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:

Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen is trying one more time to divorce the case from Special Judge Frances Gull, whom he and his defense team have repeatedly accused of being bias against them.

In a filing Thursday, Andrew Baldwin, one of Allen's attorneys, argued that Gull has violated Indiana trial rules by failing to make a decision on two of the defense's motions within the 30-day time frame the rules required. Baldwin is asking the Indiana Supreme Court's chief administrative officer, Justin Forkner, to review the case and determine whether rulings have, indeed, been delayed.

If Forkner makes that determination, the case must be withdrawn from Gull's court, and the Indiana Supreme Court must appoint a special judge, according to Indiana trial rules Baldwin cited.

The latest effort by Allen's defense team to remove Gull from the case centers on two pending motions that were filed in March and April ― well beyond the 30-day window. Both motions are seeking what's called a Frank's hearing, which would allow the defense team to present evidence that law enforcement made false statements in an affidavit that ultimately led to Allen's arrest in October 2022.

Several other pending motions on critical issues, including what evidence can and cannot be presented to the jury, are set for hearings from July 30 to Aug. 1 in Carroll County.
I thought she had ruled on the Franks motions and denied them but even if she hasn't that could still be done in the scheduled hearing this month.

Also, Gull is already a special judge appointed for the trial so what reason could be valid to appoint another one? This seems to be clutching at straws by the D or just more delay tactics for whatever purpose I just cannot figure?

Also, the D themselves cancelled the scheduled May trial start which would have been within the 30 days, so again they are just clutching at straws here while also crying wolf IMO.
 
Last edited:
Do they still count as prior crimes though if they are charged with something else as an adult? And what if they were aged 20 at the time of the minor offence?
20 is an adult of course. As to do they count as prior crimes, not sure that a DUI would have much impact decades later when it comes to this unless you are saying he killed someone or something/ Also, we'd never hear of such regardless imo.

Presentence investigations look though at their entire life, not sure if IN does that but we do in my state, and look at all factors and recommend a sentence... (Upon conviction)

Message me if you would with what it is you found.
 
I thought she had ruled on the Franks motions and denied them but even if she hasn't that could still be done in the scheduled hearing this month.

Also, Gull is already a special judge appointed for the trial so what reason could be valid to appoint another one? This seems to be clutching at straws by the D or just more delay tactics for whatever purpose I just cannot figure?

Also, the D themselves cancelled the scheduled May trial start which would have been within the 30 days, so again they are just clutching at straws here while also crying wolf IMO.
I'm almost positive she ruled on it. However, I think they filed version 2, 3, 4 etc. and not so sure she ruled on those but since she denied the first one,I'm thinking that covers it.

I'm kind of not surprised and was just saying it is about time they rear their heads again and start to get worried at the last minute. Two weeks or thereabouts, about typical for them.

Imo they need to be careful what they wish for. It's clear that one way or another they want her off the case partly because she never called them a Ding Dong lol.

But she has ruled in their favor more than once.

I personally would have made them give up the mental health records the very first time they used mental health as an excuse or argument. She didn't. She also didn't find enough in the prosecution's charge against them.

Good point that they themselves delayed the hearings,decisions, and trial. I pretty much don't even react any longer when they do something like this. It's really getting old and tiresome. Imo.
 

Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen is trying one more time to divorce the case from Special Judge Frances Gull, whom he and his defense team have repeatedly accused of being bias against them.

In a filing Thursday, Andrew Baldwin, one of Allen's attorneys, argued that Gull has violated Indiana trial rules by failing to make a decision on two of the defense's motions within the 30-day time frame the rules required. Baldwin is asking the Indiana Supreme Court's chief administrative officer, Justin Forkner, to review the case and determine whether rulings have, indeed, been delayed.

If Forkner makes that determination, the case must be withdrawn from Gull's court, and the Indiana Supreme Court must appoint a special judge, according to Indiana trial rules Baldwin cited.

The latest effort by Allen's defense team to remove Gull from the case centers on two pending motions that were filed in March and April ― well beyond the 30-day window. Both motions are seeking what's called a Frank's hearing, which would allow the defense team to present evidence that law enforcement made false statements in an affidavit that ultimately led to Allen's arrest in October 2022.

Several other pending motions on critical issues, including what evidence can and cannot be presented to the jury, are set for hearings from July 30 to Aug. 1 in Carroll County.
I guess we will see. I seem to recall her ruling on the initial Frank's motion. If that one didn't carry the day then would any amended/further added one tot he original do so? Not sure.

If they ever do get her off, I hope they end up with a judge that doesn't even humor them to the point she has with their b.s. JUST MY OPINON of course.

I'll repeat yet again that I've never felt sorry for a defendant being stuck with the attorneys he is like I have here. Nothing could ever make me feel such a way for a defendant I think guilty but such has happened here.

I lack descriptors for what they are. Ludicrous. Ridiculous. Unprofessional. Bozos.

Sorry but it's just beyond.

And of course I feel even WORSE for the victim's families to have to deal with what is in my opinion being treated like a joke when at the core of this TWO young teen girls were brutally slaughtered.

Talking and responding in general of course, not to you personally in any way.
 
Do they still count as prior crimes though if they are charged with something else as an adult? And what if they were aged 20 at the time of the minor offence?
I have to admit I am a bit lost. You are talking about RA right? I thought in one post you made me it sound like it related to an attorney.

If it is about RA, then I guess it is a prior offense but I don't see where it would have any big impact and that's if not even expunged. 20 is not a minor here. Under 18 is. 21 is the drinking age but adulthood is at 18.

Even if true I'm not seeing where you think it would be so significant, something he did when years younger that was not a murder of two girls or anyone like this. I guess what I mean is he also could have shoplifted or stolen something from a neghbor, broke and entered either and yes, it means he was no well behaved but I don't think it would carry a lot of weight in relation to this.

I feel like I am missing your point or missing something.

Of course it would show he wasn't perfect his entire life I guess but that's about it imo. Unless of course there's a lot more to it?
 
Do they still count as prior crimes though if they are charged with something else as an adult? And what if they were aged 20 at the time of the minor offence?
At the age of 18, you are a legal adult in the US. So there is no such thing as a minor offense at the age of 20.

The legal age to drink in Indiana is 21.

Being a minor and underage drinking can be 2 different things. If you're saying he was arrested at age 20 on an alcohol related offense, he was not a minor.
 
At the age of 18, you are a legal adult in the US. So there is no such thing as a minor offense at the age of 20.

The legal age to drink in Indiana is 21.

Being a minor and underage drinking can be 2 different things. If you're saying he was arrested at age 20 on an alcohol related offense, he was not a minor.
I'm not saying anything but Reddit is.
I'm almost positive she ruled on it. However, I think they filed version 2, 3, 4 etc. and not so sure she ruled on those but since she denied the first one,I'm thinking that covers it.

I'm kind of not surprised and was just saying it is about time they rear their heads again and start to get worried at the last minute. Two weeks or thereabouts, about typical for them.

Imo they need to be careful what they wish for. It's clear that one way or another they want her off the case partly because she never called them a Ding Dong lol.

But she has ruled in their favor more than once.

I personally would have made them give up the mental health records the very first time they used mental health as an excuse or argument. She didn't. She also didn't find enough in the prosecution's charge against them.

Good point that they themselves delayed the hearings,decisions, and trial. I pretty much don't even react any longer when they do something like this. It's really getting old and tiresome. Imo.
I think you are right and it is the March and April FM2+ etc that she hasn't ruled on. Aren't the SC just going to tell them to take it back to ask the judge to rule? Which is basically what they said before too.

She would have likely ruled in the May timeframe except D said they weren't ready and asked to cancel the speedy trial. Now suddenly they want to go? Stop, start, stop, start......
 
Yes, you can be drafted to go to war at 18. You would be tried as an adult at 18. However,you cannot legally drink at 18, buy alcohol or cigarettes, etc. You can go die at war though. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

What year though was this? Some states were slower to go to a 21 drinking age than others but it's been a long time ago for most. Each changed at their own time but then I believe the federal govt. was going to deny funding for those who didn't change by a certain date the way I recall it. Road construction funding as I recall it. Most states have been 21 though for a long darned time.

However, @RoundPeg is right. You are too young to drink at 20 but you are an adult in the eyes of the law in every other way. It may sound confusing but it would be an underaged drinking simply because you are not 21 but you are not a minor as to sealing records for instance, you are an adult in that respect and all other respects, except you can't buy alcohol.

Yeah, we make no sense in this country sometimes. Well nix the "we", I've said before idiots run the country and even the world.
 
Yes, you can be drafted to go to war at 18. You would be tried as an adult at 18. However,you cannot legally drink at 18, buy alcohol or cigarettes, etc. You can go die at war though. Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

What year though was this? Some states were slower to go to a 21 drinking age than others but it's been a long time ago for most. Each changed at their own time but then I believe the federal govt. was going to deny funding for those who didn't change by a certain date the way I recall it. Road construction funding as I recall it. Most states have been 21 though for a long darned time.

However, @RoundPeg is right. You are too young to drink at 20 but you are an adult in the eyes of the law in every other way. It may sound confusing but it would be an underaged drinking simply because you are not 21 but you are not a minor as to sealing records for instance, you are an adult in that respect and all other respects, except you can't buy alcohol.

Yeah, we make no sense in this country sometimes. Well nix the "we", I've said before idiots run the country and even the world.
I think he was 20 so under age for drinking and intoxicated while driving. The drinking alone would be a Class C misdemeanor so not sure with the driving too. Anyway it was expunged.

My only real point mentioning it is whether it can be brought up in court for the conversion charge, if it has been expunged. But we don't now have to think about it again till September.
 
I'm not saying anything but Reddit is.

I think you are right and it is the March and April FM2+ etc that she hasn't ruled on. Aren't the SC just going to tell them to take it back to ask the judge to rule? Which is basically what they said before too.

She would have likely ruled in the May timeframe except D said they weren't ready and asked to cancel the speedy trial. Now suddenly they want to go? Stop, start, stop, start......
Who knows with them, they are so tiresome and that's putting in nicely. Never been so irritated with a defense that I can recall, and I typically don't like defense attorneys in murder cases admittedly but this has gone too far and beyond. I lack words for how incredibly childlike and awful it is and actually sadly even becoming a bit of a bore.

Yeah, not sure how it would work but number one was ruled on, pretty certain and aren't the others just modifications or add ONS. Don't ask me why this dumb computer insists on capitalizing ONS, tried three times and it insists on it. Anyhow, I'd almost think with the first one ruled against, the others would be almost by default? I mean the first one was found to have no basis. I guess it depends on if they are separate new individual filings and motions or not but I don't think so. Seemed to me they filed them incorporating what was said in the first one they stated plus amending or adding in their lazy way.

The SC pretty much showed them and told them to give it up imo and go through the trial process and handle things at the trial court level. This sounds a bit different in that they are going to some guy of the SC or some such, I'd have to look back but I expect the same kind of response most likely. I'm sure no expert, just seems logical.

So is this now in their hope to delay all yet again and the hearings they likely are not ready for as usual? For all the criticism by some out there of Gull and of NM, they have each respectively been apparently ready to go to trial, to hearings, etc.

I personally do not expect this to go off in October if these two can find a way to stop it. One has to almost laugh at their former speedy trial request, too bad we aren't still on it, because I think we'd all get to see in no way did they really want such. I think RA and family did though. Just an opinion.
 
I should add that even though it would be drinking before old enough, it would not be a "minor's" offense, meaning although not old enough to buy alcohol, you are an adult as to court, charges, etc. Yeah, it's confusing as all heck. To "outsiders" anyhow, to us it's the norm. I've long thought it ridiculous in that all adulthood or a "given" age should be the same or even named. And the older I get the more I think it should be like 25 for all. Other than getting a job, starting to learn how to support self, etc. Lol. And even then it's different isn't it for development of every child or person isn't it, but it is shown the brain isn't adult or close to it until about 25 I believe it is and relating to things like impulses and reasoning and more.

Help me out, are we talking about RA or MW here? And what is it you think it would relate or matter in regards to? I maybe missed some posts as am a bit lost on it.
 
Who knows with them, they are so tiresome and that's putting in nicely. Never been so irritated with a defense that I can recall, and I typically don't like defense attorneys in murder cases admittedly but this has gone too far and beyond. I lack words for how incredibly childlike and awful it is and actually sadly even becoming a bit of a bore.

Yeah, not sure how it would work but number one was ruled on, pretty certain and aren't the others just modifications or add ONS. Don't ask me why this dumb computer insists on capitalizing ONS, tried three times and it insists on it. Anyhow, I'd almost think with the first one ruled against, the others would be almost by default? I mean the first one was found to have no basis. I guess it depends on if they are separate new individual filings and motions or not but I don't think so. Seemed to me they filed them incorporating what was said in the first one they stated plus amending or adding in their lazy way.

The SC pretty much showed them and told them to give it up imo and go through the trial process and handle things at the trial court level. This sounds a bit different in that they are going to some guy of the SC or some such, I'd have to look back but I expect the same kind of response most likely. I'm sure no expert, just seems logical.

So is this now in their hope to delay all yet again and the hearings they likely are not ready for as usual? For all the criticism by some out there of Gull and of NM, they have each respectively been apparently ready to go to trial, to hearings, etc.

I personally do not expect this to go off in October if these two can find a way to stop it. One has to almost laugh at their former speedy trial request, too bad we aren't still on it, because I think we'd all get to see in no way did they really want such. I think RA and family did though. Just an opinion.
Have you read the FM2/3/4 etc? I haven't so just wondered about them.

Re MW I just found a copy of his PCA which I don't think I have seen before.

 
I should add that even though it would be drinking before old enough, it would not be a "minor's" offense, meaning although not old enough to buy alcohol, you are an adult as to court, charges, etc. Yeah, it's confusing as all heck. To "outsiders" anyhow, to us it's the norm. I've long thought it ridiculous in that all adulthood or a "given" age should be the same or even named. And the older I get the more I think it should be like 25 for all. Other than getting a job, starting to learn how to support self, etc. Lol. And even then it's different isn't it for development of every child or person isn't it, but it is shown the brain isn't adult or close to it until about 25 I believe it is and relating to things like impulses and reasoning and more.

Help me out, are we talking about RA or MW here? And what is it you think it would relate or matter in regards to? I maybe missed some posts as am a bit lost on it.
I just wonder if an expunged conviction will count for his (MW's) sentencing if he is convicted of conversion or whether it is completely ignored, that's all.

ie. Will a conviction on the conversion charge be considered a first offence and perhaps allow him to avoid a prison term? He has already admitted the charge in his affidavit so I don't really follow why he requested a jury trial.
 
Last edited:
I think he was 20 so under age for drinking and intoxicated while driving. The drinking alone would be a Class C misdemeanor so not sure with the driving too. Anyway it was expunged.

My only real point mentioning it is whether it can be brought up in court for the conversion charge, if it has been expunged. But we don't now have to think about it again till September.
So it is MW?

To confuse things even more, you can perhaps drink at 20 but you cannot do so in an establishment, you cannot buy it legally and your certainly can't drive if over limit (like any of us). In my birth state I am pretty sure to this day a parent can buy a 12 year old a drink or an 18 year old, etc. That's a stupid one isn't it? But true, old law. Maybe it's been changed by now but I don't think so. However, most bars just refuse and don't go along with that or have their own rules. In some states a minor can't even be in a bar unless they serve food and for that reason only, in others it's different. Used to be anyhow and I'm sure still is. I actually think it's IN that you can still smoke in bars. I have a favorite cousin there and we've talked of it but not recently. Here you cannot in either of my states.

I made the 18 year old drinking age not that it mattered much to me. I graduated a semester early, then got married at 18 and had my first child. It was a busy year for me lol. My sister did not (1.5 years younger) and she was ticked, I mean you had to wait three more years. And then MN was also different than WI as they went 21 first and so people just crossed the border at 18 to drink.

Just a bit of history and info on it and how it varied state to state for a number of years. I'm not sure but I think Vegas was late in changing both re gambling and drinking. Many states that held out like I said then almost all changed fairly quickly as the fed gov would let them do as they wished but was going to deny funding if they did not.

Anyhow when I turned it was legal at 18 both for beer and alcohol. Now with my MOM (born in the 40s) at that age only beer was legal for an 18 year old to drink and not hard alcohol. THey could enter and drink but not alcohol.

Crazy imo, all of it.

So I am taking it you mean MW as you mentioned conversion. It sure seemed to me in the beginning you were talking RA. I've got to tell you something he did at 20 likely isn't going to play into anything and if expunged it certainly won't. If he had a felony, murdered someone, had tons more since of a record, maybe. I don't know what's being said on Reddit but I don't see this as factoring in in any way or having any weight.

I guess I'd ask what you think it would apply to? And why it is a big deal? Not that it isn't a legitimate cases/charge/etc back then but I don't think it will even be relevant to speak of here in the conversion in a nowadays charge or time. He isn't even charged with anything big here and it's a shame because I think what was really going on was big.
 
I just wonder if an expunged conviction will count for his (MW's) sentencing if he is convicted of conversion or whether it is completely ignored, that's all.
I don't think it will carry much weight. I don't even know that they'll bother looking deeply at such because it was so long ago and sadly even what he is charged with now is not anything that serious. I guess what I mean is if someone gets a speeding ticket, a judge isn't going to throw them in jail for ten years over conversion because of that prior speeding ticket, nor have a presentence investigation, etc. like they will for a more serious crime or felony. Jmo.

It's interesting though. Far from unusual either however of many a person/child ages say 16 to 20. Not anything to be proud of but many do such in those years and just consider it used to be in college they could drink legally from the time they went at 18 and after high school graduation. Now college students have three of their four years (for basic degree) where they can't legally drink. Many still are doing so though and bars serving them and having fake IDs and so forth.

Can you say what the incident was? Did he hurt anyone? Or just was driving too young to drink and under the influence?

Personally lol I wouldn't worry about getting sued. This bunch of lawyers and one who couldn't pass the bar could never navigate international law to sue you over there. LMAO. I had to say that about them, I feel it deserved. Chuckling out loud.
 
Do they still count as prior crimes though if they are charged with something else as an adult? And what if they were aged 20 at the time of the minor offence?
20 is considered an adult. Minors are 18 and under. Expunged means it disappears and can't usually be accessed after expungement and sealed.
 
I think he was 20 so under age for drinking and intoxicated while driving. The drinking alone would be a Class C misdemeanor so not sure with the driving too. Anyway it was expunged.

My only real point mentioning it is whether it can be brought up in court for the conversion charge, if it has been expunged. But we don't now have to think about it again till September.
Underage intoxicated driving offense typically has your driving privileges revoked. In not sure that can be expunged but a simple minor in possession without a driving offense included probably can be if there are no incidents for a certain amount of years afterwards.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,250
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom