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:
The motion filed by the prosecutor Wednesday refers to the contents of a verified ex parte motion filed by the defense. But the prosecutor is not supposed to know what's in that motion.
As public defenders, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin must ask special Judge Francis Gull to approve funding to consult with experts on building their defense strategy for Allen. Those requests come through private ex parte communication between the defense and the court only.
What does the prosecutor motion say about the contents of the defence's ex parte motion? I don't believe I have seen that or I may have missed it.

Is the Prosecutor not even allowed to know that an ex parte motion has been filed by the defence? I mean we know it, so presumably everyone knows it has been filed as we have seen it on this list now so I am a little confused who is supposed to know what.
 
Last edited:
The bottom link is from 12th Dec 2022. Is this the ex parte motion noone is supposed to know about?

Top link is the recent motion filed by the prosecutor.





Delphi murders judge says she will not tolerate leaks in Richard Allen defense hearings​


RON WILKINS Lafayette Journal & Courier

"Special Judge Frances Gull granted Delphi murder defendant Richard Allen's request for closed hearings in an order that made it clear that anyone leaking information from those hearings or the file faces contempt of court.
Over the last six years, leaks about the investigation and the killings of Libby German and Abby Williams grew more common from unattributed sources on nontraditional news outlets.
In her order, Gull wrote, "The Clerk, the Sheriff and any deputies from his office, the Court Reporter, and the Carroll County Public Defender Agency and any agents are hereby restrained under penalty of contempt from disclosing to anyone the nature of any motion or order relating hereto, any testimony or colloquy adduced at any hearing on such motions, the text of any transcript, or any other information disclosed in such proceedings."

Hearings will seek approval to fund expert witnesses in Richard Allen's case​

Allen's attorneys requested ex parte hearings to argue for approval for expenses for expert witnesses and the defense's investigation. If those hearings were public, those arguments would foretell of the findings of their investigation and reveal the defense strategies to prosecutors and the public before the formal filing of a witness list, Allen's motion noted.
The ex parte hearings are to protect the Allen's defense and its investigation.
When the defense witnesses are made public, the prosecutors can depose them to learn what they will be testifying to in court, as with any criminal case.
Prosecutors said that tool marks found on a bullet for a semiautomatic pistol found near Libby German and Abby Williams' bodies matches tool marks of shells ejected from Allen's pistol.
Prosecutors have not indicated if other bullets or shell casings were found at the site. Additionally, the girls' cause of death has not been published, so it is not known how they were killed.
Prosecutors accused Allen of killing Libby and Abby east of the Monon High Bridge on Feb. 13, 2017, based on the found bullet at the scene and witnesses who said they saw a man resembling Allen wearing muddy and bloody clothes walking on the trail the day Libby and Abby were killed.
It is presumed that some of the expert witnesses for Allen's defense will address the tool markings on the found bullet from the murder scene on the north banks of the Deer Creek.

Judge Frances Gull threatens contempt for leaks​

Gull's order specifies that motions for a hearing on Allen's defense expenses are to be filed as "EX PARTE PLEADING— TO BE PLACED UNDER SEAL."
The ex parte hearings will be closed to the public and prosecutors and held in the courtroom. A court recorder will document the hearings, and transcripts will be available to the defense attorneys and the court.
The order also specifies that the documents from the closed hearings will be segregated from the other documents in the file.
Gull's order is clear that she will not tolerate leaks of information about the hearings or motions.
"Furthermore, all county personnel who are necessary for the processing of paperwork associated with the ex parte requests for funds and disbursement of those funds are hereby ordered under penalty of contempt that should they become aware of any violation of this Order they are to immediately notify the Court of such violation."
Gull last week set the week of March 20 for Allen's trial. However, it is common for trials to be continued several times.
Gull also has not yet ruled on defense attorneys' request for a change of venue away from Carroll County.Allen's next public hearing is at 10 a.m. Jan. 13 in Carroll Circuit Court."
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to say about all this because we are not supposed to know about these right?

So Gull threatened contempt as far back as Dec 2022 if shenanigans continued with leaks. Hence the contempt hearing this month about the Westerman issue ie the leak/suicide/Murder Sheet/other involvement etc.

So the contempt hearing on the 18th presumably that will be private or what? That is about breaching the gag order which is different, but if the defence wish to discuss ex parte stuff, then it won't be public. Is this a tactic by the defence to get the hearing made private? Or are they entitled to a private hearing? My thoughts are as they are public defenders it should be a public hearing.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The bottom link is from 12th Dec 2022. Is this the ex parte motion noone is supposed to know about?

Top link is the recent motion filed by the prosecutor.





Delphi murders judge says she will not tolerate leaks in Richard Allen defense hearings​


RON WILKINS Lafayette Journal & Courier

"Special Judge Frances Gull granted Delphi murder defendant Richard Allen's request for closed hearings in an order that made it clear that anyone leaking information from those hearings or the file faces contempt of court.
Over the last six years, leaks about the investigation and the killings of Libby German and Abby Williams grew more common from unattributed sources on nontraditional news outlets.
In her order, Gull wrote, "The Clerk, the Sheriff and any deputies from his office, the Court Reporter, and the Carroll County Public Defender Agency and any agents are hereby restrained under penalty of contempt from disclosing to anyone the nature of any motion or order relating hereto, any testimony or colloquy adduced at any hearing on such motions, the text of any transcript, or any other information disclosed in such proceedings."

Hearings will seek approval to fund expert witnesses in Richard Allen's case​

Allen's attorneys requested ex parte hearings to argue for approval for expenses for expert witnesses and the defense's investigation. If those hearings were public, those arguments would foretell of the findings of their investigation and reveal the defense strategies to prosecutors and the public before the formal filing of a witness list, Allen's motion noted.
The ex parte hearings are to protect the Allen's defense and its investigation.
When the defense witnesses are made public, the prosecutors can depose them to learn what they will be testifying to in court, as with any criminal case.
Prosecutors said that tool marks found on a bullet for a semiautomatic pistol found near Libby German and Abby Williams' bodies matches tool marks of shells ejected from Allen's pistol.
Prosecutors have not indicated if other bullets or shell casings were found at the site. Additionally, the girls' cause of death has not been published, so it is not known how they were killed.
Prosecutors accused Allen of killing Libby and Abby east of the Monon High Bridge on Feb. 13, 2017, based on the found bullet at the scene and witnesses who said they saw a man resembling Allen wearing muddy and bloody clothes walking on the trail the day Libby and Abby were killed.
It is presumed that some of the expert witnesses for Allen's defense will address the tool markings on the found bullet from the murder scene on the north banks of the Deer Creek.

Judge Frances Gull threatens contempt for leaks​

Gull's order specifies that motions for a hearing on Allen's defense expenses are to be filed as "EX PARTE PLEADING— TO BE PLACED UNDER SEAL."
The ex parte hearings will be closed to the public and prosecutors and held in the courtroom. A court recorder will document the hearings, and transcripts will be available to the defense attorneys and the court.
The order also specifies that the documents from the closed hearings will be segregated from the other documents in the file.
Gull's order is clear that she will not tolerate leaks of information about the hearings or motions.
"Furthermore, all county personnel who are necessary for the processing of paperwork associated with the ex parte requests for funds and disbursement of those funds are hereby ordered under penalty of contempt that should they become aware of any violation of this Order they are to immediately notify the Court of such violation."
Gull last week set the week of March 20 for Allen's trial. However, it is common for trials to be continued several times.
Gull also has not yet ruled on defense attorneys' request for a change of venue away from Carroll County.Allen's next public hearing is at 10 a.m. Jan. 13 in Carroll Circuit Court."

I have to laugh my arse off. I am NOt surprised. I said above perhaps they filed it wrong or Lord knows even sent it to the prosecution themselves. I have learned to NOT trust the defense and their claims but was willing to be fair if wrong. It just never ends does it... They never learn.

Attorney Wieneke may want to be careful who he aligns himself with or speaks out for before the taint rubs off on him.

Like I also said though they are starting to bore me, I hope they have a similar effect on a jury.

GREAT find.
 
It's funny that almost no one out there is running with anything any longer and honestly most seem to be avoiding this case these days. No one I saw ran with this or even noted it, probably for good reason lol.

It says CLEARLY in Gull's order HOW such things are to be filed. My God.

I don't want to upset people but I do have to wonder just what it takes to see these guys for what they are.

RA should be able to claim ineffective counsel easily once this is over HOWEVER he basically begged for these attorneys.
 
What does the prosecutor motion say about the contents of the defence's ex parte motion? I don't believe I have seen that or I may have missed it.

Is the Prosecutor not even allowed to know that an ex parte motion has been filed by the defence? I mean we know it, so presumably everyone knows it has been filed as we have seen it on this list now so I am a little confused who is supposed to know what.
They (prosecution) quoted part of it and knew what was in it (the ex parte motion). I've never found the text of it. The prosecution can know an ex parte motion has been filed but they cannot access it, same as us. But obviously, the prosecution DID access it.
 
I don't know what to say about all this because we are not supposed to know about these right?

So Gull threatened contempt as far back as Dec 2022 if shenanigans continued with leaks. Hence the contempt hearing this month about the Westerman issue ie the leak/suicide/Murder Sheet/other involvement etc.

So the contempt hearing on the 18th presumably that will be private or what? That is about breaching the gag order which is different, but if the defence wish to discuss ex parte stuff, then it won't be public. Is this a tactic by the defence to get the hearing made private? Or are they entitled to a private hearing? My thoughts are as they are public defenders it should be a public hearing.

Thoughts?
Ex parte would just be a separate hearing. The prosecution cannot be at the defense's ex parte hearing. Just because someone cannot afford an attorney doesn't mean they are not entitled to the same type of defense allowed to a person with a lot more $$.
 
They (prosecution) quoted part of it and knew what was in it (the ex parte motion). I've never found the text of it. The prosecution can know an ex parte motion has been filed but they cannot access it, same as us. But obviously, the prosecution DID access it.
Do we know that for sure though?
Ex parte would just be a separate hearing. The prosecution cannot be at the defense's ex parte hearing. Just because someone cannot afford an attorney doesn't mean they are not entitled to the same type of defense allowed to a person with a lot more $$.
I understand that but I am talking about the contempt hearing now. Because the defence has brought up the subject of ex parte stuff does that mean it will not be public. Is this a ploy by the defence to keep the contempt hearing private? I am saying that is wrong if that is what they are doing.
 
It's under seal. None of us have seen it, so there's that.
So how did the prosecution see it then? It doesn't make sense to me. And it seems there have been three of them so which one did the prosecution see or was it all three?
 
I guess what I am trying to say is that the contempt hearing is about defying the gag order. The leaking or unsealing of any ex parte stuff would be a separate issue in my mind and nothing to do with the gag order. Two separate issues.

We'll have to wait and see how Gull deals with it I guess.
 
Last edited:
Do we know that for sure though?

I understand that but I am talking about the contempt hearing now. Because the defence has brought up the subject of ex parte stuff does that mean it will not be public. Is this a ploy by the defence to keep the contempt hearing private? I am saying that is wrong if that is what they are doing.
Yes, we know that for sure.

The contempt hearing will be held however Judge Gull originally scheduled it.

The prosecution actually brought up the ex parte motion, not the defense. The defense has every right to file ex parte for certain things. The prosecution has no right trying to insert themselves in ex parte matters.
 
So how did the prosecution see it then? It doesn't make sense to me. And it seems there have been three of them so which one did the prosecution see or was it all three?
Thats a really good question. They just referred to the latest one. Right now, I'm not registering anything about others.
 
So how did the prosecution see it then? It doesn't make sense to me. And it seems there have been three of them so which one did the prosecution see or was it all three?
The docs you found I read and they are a VERY GOOD FIND and it says right in them back when as to exactly HOW defense is to label such filings as defense expert ex parte motions.

Prosecutor isn't even trying to hide he has seen such in his documents and that tells me he either was mistakenly provided a copy by defense staff, the Clerk put them in the system almost all other docs are where BOTH sides can access the court case computer system on this case (we could not) and did so mistakenly OR DEFENSE never labeled them to show they were NOT TO BE as is CLEARLY defined in the docs you shared and from back when that was all laid out as to how to do such. And they either uploaded them themselves (which parties can do in my state, but the clerk then reviews generally) OR they delivered them somehow and NEVER labeled the filings accordingly.

NM is not shying from in his filing so this is likely not some corrupt leak he would be dumb to cite. It is something there was access to most likely by the parties.

I guess we will see. Maybe there is a clerk here or support staff that needs to go BUT I'm guessing they didn't follow the directions. I guess that based on what we've seen. They don't appear organized or on the ball (could be an act though) at all. What was that doc from 2022 where it is outlined?

I guess we will find out... Doesn't really seem to be much uproar over it so I'm guessing it isn't the big stink they'd like it to be because no one corruptly gave them to NM. Just a guess though, I'll be fine if wrong lol. And land accordingly.

If I were Wieneke though I think I'd hold off joining this posse and spouting off on their behalf before knowing more.

I honestly do not agree with most ex parte things for good reason but that's another topic and not really relevant right now.

Also it isn't going to change the contempt hearing nor has anything to do with it although they may love a stink just before it or to make the other side look as if they are also doing something corrupt, etc.

IF this was filed in the property manner BY the defense, NM should never have had access. I will say that. He though is not even trying to hide the fact he did, he put ir straight out into a public filing. For that reason, I have a feeling this isn't what the defense would have us believe and odds on they are responsible for it. Or the Clerk is.
 
It's under seal. None of us have seen it, so there's that.
Mcleland's motion claims anyone who is an attorney on the case can see it so that means the MS guy can see it too, I guess. WTF happened? I wonder if this is anything to do with the filings are going to Carroll County but the judge is in Allen County?
 
Thats a really good question. They just referred to the latest one. Right now, I'm not registering anything about others.
I re-read NM motion i posted upthread and recounted. There are actually four he mentions in the motion. He gives the dates.
 
Mcleland's motion claims anyone who is an attorney on the case can see it so that means the MS guy can see it too, I guess. WTF happened? I wonder if this is anything to do with the filings are going to Carroll County but the judge is in Allen County?
That would mean I suspect that it in in the electronic system and was filed with access open to all party attorneys, again this doesn't mean the public though. In my divorce, my attorney and opposing had access, clerk and judge. But when I was without an attorney, I had to become the one with access on my own behalf and had to get a code, etc. THEN when I had an attorney again, my access had to be taken away and my attorney had access on my behalf again. Even a party (myself) cannot have access if having an attorney, the attorney you have has it. Of course he can print and show you documents and show you what is in the system, etc. but you can't sit at home and access it yourself. I could though when representing self.

This again means the defense screwed up or the Clerk screwed up, not NM. My guess is defense did not alert clerk by filing it with the wording required clearly in the court order for such filings so clerk would have no heads up. Could be clerk though too and defense did it right.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,265
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom