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:
This is what the J & C article states about what happened in court the other day.

Gull disagreed with the defense and denied their motions to suppress and for a Franks hearing. She also denied Allen's motion to exclude the report that alleges the tool markings on the ejected bullet match tool markings on test bullets elected from Allen's pistol.

The denial of Rozzi and Baldwin's motions is the latest in a series of tense exchanges between Allen's defense attorneys and Gull.

Rozzi and Baldwin were reinstated to the case on Jan. 18 after an order from the Indiana Supreme Court. The high court's order followed a hearing during which attorneys for Allen wrote that Gull incorrectly removed the two attorneys from the case on Oct. 31, over Allen's objection.

The motion to the Supreme Court for writs to remove Gull and to force a speedy trial in 70 days were denied.

Allen's trial remains scheduled to begin Oct. 15 this year.
 
Here's the motion to DQ Judge Gull.

Verified Motion to Disqualify 1/28/2024
Adobe Acrobat

Richard Allen Affidavit 1/28/2024 10:00PM

2024 1/29 affidavit_of_Richard_Allen.pdf

So it is a motion to disqualify or for her to recuse herself. So they are giving her a similar choice to what she gave them, it seems.

I have read some of the multiple page RA affidavit but I am of the opinion this is all clutching at straws. On the one hand they are claiming that what has happened is detrimental to the defense and their client yet they don't seem to want to get on with his defense very quickly.

I don't know what is going to happen but I don't think she is going anywhere. They need to start defending their client rather than having these mini battles all the time.
 
Last edited:
So it is a motion to disqualify or for her to recuse herself. So they are giving her a similar choice to what she gave them, it seems.

IMO, I don't find this to be a similar "choice". The power - at this step - belongs to party (Gull) being accused. She can just slap this one away.

The power when Gull removed the D belonged to Gull. The D could not slap it away, and couldn't even get a fair hearing process (which was harshly criticized by SCOIN, by the way - over-reaching w/ "WHEAT" ("Wheat" being a case citing broad judicial discretion, broad judicial power.)

This is a Motion to the Court like any other. RA is asking for his Motion to be heard by Gull. Either she grants this motion and conducts a hearing or she denies the motion. Another choice is that she can simply recuse in response to the motion. If she holds the hearing, (I have no idea what that looks like), she'll hear the arguments and then make her decision either way. If Gull refuses to recuse, it's on to the Appellate.

RA's motion is asserting Judge Gull is bias (or has the appearance of bias) against him (and his defense team) and invoking her obligation as a Judge under Judicial Conduct rules - to recuse herself.

RA moves for Gull's recusal, he wants a new judge assigned. It's his position that the current Judge is biased against the Defense (and therefore him) (see affidavit, see the RA motion to the SCOIN about her removal ... which was denied.) RA's Affidavit here lists the evidence of bias.

The SCOIN granted one of RA's 3 motions: SCOIN reinstated RA and his old D.

Another of RA's SCOIN motions was for the SCOIN to order the removal of Judge Gull.
The 3rd of RA's SCOIN motions (denied) was for SCOIN to order trial in 70 days.

Relative to RA's other 2 (denied) SCOIN motions ... the SCOIN arguments explored how "heavy a hand" the SCOIN should use (knowing what SCOIN decides makes precedent). The SCOIN doesn't want to over step and in the arguments they discussed how RA and his Defense team have the ability to solve these other 2 motions at the lower level(s), once the old D is reinstated. RA can resolve these issues via his local court and if that doesn't work, via a lower Appellate Court.

So we see here that RA is starting the process of resolving the removal of Judge Gull ... at the lowest level. If this is unsuccessful, IMO, we'll see RA go back to the Appellate. (Unless SCOIN steps in - b/c SCOIN can do anything, really.)

Reading RA's Affidavit, IMO, this thing has been prepared with the help of RA's Appellate team ... to make sure that this Motion for Recusal and the Affidavit are 100% ready to make a great case for the Appellate Court that RA will appeal to if this Motion to DQ Gull doesn't work at Gull's level.

If Judge Gull refuses to self-recuse ... unfortunately the next step is an Appellate level process (not so "speedy") ... that will significantly delay RA's trial.

The above is just my JMHO, and my feeling that if Gull does not recuse that RA will take this to the Appellate to review Gull's decision is just the way I've been seeing this chess board. MOO
 
IMO, I don't find this to be a similar "choice". The power - at this step - belongs to party (Gull) being accused. She can just slap this one away.

The power when Gull removed the D belonged to Gull. The D could not slap it away, and couldn't even get a fair hearing process (which was harshly criticized by SCOIN, by the way - over-reaching w/ "WHEAT" ("Wheat" being a case citing broad judicial discretion, broad judicial power.)

This is a Motion to the Court like any other. RA is asking for his Motion to be heard by Gull. Either she grants this motion and conducts a hearing or she denies the motion. Another choice is that she can simply recuse in response to the motion. If she holds the hearing, (I have no idea what that looks like), she'll hear the arguments and then make her decision either way. If Gull refuses to recuse, it's on to the Appellate.

RA's motion is asserting Judge Gull is bias (or has the appearance of bias) against him (and his defense team) and invoking her obligation as a Judge under Judicial Conduct rules - to recuse herself.

RA moves for Gull's recusal, he wants a new judge assigned. It's his position that the current Judge is biased against the Defense (and therefore him) (see affidavit, see the RA motion to the SCOIN about her removal ... which was denied.) RA's Affidavit here lists the evidence of bias.

The SCOIN granted one of RA's 3 motions: SCOIN reinstated RA and his old D.

Another of RA's SCOIN motions was for the SCOIN to order the removal of Judge Gull.
The 3rd of RA's SCOIN motions (denied) was for SCOIN to order trial in 70 days.

Relative to RA's other 2 (denied) SCOIN motions ... the SCOIN arguments explored how "heavy a hand" the SCOIN should use (knowing what SCOIN decides makes precedent). The SCOIN doesn't want to over step and in the arguments they discussed how RA and his Defense team have the ability to solve these other 2 motions at the lower level(s), once the old D is reinstated. RA can resolve these issues via his local court and if that doesn't work, via a lower Appellate Court.

So we see here that RA is starting the process of resolving the removal of Judge Gull ... at the lowest level. If this is unsuccessful, IMO, we'll see RA go back to the Appellate. (Unless SCOIN steps in - b/c SCOIN can do anything, really.)

Reading RA's Affidavit, IMO, this thing has been prepared with the help of RA's Appellate team ... to make sure that this Motion for Recusal and the Affidavit are 100% ready to make a great case for the Appellate Court that RA will appeal to if this Motion to DQ Gull doesn't work at Gull's level.

If Judge Gull refuses to self-recuse ... unfortunately the next step is an Appellate level process (not so "speedy") ... that will significantly delay RA's trial.

The above is just my JMHO, and my feeling that if Gull does not recuse that RA will take this to the Appellate to review Gull's decision is just the way I've been seeing this chess board. MOO
The ISC already ruled on her removal I thought and agreed for her to stay. I will check back but I don't think they will want that coming back to them again. The trial needs to move forward now. Putting in the F motion and now this judge motion is just going to delay the trial further.

Here's an article and an excerpt from it.


The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday granted Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen's request to reinstate his original defense team but denied his plea for a new judge.
 
Last edited:
The ISC already ruled on her removal I thought and agreed for her to stay. I will check back but I don't think they will want that coming back to them again. The trial needs to move forward now.

I can see how it's confusing.

There's Appellate courts that sit on a level between the SCOIN and Gull's Court. (e.g. Gull's attorneys argued "wrong appellate venue" in their answer to RA and SCOIN. Gull's attorney believed RA skipped a step going straight to SCOIN.)

I agree the SCOIN won't want to see this matter return for hearings; the good thing is they don't have to. They can conduct follow up on this matter without holding hearings, should either party have further issues.

IMO, RA has had to weigh his desire for a trial to more quickly proceed under Gull (who he believes to be biased) or to slow the process with an effort to DQ Gull. The effort is quick only if Gull recuses in response to the motion.

IMO, the SCOIN didn't so much "agree that Gull could stay". They just denied the Motion for her removal ... with the oral arguments indicating that if Motion 1 was granted and the Old D reinstated than Motion 2 and 3 could be handled by RA and his D using the processes/reliefs available lower courts.

JMHO
 
Last edited:
I have removed the link in question as well as several follow-up posts.

You ARE allowed to discuss theories. But the link was definitely political. There are other ways to discuss possible ties to white supremacy in this particular case without going down the political rabbit hole.

As has been said before: No politics. No religion (unless it related directly to the case).
 
from RA's affidavit above:



1706552019763.png

****

1706552116723.png

***

1706551911983.png


IMO, Gull's been emotional and careless. Murder trial requires highest bar of judicial "judiciousness". JMHO
 
I copy and pasted the State's motion below.
Defence have 30 days to provide discovery, so by 25th Feb.


STATE’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

COMES NOW the State of Indiana, by its prosecuting attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfully requests the Court Order the Defendant to comply with Indiana Supreme Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 2.5, and previously Carroll County Local Court Rules, and in support states the following:
1. That Charges were filed against the Defendant on October 28, 2022.
2. That the Court granted a Motion by Defense for a Discovery Deadline ordering the State to produce discovery by November 1, 2023.
3. That the State complied with that Order.
4. That Carroll County Local Court Rules direct that all discovery is to be exchanged between the State and Defense automatically and continuously. 5. That, effective January 1, 2024, the Indiana Supreme Court issued Rules of Criminal Procedure wherein Rule 2.5 Discovery states that the parties must endeavor to share information without court involvement. Subsection (C) Disclosure by the Defense, states that within thirty (30) days after the prosecutor’s disclosure the defense must furnish the State with the following material and information within the defense’s possession or control:
(a) Tnames and last known addresses of persons whom the defense intends to call as witnesses, with their relevant written or recorded statements. The defense may refrain from providing a witness' address or other contact information under this rule if the defense in good faith believes the disclosure of the witness' address or other contact information may jeopardize the safety of the witness or the witness' immediate family. If the defense does not disclose the witness' address or other contact information in its possession for the reason stated under this rule, then the defense must make the witness available to the state upon reasonable notice.
(b) Any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects the defense intends to use as evidence.
(c) Any reports or statements of experts, made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons, that may be used at a hearing or trial.
The defense must disclose any statutory defense in writing by the statutory deadline or, if there is no statutory deadline, within a reasonable time.
6. That to date, the Defense has neither turned over any discovery nor have they provided the State with a list of Expert witnesses that they intend to call at trial or at any other pre-trial hearing.
7. That despite requests by the State for Defense to disclose any exhibits they intend to use in depositions, Defense has failed to provide the State with those exhibits prior to the commencement of depositions, thus far.
8. That the State believes the Defense intends to introduce expert testimony, exhibits and evidence at the pre-trial hearings and at trial.
9. That the State intends to depose all Defense expert witnesses and/or other witnesses in preparation for pre-trial hearings and jury trial, but cannot do so without full discovery disclosure as required by the Rules. WHEREFORE, the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C McLeland, requests an Order to Compel Discovery by the Defense within a reasonable time not to exceed thirty (30) days and for all other just and proper relief. Nicholas C. McLeland Attorney
#28300-08
Prosecuting Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon the Defendant’s attorney of record, through personally delivery, ordinary mail with proper postage affixed or by service through the e-filing system and filed with Carroll Circuit Court, this 26th_ day of January, 2024.
Nicholas C. McLeland
Attorney #28300-08
Prosecuting Attorney
 
Last edited:
IMO, I don't find this to be a similar "choice". The power - at this step - belongs to party (Gull) being accused. She can just slap this one away.

The power when Gull removed the D belonged to Gull. The D could not slap it away, and couldn't even get a fair hearing process (which was harshly criticized by SCOIN, by the way - over-reaching w/ "WHEAT" ("Wheat" being a case citing broad judicial discretion, broad judicial power.)

This is a Motion to the Court like any other. RA is asking for his Motion to be heard by Gull. Either she grants this motion and conducts a hearing or she denies the motion. Another choice is that she can simply recuse in response to the motion. If she holds the hearing, (I have no idea what that looks like), she'll hear the arguments and then make her decision either way. If Gull refuses to recuse, it's on to the Appellate.

RA's motion is asserting Judge Gull is bias (or has the appearance of bias) against him (and his defense team) and invoking her obligation as a Judge under Judicial Conduct rules - to recuse herself.

RA moves for Gull's recusal, he wants a new judge assigned. It's his position that the current Judge is biased against the Defense (and therefore him) (see affidavit, see the RA motion to the SCOIN about her removal ... which was denied.) RA's Affidavit here lists the evidence of bias.

The SCOIN granted one of RA's 3 motions: SCOIN reinstated RA and his old D.

Another of RA's SCOIN motions was for the SCOIN to order the removal of Judge Gull.
The 3rd of RA's SCOIN motions (denied) was for SCOIN to order trial in 70 days.

Relative to RA's other 2 (denied) SCOIN motions ... the SCOIN arguments explored how "heavy a hand" the SCOIN should use (knowing what SCOIN decides makes precedent). The SCOIN doesn't want to over step and in the arguments they discussed how RA and his Defense team have the ability to solve these other 2 motions at the lower level(s), once the old D is reinstated. RA can resolve these issues via his local court and if that doesn't work, via a lower Appellate Court.

So we see here that RA is starting the process of resolving the removal of Judge Gull ... at the lowest level. If this is unsuccessful, IMO, we'll see RA go back to the Appellate. (Unless SCOIN steps in - b/c SCOIN can do anything, really.)

Reading RA's Affidavit, IMO, this thing has been prepared with the help of RA's Appellate team ... to make sure that this Motion for Recusal and the Affidavit are 100% ready to make a great case for the Appellate Court that RA will appeal to if this Motion to DQ Gull doesn't work at Gull's level.

If Judge Gull refuses to self-recuse ... unfortunately the next step is an Appellate level process (not so "speedy") ... that will significantly delay RA's trial.

The above is just my JMHO, and my feeling that if Gull does not recuse that RA will take this to the Appellate to review Gull's decision is just the way I've been seeing this chess board. MOO

If she doesn't recuse herself I see that being an easy path to getting a retrial.
 
I can see how it's confusing.

There's Appellate courts that sit on a level between the SCOIN and Gull's Court. (e.g. Gull's attorneys argued "wrong appellate venue" in their answer to RA and SCOIN. Gull's attorney believed RA skipped a step going straight to SCOIN.)

I agree the SCOIN won't want to see this matter return for hearings; the good thing is they don't have to. They can conduct follow up on this matter without holding hearings, should either party have further issues.

IMO, RA has had to weigh his desire for a trial to more quickly proceed under Gull (who he believes to be biased) or to slow the process with an effort to DQ Gull. The effort is quick only if Gull recuses in response to the motion.

IMO, the SCOIN didn't so much "agree that Gull could stay". They just denied the Motion for her removal ... with the oral arguments indicating that if Motion 1 was granted and the Old D reinstated than Motion 2 and 3 could be handled by RA and his D using the processes/reliefs available lower courts.

JMHO
It's not confusing to me. I just see it as normal defence delay tactic. Then they will claim they couldn't get a speedy trial. They have already wasted months on the ridiculous F theory so now they have to put some meat on the bones of that dog's dinner to turn it into a viable defence. That will be interesting to see how they do that.

As the ISC have already backed Gull, I think the defence are on a losing battle even if they win the intermediate round. Gull will just appeal it to the ISC who will not even need to hear it again, before they rule on it again. There is no new evidence as nothing has happened in court so far. D are just vindictive and out for revenge. I really don't think they care about their client. Slinking out the back door was low.
 
Last edited:
It's not confusing to me. I just see it as normal defence delay tactic. Then they will claim they couldn't get a speedy trial. They have already wasted months on the ridiculous F theory so now they have to put some meat on the bones of that dog's dinner to turn it into a viable defence. That will be interesting to see how they do that.

We disagree here, and that's fine.

IMO - no benefit to RA for further delaying trial. Benefit of any delay goes to the P. JMHO
 

Forum statistics

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