Response to it) - is one way to feel out where the parties agree/disagree on certain facts.

(Of course, even agreeing on facts, the parties will still disagree on the theory that they say the facts support. Thus trial/witnesses/experts/jury).

JMHO
I have read that there is only one mobile phone mast in the Delphi area which makes triangulation impossible. However, when the victims and the prosecution have the perp on video, and he also admits being there at the right time, I cannot see that there really is a need for the digital evidence to place him there. He even says he was watching a stock ticker on his phone, so presumably that evidence is available. The video is actually digital evidence, a bit like CCTV.

I do not believe the information in the FM. It is an unproven theory IMO.
 
Last edited:
Its my understanding the KK/RL/RA theory/allegation has been debunked by the Franks Memo ... and LE depositions taken by the D that reviewed list of other potential suspects through the investigation, including KK and RL. And that's JMHO.

From the article:



We know there was no rape; and, IMO, it's not difficult to surmise that the "SOURCE" for this Daily Mail story is not credible. JMHO
As I said, I dont accept the FM theory but posted the DM theory because the kidnapping has now been charged. Perhaps there was a rape but that hasn't been charged yet either.
 
I'm sorry not to make it more clear; I was referencing the "bloody/muddy walking on side of road" (adult driver) witness - who describes different clothing (color, etc.) than BG's. Thus the need to account for a clothing change for BG himself. JMHO!
Oh well he could have just turned his jacket inside out as it was covered in blood and mud.
 
see the Westerman PCA/court docket.

The number of investigation pages and video interviews are stated (as being attached as support for the charges) -followed by the paperwork that puts an immediate gag on them.

I'll post it in this form; otherwise reference the Court's docket, exact same.

MW.pdf
That's only 11 pages. You said there are 250 pages. I cannot see anything that states that in the 11 page pdf you just provided. If there is a gag order how do you know there are 250 pages?

I'm confused.
 
As I said, I dont accept the FM theory but posted the DM theory because the kidnapping has now been charged. Perhaps there was a rape but that hasn't been charged yet either.

It's been confirmed by LE depos (referenced in the FM and not disputed by the D's Response to the FM). Forensics of the crimes scene found no rape.

Gosh, I can only offer the same old thing. Sorry to be repetitive. I understand your feeling about the FM, but not about LE's depositions which are in exhibits supporting the FM, those deposition-based facts not challenged by the P.

It probably makes sense to conclude the discussions where there's going to be zero progress, links or no links.


I have read that there is only one mobile phone mast in the Delphi area which makes triangulation impossible. However, when the victims and the prosecution have the perp on video, and he also admits being there at the right time, I cannot see that there really is a need for the digital evidence to place him there. He even says he was watching a stock ticker on his phone, so presumably that evidence is available. The video is actually digital evidence, a bit like CCTV.

I do not believe the information in the FM. It is an unproven theory IMO.

got it.

That's only 11 pages. You said there are 250 pages. I cannot see anything that states that in the 11 page pdf you just provided. If there is a gag order how do you know there are 250 pages?

I'm confused.
So sorry, wrong link. I did not mean to confuse.

Here's what I meant to provide .... as pdfs, it's blurry.
Best I can do w/ screen shots, but if u enlarge the 1st page, the info is there.
Or navigate to Indiana's Docket/mycase here's the case info:
Docket file stamp = 1/12/24 Docket Cause #41D03-2311-CM-001119 State Indiana County Johnson v. Mitchell Thomas Westerman
It's the Discovery Compliance Cover Sheet.
The other docs in this filing = protective order on that evidence, and NO CAMERAs - from the state.
The discovery content is - presumable, under protective order.

So, These are from the Westerman Docket. Recent State's Filing.
Here State is submitting discovery to Westerman...
Discovery Compliance document = Includes 250 pages investigation ... only 5 videos. (not 6 - what's wrong w/ my memory!)


Westerman - List of Discovery compliance (to be protected)

1705959423106.png1705959498925.png

Protective order:

1705959560839.png1705959571516.png
NO CAMERAS

1705959648526.png1705959668935.png
 
Last edited:
New order, Delphi, under Gull

Denies Motion for the Franks Hearing finding Affidavit/Search Warrant adequate - NO HEARING
Denies Motion to Suppress (search) - NO HEARING
Denies Motion in Limine (ballistics) - NO HEARING
Defense Motion's Exhibits A & B - ADMISSABLE
Defense Motion for RA Transfer - Taken under advisement, HEARING to be SET
State Motion for the new charges - a "remote' HEARING to be SET


Court/Case is back in business
Here we go ........................................................



1705960827892.png
 
New order, Delphi, under Gull

Denies Motion for the Franks Hearing finding Affidavit/Search Warrant adequate - NO HEARING
Denies Motion to Suppress (search) - NO HEARING
Denies Motion in Limine (ballistics) - NO HEARING
Defense Motion's Exhibits A & B - ADMISSABLE
Defense Motion for RA Transfer - Taken under advisement, HEARING to be SET
State Motion for the new charges - a "remote' HEARING to be SET


Court/Case is back in business
Here we go ........................................................



View attachment 21204
Ok so that's good - the search was valid. So everything seized can be used as evidence. ( The gun, which the bullet from between the girls had ejector Mark's matching, the blue jacket, the cell phones etc.)

Not sure what defendant exhibits A and B are but they are admissible and RA's motion to transfer will get a hearing.
 
It appears that:

Judge Gull today reversed her 11/1/2023 and 11/14/2023 Orders regarding setting hearings for Suppress Motion and Franks Motion under Scremin and Lebrato:

"Former attorneys represent to the Court they will return all discovery to the State of Indiana by the end of the week. Counsel ordered to do so to enable the State to provide that discovery to Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato. Court encourages former attorneys to cooperate with Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato for the benefit of the defendant. Court notes two (2) pending motions (Motion to Suppress, Motion for Franks Hearing) and will await a report from Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato and Prosecuting Attorney McLeland regarding hearing dates."

also:
"If the defendant's new counsel inform the Court they intend to pursue the Franks Motion, the Court will schedule a hearing."

And Gull agreed today to schedule hearing for the Transfer Motion originated by Scremin and Lebrato.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
It appears that:

Judge Gull today reversed her 11/14/2023 Orders regarding setting hearings for Suppress Motion and Franks Motion under Scremin and Lebrato:



also:


And Gull agreed today to schedule hearing for the Transfer Motion originated by Scremin and Lebrato.

JMHO
When I looked on mycase earlier, it now shows 4 attorneys representing Allen lol.
 
I'm sure my opinions change with the weather. BUT. As much as I dislike Gull, she does have the right to deny the Franks Hearing. If RA is found guilty, that can be taken up on the appeal. The Franks hearing is designed to challenge the search warrant affidavit and suppress evidence, not lay out your entire defense in a novella.

I'm hoping this transfer motion goes through and they move RA to a county jail as they should. Y'all know I've been screaming about this. :)
 

Forum statistics

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