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:
Only the Delphi portion of it. He covered Gull's decisions that happened the beginning of of last week.
(If you mean the motion for suppression supported by the FM - yes, that was denied. But the FM is still with us.)
Reisch characterized Gull's decisions as vindictive towards the D counsel - a correct assessment, I thought.
I'm concerned Gull has opened that structural error door once again. Gull did not support her decisions with any legal briefing ... which means it's Gull's "judicial discretion" against RA's rights to a hearing process once again. We've just been through that, she's well aware. So I see these decisions as deliberate messaging not just to the D counsel but to SCOIN. Almost like she wants to go back there and argue some more. LOL.
Gull left some motions still on the docket undecided and one of them was Rozzi's motion for Gull to recuse. So there's that question of why that wasn't addressed by Gull. Meanwhile, the D seems to still be waiting for the SCOIN's written opinion/decision before making their next move. I don't know why else they'd be waiting to jump on either speedy trial or ask her to proceed on their recusal motion.
JMHO
The written decision could take months.
 
SCOIN stated they'd issue immediate Order (which they did) and then the full Decision in 2 weeks tops, which means by this Thursday. :geek: moo
Their average from oral hearing to written opinion is 5.5 months. Maybe they will, but that would be unheard of for them.

I can't find that 2 week promise in the written case. Where did you find that?
 
Only the Delphi portion of it. He covered Gull's decisions that happened the beginning of of last week.
(If you mean the motion for suppression supported by the FM - yes, that was denied. But the FM is still with us.)
Reisch characterized Gull's decisions as vindictive towards the D counsel - a correct assessment, I thought.
I'm concerned Gull has opened that structural error door once again. Gull did not support her decisions with any legal briefing ... which means it's Gull's "judicial discretion" against RA's rights to a hearing process once again. We've just been through that, she's well aware. So I see these decisions as deliberate messaging not just to the D counsel but to SCOIN. Almost like she wants to go back there and argue some more. LOL.
Gull left some motions still on the docket undecided and one of them was Rozzi's motion for Gull to recuse. So there's that question of why that wasn't addressed by Gull. Meanwhile, the D seems to still be waiting for the SCOIN's written opinion/decision before making their next move. I don't know why else they'd be waiting to jump on either speedy trial or ask her to proceed on their recusal motion.
JMHO
Does the speedy trial right disappear if they don't do anything about it within a set number of days?

( I thought 70 days was mentioned. )
 
Does the speedy trial right disappear if they don't do anything about it within a set number of days?

( I thought 70 days was mentioned. )

Good question. D made one filing - their appearance motion. Otherwise D's been quiet.
That's why I'm thinking they want to see if the Decision addresses reasons SCOIN denied the Gull removal motion ... before making Gull recusal pursuit decisions.
Recusal route (where Gull won't recuse) means appellate and that means no speedy trial.
Once Gull slammed the old D's motions, but set a hearing for the new D's motion ... it seemed me that we might be back to playing chess rather than a fair trial.
Another possible reason we've not heard from the D is certainly the fact that the D needs to meet w/ their client over the major decisions ahead.
And apparently, meeting with their client is a 3 day affair with overnights, including drive time.
D also has to get discovery back from the State.
Finally, if RA also filed a complaint with the JQC - Judicial Qualifications Commission, there may be a hearing pending there; The D could be waiting for that local disciplinary decision.
JMHO
 
Last edited:
Relevant portions of Indiana Speedy Trial Rules:

IV. Speedy Trial Requirements and Remedies​

Rule 4. Impact of Delay in Criminal Trials​

(A) Defendant in Jail.​

If a defendant is detained in jail on a pending charge, a trial must be commenced no later than 180 days from the date the criminal charge against the defendant is filed, or from the date of arrest on such charge, whichever is later. Delays caused by a defendant, congestion of the court calendar, or an emergency are excluded from the time period. Any defendant detained beyond the time period of this section must be released on recognizance but continues to be subject to the criminal charge within the limitations provided for in section (C).

(B) Defendant in Jail – Motion for Early Trial.​

A defendant held in jail on a pending charge may move for an early trial. If such motion is filed, a trial must be commenced no later than seventy calendar days from the date of such motion except as follows:

(1) delays due to congestion of the court calendar or emergency are excluded from the seventy-day calculation;

(2) the defendant who moved for early trial is released from jail before the expiration of the seventy-day period; or

(3) an act of the defendant delays the trial.

If a defendant is held beyond the time limit of this section and moves for dismissal, the criminal charge against the defendant must be dismissed.

I'm not sure if Rule 4.2.B applies.

Rule 4.2. Commencement of Rule 4 Time Periods for Those Incarcerated Outside of State or in Another County​

(A) If a defendant is charged in Indiana but apprehended outside the state or is held in Indiana in federal custody, the Rule 4 time periods commence when the defendant is returned to Indiana or is made available by federal authorities for prosecution in Indiana.

(B) If a defendant is charged in one Indiana county prior to or during the time the defendant is incarcerated in a different county, the Rule 4 time periods commence on the earlier of: (1) the date the court in the non-custodial county orders the defendant’s appearance; or (2) the date the defendant provides written notice to the court where the charge is pending of the defendant’s location and requests initiation of proceedings in the non-custodial county.

 
<modsnip>

List of Exhibits Included in Franks Hearing Memorandum.pdf

Franks Memorandum Exhibits - (Evidence submitted by the Defense, with no objection as to fact from Prosecution)
Please see POIs Messer and Westfall information as exhibits (Exhibits #93 and #99)
The exhibits themselves are under gag/seal but the Franks Memo narrative discusses these Odinist/Vinlander POIs and their interviews with regard to the murders of A & L - Delphi. List of Exhibits link below.

Here's the full Frank's Memorandum:
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf

Below screen shot is the content page that shows Westfall and Messer's discussion page number.
Westfall's name is mentioned 87 times in the Frank's Memo.
Messer's name is mentioned 136 times in the Frank's Memo.


1706512862828.png''
Once the Franks Memo was filed and Todd Click's (former asst. police Chief, Rushville) deposition was completed by the Defense ... the Delphi police (In September/October 2023) picked up the Rushville investigation and began conducting interviews with certain members of the group of Vinlander POIs from Rushville that were involved with that line of the investigation. None of these POIs have been cleared.

Beginning on Page 4 of the Frank's Memo, the story of the LE team and the university professors that worked the Vinlander/Odinism line of investigation is told. Todd Click also was featured on Murder Sheet. See screen shot of FM below. And link to Murder Sheet further below.

1706514545163.png

Below is the link to the Todd Click Murder Sheet episode.
This episode of Murder Sheet presents a response from Todd Click, former assistant police chief from Rushville, Indiana who was mentioned in the recent defense filing. Todd Click (Rushville asst Chief of Police) contacted (letter) Delphi police with regard to his opinon that the Rushville (Vinlander) line of investigation was the most successful line of investigation and wanted to know why Delphi had not followed through with interviews of the POI list. After this, (in September 2023 ) Delphi investigators began interviewing the listed POIs ... a line of investigation they had inexplicably dropped - as described in the Franks Memo.

The Delphi Murders: Todd Click on the Franks Memorandum

The Delphi Murders: Todd Click on the Franks Memorandum​

Murder Sheet
© © 2021 Murder Sheet
In this episode, we will report on an exclusive statement from the former assistant chief of police from Rushville, Indiana: Todd Click.
Send tips to murdersheet@gmail.com.

JMHO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When were Westfall and Messer named POIs?
They weren't AFAIK. But the defence are saying they are in the F Memo, I guess. LE say BH has an alibi, don't know about the other O's. i don't remember RL being named a POI either, if you are referring to the voice analysis.
 
Last edited:
At the same time ... here's the State getting ready for trial ... but the little DQ Judge Gull motion now gets in the way.

States Motion to Compel Discovery 1/27/2024

Adobe Acrobat

 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,431
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom