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:
Okay so I went and read and this refers to a deposition by the defense they never finished due to time constraints. So it's just a defense DEPO, not that that doesn't matter. Stupid puter capitalizing random sh*t.

I mean the P could depose her too and maybe already has. It is the D always late in the game. Not having my head this morn fully into this but I don't think P is waiting with bated breath for the D deposition of her. I think defense simply wants time to finish it and find out for their part as always, LATE in the game and June was the date to finish.

I don't think the P is awaiting it is what I mean and don't already know or have their stuff re it. They want it in so they know what was said to her or by her already.
It wasnt finished because she lawyered up and had to scrub her SM including commenting on murder forums.
 
I told you it was interesting even if untrue. What about the plea deal bit but McL wanted to include no appeal allowed so D wouldn't go for it. This would explain his many confessions too and writing to the warden. What about the prisoner abusr pic Baldwin allegedly took deliberately after RA exercised? I had heard that before. Yeah the daughter and hubby bit is very interesting if true.
well we don't know it to be untrue. Some will probably end up true and some not would be my guess.

It was that he sat there and NEVER saw his defense attorneys or had anyone that imo caused him to confess. They blame all else other than selves.

the daughter bit isn't hard to buy for a few reasons. she is not attending--nothing could stop me if I thought my dad innocent, she moved away, and there have been rumors of this before...

Yeah B taking that pic. Uh huh, damage control. I believe nothing at all that comes from the defense and likely never will. Imo they have manipulated their client to save selves... Or attempt to anyhow...
 
If he wants a plea deal - why won't they do that? They are just after the public funding IMO. We know they are looking ahead to appeals as they already have appellate pro bono lawyers.
 
Well I'm confused. I thought the P wanted this particular confession coming in so why would D be obtaining it rather than P?

And isn't this the woman who apparently lawyered up and doesn't want to provide it or some such? Or do I have her mixed up with someone else?

I don't recall the D motion so that doesn't help me much, there have been so many lol and many I have never read although you know I get summaries on each from Tom.
Maybe the P have asked the D to provide it as part of a possible plea agreement? JMO.
 
well we don't know it to be untrue. Some will probably end up true and some not would be my guess.

It was that he sat there and NEVER saw his defense attorneys or had anyone that imo caused him to confess. They blame all else other than selves.

the daughter bit isn't hard to buy for a few reasons. she is not attending--nothing could stop me if I thought my dad innocent, she moved away, and there have been rumors of this before...

Yeah B taking that pic. Uh huh, damage control. I believe nothing at all that comes from the defense and likely never will. Imo they have manipulated their client to save selves... Or attempt to anyhow...
We did suspect all this due to him eating the discovery and his own poop and confessing to anybody that he could get to listen. I just wonder why his lawyers ignored all this? Did he ever confess to his lawyers, I wonder?

What did you think about his possibly cleaning up in the Weber outhouse and returning on his motor bike to then clean up the outhouse? They point to the seizing of the motorcycle cover regarding this and I do remember seeing that on the list of items taken in the search warrant.
 
Last edited:
If he wants a plea deal - why won't they do that? They are just after the public funding IMO. We know they are looking ahead to appeals as they already have appellate pro bono lawyers.
Imo RA was behind bars waiting to hear from his lawyers and never did and probably panicked more each day. I WONDER how many times wife and mom probably tried to reach them and talk to them to no avail. Then they sent a lackey with a bunch of evidence to dump on him and no one to go over what was in it with him and he confessed.

They can blame it on whoever they like and maybe he also confessed before and after that but it sure the heck isn't due to anyone else but Allen himself and possibly his lack of representation.

And also his writing the warden or others about a plea, again their fault.

They knew it and have tried to cover that is exactly what happened, the left their client high and dry and have been trying to correct what would come out about them ever since. at HIS expense.

Their pattern and lack of competency shows throughout. Timing of all also shows it. Once they did react and are telling him what to do to fix it, what is he going to do? He finally HAS lawyers that showed up and they are telling him they can fix it...

JMO and my view and to me it is as obvious as that I will have to work tomorrow that this is the case and what went on. Always has been.

Help him take a plea? Think about this too, he was writing the warden wanting a plea but he was represented. Or was he... WHERE WERE THEY in talking to him, advising him or anything else...

NOT that I think the confessions should be thrown out as they weren't caused by mental instability nor anything outside of a lack of contact with counsel imo. AND more so a guilty conscience.
 
Maybe the P have asked the D to provide it as part of a possible plea agreement? JMO.
Sorry still lost. What right does the D have more than the P to get an affidavit from this woman and provide it to the P?

We may be talking about different things, not sure.

P wants the confession in and the woman to testify to such and such to come into the trial, that confession and others. They don't have to get it from the D. Unless D has something they haven't provided that is already discovery D hasn't provided but not sure if that is the case and that would be a different topic and still would not preclude the P from asking to depose her themselves, call her, etc.

Sorry just a bit lost on this one and it could be me no doubt.

And then yes, this is almost like three different topics, there were those of you saying she was scrubbing social media, did not want to be involved or some such... SOOOO....

These are like three different things here but all relating to this confession and this woman.
 
We did suspect all this due to him eating the discovery and his own poop and confessing to anybody that he could get to listen. I just wonder why his lawyers ignored all this? Did he ever confess to his lawyers, I wonder?

What did you think about his possibly cleaning up in the Weber outhouse and returning on his motor bike to then clean up the outhouse? They point to the seizing of the motorcycle cover regarding this and I do remember seeing that on the list of items taken in the search warrant.
He never saw his lawyers until very late in the game or talked to them from all we know and imo.

The eating of paper and poop I do not accept as mental illness nor necessarily buy into it.

The motorcycle and Weber thing was interesting but I never mentioned it as it is Reddit and I don't see anything we can see ourselves to help endorse it. I guess it could be true but it would mean someone knows things from LE or somewhere that they know of this because we sure don't know it to be fact. The motorcycle cover I've seen dished about and talked of but mostly put down as nothing and just the taking of another item they could or that may relate to means of transport, etc. So not sure. It definitely is interesting. Everything in that post was interesting, all of it.

However, I took from it the things I feel I can see things we know that may make it more likely truth. His daughter has NOT been at any of his hearings... Again no one could stop me if I knew my dad innocent and wrongly accused. Not sure if fact but also believe they moved.

The bit about Kathy (can never remember if it is C or K) gave him an alibi gave me pause as I have went on about and wondered what she said as to where he was and so forth and his behavior that day and wanting to know...

It is interesting too we never hear the Weber name hardly ever but the Mears property and the name of Ron Logan and his property come up a LOT, Weber not so much.

I don't know. It is Reddit. It is a poster. Nothing is proven. ALL interesting. I just feel a few things more likely the poster may have right and some I'm not so sure of and believe to likely be speculation, etc. All may be true. Don't know.

As you said take it with a grain of salt or you did your UK version, pinch or something lol. I think some in it could be true, not sure all is though or any is.

BUT yes, the cleanup, motorcycle and Weber thing was interesting...
 
Sorry still lost. What right does the D have more than the P to get an affidavit from this woman and provide it to the P?

We may be talking about different things, not sure.

P wants the confession in and the woman to testify to such and such to come into the trial, that confession and others. They don't have to get it from the D. Unless D has something they haven't provided that is already discovery D hasn't provided but not sure if that is the case and that would be a different topic and still would not preclude the P from asking to depose her themselves, call her, etc.

Sorry just a bit lost on this one and it could be me no doubt.

And then yes, this is almost like three different topics, there were those of you saying she was scrubbing social media, did not want to be involved or some such... SOOOO....

These are like three different things here but all relating to this confession and this woman.
Possibly because she is a state actor/employee and/or she will be a state witness and possibly she could be prosecuted herself re the SM stuff. Just guessing here so JMO. She has a lawyer now too so is worried I guess, could lose her job/be suspended etc. Maybe D are/were trying to keep it all under wraps especially if the plea negotiations are true. Too much here we don't know ATM to be able to answer the questions. Who is her lawyer, did anyone notice?
 
I don't mean to be a pest, but just to share my thinking a bit more:

IMO: A Judge has great power in their Court, but ... no Judge has a "right" to keep a case. And the ISC knows this.
The ISC appointed Special Judge Gull; they can replace her with good reason.
The reason could be as simple as high-profile RA coming to the ISC with seriously documented questions as to fairness, exparte incidents, and lack of transparency/candor of the Court in a complex case.

IMO - The quieter, the better for both JG and the ISC.
So... If I'm in JG's place, I'll take myself out the gracious way, rather than having ISC deal with it publicly, to my (public) embarrassment.
Good chance that tomorrow AM, JG could have a courtesy chat with the body that placed RA's case under her (ISC), and move along to less complicated venues.

That being said, I'm not in JG's place and JG might travel to a different drum or have different values/priorities than the risk/benefit analysis above presumes.

So as you've said, we'll wait and see.

JMHO - from general life experience. (Also, see (former judge) Diener.)
Wondering what you think of her response?

Do you think D will go to the ISC again?
 
Possibly because she is a state actor/employee and/or she will be a state witness and possibly she could be prosecuted herself re the SM stuff. Just guessing here so JMO. She has a lawyer now too so is worried I guess, could lose her job/be suspended etc. Maybe D are/were trying to keep it all under wraps especially if the plea negotiations are true. Too much here we don't know ATM to be able to answer the questions. Who is her lawyer, did anyone notice?
I think D wants the confession under wraps of course. Not sure about the plea stuff. Lost again re plea negotiations. They don't even talk to each other (P & D) and no hint of such I've seen, only thing said is RA writing to warden, etc. on his own behalf since clearly he wasn't be represented even though he supposedly had representation.

Yeah, going to take knowing more I guess. Also have to remember that many things are on hold until judge rules on disqualification which I see when I came in she has. Haven't read it yet.
 
Wondering what you think of her response?

Do you think D will go to the ISC again?
LOL. Just read it all.

I KNEW the ex parte thing came from their screw up or suspected as much since it was silenced pretty quickly. Caused it themselves or their staff did.

They don't know the rules and they don't know the law and they don't do their job. Such is clear over and over and over.

She points out pretty clearly each and every thing and calls the blufff imo but professionally and as one should. We know ourselves much or a lot of what she states to be true.

Good luck to them if they do go to the ISC again. They were told once they hadn't done all they needed to first at the local level with recusal or disqualification and now even though asking for such, there is little basis I can see and so even if they have completed (not sure of all the steps) the the required steps to first address it at the trial court level, it doesn't mean the ISC will find in their favor.

They can't even submit a bill with the appropraite document in a request for funds.

Have they ever really adequately documented ANYTHING they claim?

Bozos.

Sorry but they are. And RA has stuck himself with them.
 
I think D wants the confession under wraps of course. Not sure about the plea stuff. Lost again re plea negotiations. They don't even talk to each other (P & D) and no hint of such I've seen, only thing said is RA writing to warden, etc. on his own behalf since clearly he wasn't be represented even though he supposedly had representation.

Yeah, going to take knowing more I guess. Also have to remember that many things are on hold until judge rules on disqualification which I see when I came in she has. Haven't read it yet.
I have read some things about the fact she is a state employee that is affecting it but I don't really understand it. Also the doctor/patient relationship comes in to it (confidentiality), plus her patient is the defendant, who also has his own lawyers, who also have lawyers. She herself has a lawyer apparently too. There have also been comments questioning whether he (RA) was mirandized for the mental health interview. Then there is the issue of whether she has been sharing stuff she shouldn't have done with people like the you tubers. It seems to be a right ole mess, if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
LOL. Just read it all.

I KNEW the ex parte thing came from their screw up or suspected as much since it was silenced pretty quickly. Caused it themselves or their staff did.

They don't know the rules and they don't know the law and they don't do their job. Such is clear over and over and over.

She points out pretty clearly each and every thing and calls the blufff imo but professionally and as one should. We know ourselves much or a lot of what she states to be true.

Good luck to them if they do go to the ISC again. They were told once they hadn't done all they needed to first at the local level with recusal or disqualification and now even though asking for such, there is little basis I can see and so even if they have completed (not sure of all the steps) the the required steps to first address it at the trial court level, it doesn't mean the ISC will find in their favor.

They can't even submit a bill with the appropraite document in a request for funds.

Have they ever really adequately documented ANYTHING they claim?

Bozos.

Sorry but they are. And RA has stuck himself with them.
Agree - they cannot even invoice properly so that's probably why they offered pro bono LOL.

It's a good response from Gull IMO. 6 pages, short and sweet versus their XX number of pages. Didn't their motion go from 24 to 40 odd pages?
 
I have read some things about the fact she is a state employee that is affecting it but I don't really understand it. Also the doctor/patient relationship comes in to it (confidentiality), plus her patient is the defendant, who also has his own lawyers, who also have lawyers. She herself has a lawyer apparently too. There have also been comments questioning whether he (RA) was mirandized for the mental health interview. Then there is the issue of whether she has been sharing stuff she shouldn't have done with people like the you tubers. It seems to be a right ole mess, if you ask me.
A right ole mess in this case, imagine that. What isn't a mess in this case lol.

Well the confidentiality thing I am not sure applies. I think the P's argument citing the law that since this is a confession to murder it is an allowed exception and it should come in. I don't see much reason that shouldn't win out but then what do I know. And the D doesn't want it in which says plenty on its own.

So he was to be mirandized for seeing a doctor? These are just comments or fact?

Was she was she not sharing confidential things on SM? Or is that speculation? Any doctor should know better, but then so should any attorney, etc. since both are bound by ethics and confidentiality rules but then we know not all are of the same caliber when it comes to attorneys and the same probably applies with doctors as well.

Regardless of anything she has done or has not done, it doesn't change his confession imo and that it should be admissible, again imo.
 
Agree - they cannot even invoice properly so that's probably why they offered pro bono LOL.

It's a good response from Gull IMO. 6 pages, short and sweet versus their XX number of pages. Didn't their motion go from 24 to 40 odd pages?
I thought so too and read it as well. Pointed out the things defense would rather we not know, that there are real and valid reasons for instance for not processing a payment. The ex parte thing was another. They or their staff did not know or follow the clear rules on how you mark things if you want them kept ex parte, once ADVISED, they finally got it right for the first time. Can't invoice with the right documentation to support it. She didn't do more than explain why such was refused and so on and then said how when it was gotten right, payment was made, etc. Also pointed out when hearings were set and when they weren't and why and again it was because there was no reason or cause at that point.

I read many of the filings when not some ridiculous defense thing of novel length. Prosecutions are never a problem nor are Gull's.

So they delayed all with this but now other decisions can be made and hearings held until they do something further (D). They can try going back to the ISC if they have satisfied all the things they are to try for remedy first at the trial court level but I don't think they have a good basis for a win but that's jmo.
 
I agree with her.


GOOD FOR HER. The victims and families are lost in cases and this one has gone TOO FAR. RA is NOT the victim and his defense attorneys should have been kicked out of law school and are making a mockery of our justice system.

If such keeps up, no one is going to have any respect for the system and who could blame them.

Bring in the clowns. Oh that's right, they are already here.... Bozo one and Bozo Jr. And all their lil followers and chain of leaks minus their DEAD friend.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,227
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom