Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[FrostedGlass]

Where do we get the time that KG dropped the kids off at the trail? And was anyone else with them? I'm asking because a google search has shown me a wide range of times that she is said to have dropped them off. One media site (linked below) says 1pm. Its from 2022.
Delphi murders: What to know about the 2017 killings of Libby German and Abby Williams

This link (Court Tv) shows a different time noted (1:49pm)
Delphi Murders: Everything you want to know

This one says "around 1:35pm"
Suspect arrested in connection with 2017 Delphi murders: report

So which is it?

I'll have to dig through all my files to find what you want. In the meantime:
Becky said the girls asked to go to the bridge around 1:30, give or take a couple of minutes. Kelsi was talking to her bf at the bridge and L called her dad about picking them up around that time, too. I think the time they verified on their phones was 1:37 or 1:38.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Where do we get the time that KG dropped the kids off at the trail? And was anyone else with them? I'm asking because a google search has shown me a wide range of times that she is said to have dropped them off. One media site (linked below) says 1pm. Its from 2022.
Delphi murders: What to know about the 2017 killings of Libby German and Abby Williams

This link (Court Tv) shows a different time noted (1:49pm)
Delphi Murders: Everything you want to know

This one says "around 1:35pm"
Suspect arrested in connection with 2017 Delphi murders: report

So which is it?

Scene of the Crime: Delphi — Abby and Libby
Episode 1 at 31:25 Kelsi says she got call from her boyfriend at 1:36 PM, and soon after Libby and Abby got out of the car.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Ravenmoon]

The timeline is really tight. All of these times are in the affidavit for the search warrant.

According to what we know (maybe) the girls got there about 8 minutes before BB; so they should have been ahead of BB on the trail. From this timeline, Kelsi would have seen BB's vehicle.

With all that said, the PCA states that the girls would have been dropped off right before the video (K's car passing the HH), which contradicts the arrival time that Kelsi and Becky stated.

1:38 Kelsi and girls arrive at the bridge
1:46 BB passes HH cam on the way to the bridge
1:49 Kelsi passes HH cam
2:14 BB passes HH cam going westbound

Is BB the same person that said that she saw a man on the bridge?

If so, she also saw A&L walking towards the bridge as she was leaving.

I think it's on page 3

Unsealed Probable Cause Affidavit - Richard Allen, Delphi | PDF | Arrest Warrant | Probable Cause

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Scene of the Crime: Delphi — Abby and Libby
Episode 1 at 31:25 Kelsi says she got call from her boyfriend at 1:36 PM, and soon after Libby and Abby got out of the car.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

In one of her interviews, she said she gave them her sweatshirt/s and she watched them as they walked down the trail.

 

[steeltowngirl]

In one of her interviews, she said she gave them her sweatshirt/s and she watched them as they walked down the trail.

I recall that. It’s in a few articles. Here’s one.

Kelsi came under a particularly vicious attack when she had revealed she had told Libby and Abby to grab a jacket or sweatshirt of hers from her car before dropping them off the day before they were found dead.

“Some said ‘There’s no way that’s Kelsey’s jacket, that fits Abby too well’,” Kelsi added. “Even though I was smaller in high school, I was bigger than Abby but that jacket did fit me.

“We still talk about the sweatshirts and jackets, people said ‘Kelsi said in this interview that she was wearing a jacket and then in this one she told them to get a sweatshirt’.

“They just use your words in ways to hurt you.

Sister of Delphi 'Snapchat murder' victim slams vile online trolls

THE grieving sister of the Delphi “Snapchat murders” victim Libby German has hit back at trolls who have targeted the family in online attacks. Kelsi German, 22, speaking to The US Sun, told how fo…

www.the-sun.com

 

[photographer4]

Scene of the Crime: Delphi — Abby and Libby
Episode 1 at 31:25 Kelsi says she got call from her boyfriend at 1:36 PM, and soon after Libby and Abby got out of the car.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Ok, so by 1:36pm the kids were out of the car and the boyfriend called her. So what does that do if anything to the timeline for or against RA?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I recall that. It’s in a few articles. Here’s one.

Kelsi came under a particularly vicious attack when she had revealed she had told Libby and Abby to grab a jacket or sweatshirt of hers from her car before dropping them off the day before they were found dead.

“Some said ‘There’s no way that’s Kelsey’s jacket, that fits Abby too well’,” Kelsi added. “Even though I was smaller in high school, I was bigger than Abby but that jacket did fit me.

“We still talk about the sweatshirts and jackets, people said ‘Kelsi said in this interview that she was wearing a jacket and then in this one she told them to get a sweatshirt’.

“They just use your words in ways to hurt you.

Sister of Delphi 'Snapchat murder' victim slams vile online trolls

THE grieving sister of the Delphi “Snapchat murders” victim Libby German has hit back at trolls who have targeted the family in online attacks. Kelsi German, 22, speaking to The US Sun, told how fo…

www.the-sun.com

Thanks for posting those articles. If I had known back in 2017 that I would have a gazillion pages of quotes that required links to reference them, I would have done a better job of organizing them.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Ok, so by 1:36pm the kids were out of the car and the boyfriend called her. So what does that do if anything to the timeline for or against RA?

I don’t see anything with the drop off time that has much affect on the timeline of their murders. The girls were alive until at least 2:08 pm.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Thanks for posting those articles. If I had known back in 2017 that I would have a gazillion pages of quotes that required links to reference them, I would have done a better job of organizing them.

This post in the media thread helped me locate one of my articles. Thank you @cujenn81 for your incredible work on the media thread.

Post in thread 'IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION'
IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION

 

[Ravenmoon]

Ok, so by 1:36pm the kids were out of the car and the boyfriend called her. So what does that do if anything to the timeline for or against RA?

No. They were on the trail between 1:46 and 1;49.

Unsealed Probable Cause Affidavit - Richard Allen, Delphi | PDF | Arrest Warrant | Probable Cause

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don’t see anything with the drop off time that has much affect on the timeline of their murders. The girls were alive until at least 2:08 pm.

Probably not. But if they were even 5 minutes ahead of BB, they would have gotten to BG before she did.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Probably not. But if they were even 5 minutes ahead of BB, they would have gotten to BG before she did.

Yes, I suppose the HH timestamps and Kelsi’s phone are the best hard evidence they have of certain times. Everything else is dependent on the memories of the witnesses. They will testify to the best of their recollection and the D will pick it apart, in the belief that LE has rigged the timelines.

As to Kelsi, she was only 17, and had what was, and will likely be, the most traumatic day of her life. I would not be at all surprised if she isn’t certain of every detail and exact time from that day.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

A copy of the motion to vacate is in this twitter. The motion addresses exactly what I was asking above. Now, who does this motion go to? Because seemingly JG can't move on any action. Can she rule on this motion if she denies the DQ motion first? I agree with BM here, I think she is going to have to either recuse or deny immediately. It's the only way for things to move forward.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Rozzi sought a continuance as to Feb 12th hearing ...

Baldwin here seeks to vacate the Feb 12th hearing. Subtle difference?

Trying to follow along here ... and see what's interesting here ...

a) Rozzi objected to the P's Contempt motion, asked for continuance due to Rozzi's personal calendar conflicts ... Rozzi also raised the point (paraphrasing): hello your honor, the D's DQ motion was filed first and the resolution of this DQ motion business must precede all other court business.

b) Baldwin (in this motion to vacate hearing) doesn't provide any response to the P's Contempt motion.
Baldwin here focuses on the DQ motion (paraphrasing): hello your honor, there's a DQ the Judge motion on the docket here, it was filed before the Feb 12 hearing for other business was set. The DQ the Judge Motion hearing must precede all other court business, in fact as long as that DQ motion is hanging out there unaddressed, the Court has no jurisdiction in this case other than to deal with the DQ motion (or an "emergency).

c) And it seems we're left to wonder if/when Baldwin (and not just Rozzi) is going to respond/object to the P's allegations in that Contempt motion ...

d) I agree that - if the Judge is so inclined - she can bat away the DQ in a "minute decision" on the docket not to hear the DQ motion.

Strategy?
I'm wondering - what is the D's strategy here? (Rozzi didn't ask to vacate, but today Baldwin does?) Today's motion is a direct request for Gull to take action on the DQ motion as a matter of priority.

Among other things hanging in the balance ... like the business of RA's trial ... the Defense can't make an appellate move to DQ Gull until Gull herself has made a formal decision on the DQ motion. Is this the D's effort to force some written decision (or hearing) for the DQ out of Gull.

Or (totally speculative) at the very least, is the D is (again) making an appellate record that the D's done everything it can do to get a fair trial for RA?

I have to wonder if there's a way the D can return to SCOIN on this issue they've just had before the SCOIN. SCOIN still hasn't written opinion on the reasoning/law behind the SCOIN decision not remove Gull.

JMHO

 

[photographer4]

Thanks for posting those articles. If I had known back in 2017 that I would have a gazillion pages of quotes that required links to reference them, I would have done a better job of organizing them.

No problem - isn't that always the way though! Very hard to keep them all organized!!

 

[photographer4]

Yes, I suppose the HH timestamps and Kelsi’s phone are the best hard evidence they have of certain times. Everything else is dependent on the memories of the witnesses. They will testify to the best of their recollection and the D will pick it apart, in the belief that LE has rigged the timelines.

As to Kelsi, she was only 17, and had what was, and will likely be, the most traumatic day of her life. I would not be at all surprised if she isn’t certain of every detail and exact time from that day.

jmo

I was hoping that they asked Kelsi what time she dropped them off - BEFORE - they were found dead actually. No doubt she was in panic mode from the moment she found out they hadn't met with DG.

 

[photographer4]

Rozzi sought a continuance as to Feb 12th hearing ...

Baldwin here seeks to vacate the Feb 12th hearing. Subtle difference?

Trying to follow along here ... and see what's interesting here ...

a) Rozzi objected to the P's Contempt motion, asked for continuance due to Rozzi's personal calendar conflicts ... Rozzi also raised the point (paraphrasing): hello your honor, the D's DQ motion was filed first and the resolution of this DQ motion business must precede all other court business.

b) Baldwin (in this motion to vacate hearing) doesn't provide any response to the P's Contempt motion.
Baldwin here focuses on the DQ motion (paraphrasing): hello your honor, there's a DQ the Judge motion on the docket here, it was filed before the Feb 12 hearing for other business was set. The DQ the Judge Motion hearing must precede all other court business, in fact as long as that DQ motion is hanging out there unaddressed, the Court has no jurisdiction in this case other than to deal with the DQ motion (or an "emergency).

c) And it seems we're left to wonder if/when Baldwin (and not just Rozzi) is going to respond/object to the P's allegations in that Contempt motion ...

d) I agree that - if the Judge is so inclined - she can bat away the DQ in a "minute decision" on the docket not to hear the DQ motion.

Strategy?
I'm wondering - what is the D's strategy here? (Rozzi didn't ask to vacate, but today Baldwin does?) Today's motion is a direct request for Gull to take action on the DQ motion as a matter of priority.

Among other things hanging in the balance ... like the business of RA's trial ... the Defense can't make an appellate move to DQ Gull until Gull herself has made a formal decision on the DQ motion. Is this the D's effort to force some written decision (or hearing) for the DQ out of Gull.

Or (totally speculative) at the very least, is the D is (again) making an appellate record that the D's done everything it can do to get a fair trial for RA?

I have to wonder if there's a way the D can return to SCOIN on this issue they've just had before the SCOIN. SCOIN still hasn't written opinion on the reasoning/law behind the SCOIN decision not remove Gull.

JMHO

Rozzi wants to continue and Baldwin wants to vacate? Does this mean they don't agree on course of action here and have opted for separate motions as a result?

 

[zh0r4]

I suspect JG is just taking her sweet time to bother lifting a finger for RA / R&B. There is literally NO reason that I can see why she couldn't just summarily decide to move RA today. What is the point of hearing the state on this? Why would the state object to him being moved in the first place? What do they care where he is housed? This is nonsense and a waste of taxpayer money and court resources.

Great question. Who would benefit from keeping him from being moved from a potentially better environment before his trial? Who would benefit from him being in a constant state of distress and trauma that results from the physical violence and mental abuse of general pop?

 

[Emma Peel]

Rozzi wants to continue and Baldwin wants to vacate? Does this mean they don't agree on course of action here and have opted for separate motions as a result?

I see it as a refinement of Rozzi's motion - as to the stay of Gull's judicial powers due to the DQ motion RA filed. (Rozzi referenced the rules around DQ motions within his continuance motion and suggested Gull couldn't hold this hearing given the open DQ issue.)

Baldwin takes this authority issue Rozzi raised and treats it more strongly ... by saying - Judge, you need to vacate the Feb 12th hearing order because with RA's DQ motion, you've lost jurisdiction on this case - and even scheduling that hearing violates the DQ motion process.

Rules suggest Gull can't conduct material business, make any other judicial decisions or orders or schedule or conduct hearings in RA's case until that DQ matter is heard/resolved.

We'll see if she agrees; and frankly, Gull's solution may be to flat out deny the motion (refusing to schedule a hearing for it) via a decision notation to the docket.

JMHO

 

[zh0r4]

I'm in awe of the Luck of the McLeland.

It seems that during the months the xD were off the case and the Scremins were in the process of catching up, McLeland was on the way to discovering new things. And RA has been moved even further away than before.

Now B&R still don't have all the original discovery, who knows about Scremin's discovery (if they had any), and are now getting McL's new, unseen discovery dumped on them.

Add to that JG still has to deal with her DQ (doesn't she?) Can she sweep it away with the stroke of a pen?

It appears she can do whatever she wants, including ignore the DQ. JMO. Didn’t she ignore it last time after kicking the D off the case? If I’m remembering correctly, the DQ was filed after the Oct 19 hearing, then she DQd them “again” (I’m unsure which of these is official since there was no hearing) when they tried to represent RA pro bono Oct 30?

 

[zh0r4]

I am confused. The SCOIN unanimously chose to keep her on the case, did they not?

My understanding is, SCOIN likely thought she would recuse like most judges do when a DQ is submitted/was leaving it to the lower courts to do the appropriate thing-bc why would any judge want to risk appeals, especially if the defendant is guilty/why would they risk their credibility? Has anyone found a case in Indiana where a DQ motion for the judge was filed and the judge didn’t recuse? Besides the other case JG was on? I’m really curious to read SCOIN’s official statement. I think they give instruction that typically the court would follow, this is what is mind-boggling to me-the filings post SCOIN hearing on Jan 18.

AJMO