GUILTY Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #220

[Emma Peel]

View attachment 619004

Has anyone brought to the thread the phone call between RA and his Dad on same day - just before this call with his mom/wife? Looking back a bit - looks like maybe no?

The phone calls, same day, with RA's Mom and Kathy were played for the Jury. The Judge decided that the call with his Dad just before the calls to his Mom and Kathy did not need to be heard along with the other calls.

Here's the court transcript at the sidebar which contains the Judge's ruling that RA's call with Dad would not be heard as a series of calls with Dad (stepfather), Mom, and Kathy.

After the sidebar transcript is the call from RA to his Dad (that was not let in to be heard by Jury along with the other family calls).











AND ... HERE'S the prison call from RA to his Dad ... (Call to Dad happened before the calls that were played for the Jury)

 

[Emma Peel]

Has anyone brought any of the transcripts of side bar decisions and admitted / not admitted exhibits from trial to this thread?

(I'm asking b/c the transcript has been available to read through for some time now.)

The transcript is pretty interesting - especially b/c we weren't able to watch the trial.

 

[sunshineray]

Should these exhibits end up lost/misplaced by the court, I would expect the "recreation" will be having the defense resubmit those exhibits to the court, the state will likely review & approve them then they will be re-entered into the court’s system then distributed to the appellate attorneys. No way would I trust the defense to hand something over to the appellate attorneys in good faith.

It’s news to me if the defense attorneys are involved with his appeal (cause number 25A-CR-00591). Sure, they’re still crying to the public via any media outlets who will listen but their job is done. They could potentially be advising in the background. Leeman & Uliana are his state appointed attorneys now & they are the only ones who have made any filings regarding his appeal (per the IN mycase site). The murder case (cause number 08C01-2210-MR-000001) has been decided & reflects as such on the same site. The last mention of any of the original 3 attorneys was back in June & it was about a month prior to the trial transcripts being completed (see below).

06/04/2025	Order Issued Court notes filing by Attorney Uliana of a Supplemental Request for Transcript and refers same to the Court Reporter. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Uliana, Stacy R Noticed: Leeman, Mark Kelly Order Signed: 05/26/2025
06/05/2025	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 6/4/2025: Andrew Joseph Baldwin; Mark Kelly Leeman; Stacy R Uliana
07/02/2025	Notice of Completion of Transcript Filed
09/04/2025	Motion Filed Motion for Authorization of Funds for Attorney-Client Visit Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 09/03/2025
09/08/2025	Order Issued Order Authorizing Reasonable Expenses for Travel entered, per form. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Uliana, Stacy R Noticed: Leeman, Mark Kelly Order Signed: 09/08/2025
09/09/2025	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 9/8/2025: Nicholas Charles McLeland; Stacey Lynn Diener; James David Luttrull; Mark Kelly Leeman; Stacy R Uliana

After the transcript, their names are never shown again regarding the murder case. Their names have not appeared on the appeal case at all up to this point.

ETA - all mycase table entries after the notice of completion of transcript entry; bolded & colored Baldwin’s name in red for clarity.

BBM for focus

"Allen, convicted in December 2024 following a month-long trial, now faces a renewed legal battle. In a related development, Jennifer Auger, one of his trial attorneys, filed a motion to reconsider the denial of a prior motion to correct errors. This new filing raises significant questions about the prosecution’s timeline and whether potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld during Allen’s trial.

A major focus of the appeal is the timeline presented by the prosecution, which heavily relied on the testimony of Brad Weber, a witness for the state. Weber testified that he returned home around 2:30 p.m. on February 13, 2017. This testimony was pivotal, as it aligned with the prosecution’s argument that Liberty German’s phone stopped moving after 2:32 p.m. and with Allen’s alleged confession about being “spooked” by a van believed to be Weber’s. Allen reportedly stated this led to his decision to force the girls across the creek, where their bodies were later discovered."

Richard Allen Appeals Conviction, Citing Timeline Discrepancies and Evidence Concerns - Carroll County Comet

Less than three months after being sentenced to 130 years in prison for the 2017 murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, Richard Allen has launched an appeal in Carroll Circuit Court. Represented by attorneys Mark Leeman of Leeman Law in Logansport and Stacy Uliana of Uliana Law in...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

 

[Megnut]

BBM for focus

"Allen, convicted in December 2024 following a month-long trial, now faces a renewed legal battle. In a related development, Jennifer Auger, one of his trial attorneys, filed a motion to reconsider the denial of a prior motion to correct errors. This new filing raises significant questions about the prosecution’s timeline and whether potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld during Allen’s trial.

A major focus of the appeal is the timeline presented by the prosecution, which heavily relied on the testimony of Brad Weber, a witness for the state. Weber testified that he returned home around 2:30 p.m. on February 13, 2017. This testimony was pivotal, as it aligned with the prosecution’s argument that Liberty German’s phone stopped moving after 2:32 p.m. and with Allen’s alleged confession about being “spooked” by a van believed to be Weber’s. Allen reportedly stated this led to his decision to force the girls across the creek, where their bodies were later discovered."

Richard Allen Appeals Conviction, Citing Timeline Discrepancies and Evidence Concerns - Carroll County Comet

Less than three months after being sentenced to 130 years in prison for the 2017 murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, Richard Allen has launched an appeal in Carroll Circuit Court. Represented by attorneys Mark Leeman of Leeman Law in Logansport and Stacy Uliana of Uliana Law in...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

Such a tiresome argument from his defense team. It wasn't an element of the crime -- that the jury needed to find him guilty of being spooked and forcing the girls across the creek when he heard the van. The element of the crime.is something more like "on or about February 13, Richard Allen did cause the deaths...." Toward this end, the jury weighs testimony and evidence. Rick did not testify so who knows if he was lying or telling the truth about when he heard the van in relation to what he was doing and when or why he forced the creek crossing.

What IS significant is that Ricky witnessed BW's van and puts himself down below the MHB. We have been saying for years that Ricky put himself on the bridge and no one could get him off, but he actually gets himself off the bridge and puts himself under the bridge at the very time one of two little girls dies a top the other little girl's phone, a phone which never again moves.

I don't even know that the Defense's assertion is correct (that BW drove by at 2:44 -- or that it was his only pass) but I don't see how it reverses a verdict!

The facts remain.

Ricky was on the bridge. With the victims. He ordered them down the hill at gunpoint. 2:13-2:14pm
He forced them to undress.
At some point he heard BW's arrive.
At some point he forced the girls across the creek.
Both girls sustained vicious injuries which resulted in deaths that weren't immediate.
Libby's phone stopped moving at 2:32, was found under Abby.

The Defense motion, even if verifiable, changes nothing.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

BBM for focus

"Allen, convicted in December 2024 following a month-long trial, now faces a renewed legal battle. In a related development, Jennifer Auger, one of his trial attorneys, filed a motion to reconsider the denial of a prior motion to correct errors. This new filing raises significant questions about the prosecution’s timeline and whether potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld during Allen’s trial.

A major focus of the appeal is the timeline presented by the prosecution, which heavily relied on the testimony of Brad Weber, a witness for the state. Weber testified that he returned home around 2:30 p.m. on February 13, 2017. This testimony was pivotal, as it aligned with the prosecution’s argument that Liberty German’s phone stopped moving after 2:32 p.m. and with Allen’s alleged confession about being “spooked” by a van believed to be Weber’s. Allen reportedly stated this led to his decision to force the girls across the creek, where their bodies were later discovered."

Richard Allen Appeals Conviction, Citing Timeline Discrepancies and Evidence Concerns - Carroll County Comet

Less than three months after being sentenced to 130 years in prison for the 2017 murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, Richard Allen has launched an appeal in Carroll Circuit Court. Represented by attorneys Mark Leeman of Leeman Law in Logansport and Stacy Uliana of Uliana Law in...

www.carrollcountycomet.com

That was this past March & likely has already been ruled on prior to the case being marked as decided. JG denied a bunch of their post trial motions without any hearings. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to tell which of her denials match up with the motions filed by the defense. I seriously doubt the appeal would be in process if there were still motions from the defense still lingering for the murder case/cause number.

Since I cannot access the actual physical motions & orders for free, all I can see is the table from the mycase site:

03/11/2025​	Motion to Reconsider Motion to Reconsider Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025
03/12/2025​	Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Jennifer Auger For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025

Skipping down past a bunch of motions requesting release of exhibits, we next have this:

03/13/2025

Order Issued Court takes no action on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Correct Error, filed March 11, 2025 at 4:03 p.m., as the Notice of Appeal was filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals Clerk of the Court on March 11, 2025 at 2:19 p.m. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Noticed: Uliana, Stacy R Noticed: Leeman, Mark Kelly Order Signed: 03/13/2025

Not a lawyer but I believe that’s all been ruled upon.

 

[Emma Peel]

That was this past March & likely has already been ruled on prior to the case being marked as decided. JG denied a bunch of their post trial motions without any hearings. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to tell which of her denials match up with the motions filed by the defense. I seriously doubt the appeal would be in process if there were still motions from the defense still lingering for the murder case/cause number.

Since I cannot access the actual physical motions & orders for free, all I can see is the table from the mycase site:

03/11/2025​	Motion to Reconsider Motion to Reconsider Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025
03/12/2025​	Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Jennifer Auger For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/11/2025

Skipping down past a bunch of motions requesting release of exhibits, we next have this:

03/13/2025

Order Issued Court takes no action on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Correct Error, filed March 11, 2025 at 4:03 p.m., as the Notice of Appeal was filed with the Indiana Court of Appeals Clerk of the Court on March 11, 2025 at 2:19 p.m. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Noticed: Uliana, Stacy R Noticed: Leeman, Mark Kelly Order Signed: 03/13/2025

Not a lawyer but I believe that’s all been ruled upon.

I'd think the same.
All rulings are on the Record. The Record (per Appellant) is just missing some of the Exhibits.

There was no ruling/decision on the final Motion in the Record (the Motion to Reconsider Denial of the MTCE). This Order explains: "Court takes no action"; the Court's reason for "no action" is identified as that the lower court no longer has jurisdiction.

 

[INfisherman]

@sunshineray,

OT but I feel important to mention. Please don’t mistake my brevity for disrespect, rudeness or being argumentative, etc.. I’m simply replying in a hurry as I am currently in AL fishing with my dad & friends. Time online is at a minimum because I’m rarely in the rental house except for a few hours a day. All the respect in the world intended - hopefully you’d know that by now but I wanted to be clear with my intentions just in case.

 

[INfisherman]

I'd think the same.
All rulings are on the Record. The Record (per Appellant) is just missing some of the Exhibits.

There was no ruling/decision on the final Motion in the Record (the Motion to Reconsider Denial of the MTCE). This Order explains: "Court takes no action"; the Court's reason for "no action" is identified as that the lower court no longer has jurisdiction.

There might be some electronic copies (PDFs) of JG’s rulings floating around somewhere on this thread (maybe an earlier one already locked) or other sites. I do recall there were a flurry of post-trial motions filed by the defense around the time the MTCE was filed - doing their due diligence, regardless of my personal feelings as to the ridiculousness or misrepresentation of evidence/exhibits.

What is a bit confusing to me is some of the motions requesting travel &/or travel expenses to OK in order for the appellate team to visit their client went through JG & was filed under the murder cause/case versus the appellate cause/case. Probably just a minor technicality or odd court rule.

Has anyone brought any of the transcripts of side bar decisions and admitted / not admitted exhibits from trial to this thread?

(I'm asking b/c the transcript has been available to read through for some time now.)

The transcript is pretty interesting - especially b/c we weren't able to watch the trial.

Yes, I posted a link to the all volumes of the transcripts, which I should still have on my Google Drive. If I can find the post in time, I will edit this post with a link to that one.

ETA Link to post with link to all 21 volumes of transcripts - let me know if link has expired or if an errors occur:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #220'
GUILTY - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #220

 

[INfisherman]

@Emma Peel - see update above please.

ETA just noticed you were asking about admitted/not admitted exhibits - the link above is to just the transcripts. I do not believe any exhibits were included but I could be mistaken. I haven’t looked through every volume of the transcripts. My apologies for not reading more carefully.

 

[Megnut]

Ricky was drinking, the order of events might not be pristine in his filthy mind. Plus plenty he doesn't want to talk about.

The State's case does not tip on the 2:32 axis. The phone stopped moving, he may have forced both girls to lie down in the slight depression... held a gun on them until BW's vehicle was silent again. And murdered them at 2:45. Nothing exonerating about that. In fact hearing BW at anytime between 2 and 3 pm is inculpatory. More corroboration.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

okay, that's funny.

INAL. BUT I do think the Appellate process is pretty interesting.

And - sure - it's time for for the (overdue) Appellate briefs on this case. AND, per most recent Appellant filing, the exhibits related to the security footage of the white van are MISSING from the record. (So, not really a coincidence). Those videos are holding Appellate things up. Along with the Franks exhibits.

Anyway, here's an interesting technical point as to the security video evidence:

The MTCE (Motion to Correct Errors) states that security video is the State's evidence - which the State collected as their investigation evidence, and then the State provided that evidence to the Defense - as required - in the State's discovery package.

BW testified to times that differ from the State's security video evidence. It's presumed the State knows/should know their own evidence facts. AND, the State has the "duty to correct false witness testimony".

The Defense's MTCE states the video timeline is correct (except for am/pm) and the witness's timeline is off 12 minutes. MTCE references case-law from Napue v. Illinois as to this burden that was on the prosecution to correct BW's errors.

Here's a link for the Napue v Illinois case law mentioned, with a relevant quote.

Henry NAPUE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.


The Trial Court also received the State's response to the MTCE and decided not to hear any of the issues raised in the defense's Motion to Correct Errors.

*******

I just find the Appellate process to be interesting. Along with the applicable case law.
I'm wondering what specific issues and law - after sifting through years and years of stuff - these experts will select for argument. The first hints came last week.

Agree the higher court will uphold the lower court's findings ... UNLESS they find that there were significant errors - as to trial process - that may have influenced the jury and/or the lower court's decisions along the way.

If the Appellate finds the trial has no significant errors, the Appellate will uphold the lower court, no problem.


JMO & not a lawyer

Hadn’t had the time to properly reply, my apologies.

Glad you found some humor - I can get a little sarcastic now & then for a hopefully tongue in cheek effect.

Yes, the video & just about everything the defense filed as exhibits or referenced as evidence post-trial came from discovery but either wasn’t covered by MSM reports very thoroughly while the trial was ongoing or was misrepresented by the defense as exonerating evidence or deemed an error, pretty much like the beginnings of most of the theories the defense began with in the Franks stuff. MOO

Andy has a tendency in this case to take things given to him & trying to turn it into something other than what it most likely is. Brad more or less separated himself from that & IIRC, admitted during a post-trial interview he really wasn’t invested in the whole Odinism thing (or something to that general effect - my paraphrase - so JMO).

From what I’ve read up to this point (mainly a week or 2 ago), the appellate team is likely planning on using some of the defense arguments that have already been covered at some point prior to the original trial being officially decided. We shall see if they pull anything else out of their sleeves. If they don’t, I doubt the appellate court is going to find much else to seriously consider. I just don’t feel there was enough of a nail in the coffin to change the rulings. JG could do a better job of explaining herself in her written rulings but what do I know? She’s the judge & I know little about her role - if something involving fishing were to come up, then I might have firmer ground upon which to stand.

JMO

 

[INfisherman]

The State's case does not tip on the 2:32 axis. The phone stopped moving, he may have forced both girls to lie down in the slight depression... held a gun on them until BW's vehicle was silent again. And murdered them at 2:45. Nothing exonerating about that. In fact hearing BW at anytime between 2 and 3 pm is inculpatory. More corroboration.

JMO

RSBM

This right here. NM was very careful not to give a timeline which was absolutely precise & down to the last minute. He was careful to not give the defense opportunities to question those times. Had he done so, I doubt the defense would have rested so surprisingly premature.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Hadn’t had the time to properly reply, my apologies.

Glad you found some humor - I can get a little sarcastic now & then for a hopefully tongue in cheek effect.

Yes, the video & just about everything the defense filed as exhibits or referenced as evidence post-trial came from discovery but either wasn’t covered by MSM reports very thoroughly while the trial was ongoing or was misrepresented by the defense as exonerating evidence or deemed an error, pretty much like the beginnings of most of the theories the defense began with in the Franks stuff. MOO

Andy has a tendency in this case to take things given to him & trying to turn it into something other than what it most likely is. Brad more or less separated himself from that & IIRC, admitted during a post-trial interview he really wasn’t invested in the whole Odinism thing (or something to that general effect - my paraphrase - so JMO).

From what I’ve read up to this point (mainly a week or 2 ago), the appellate team is likely planning on using some of the defense arguments that have already been covered at some point prior to the original trial being officially decided. We shall see if they pull anything else out of their sleeves. If they don’t, I doubt the appellate court is going to find much else to seriously consider. I just don’t feel there was enough of a nail in the coffin to change the rulings. JG could do a better job of explaining herself in her written rulings but what do I know? She’s the judge & I know little about her role - if something involving fishing were to come up, then I might have firmer ground upon which to stand.

JMO

Yeah, it's true that many of this trial court's rulings were brief with little explanation or cites of law - the result being that the Court of Appeals has no roadmap to the judge’s reasoning.

That means the appellant’s team must do more work: comb the record, decisions, facts, exhibits, experst, line up the law, reconstruct what issues were actually decided (and why), and show if (and how) any errors mattered ... and choose the best path for their arguments. A big nerdy work burden. The State's response will strongly reject all those arguments.

Something I didn't really understand before: Appellate world really is a different beast.
At the appellate level, it’s common for the appellant's “team” to be larger than the lawyers/firms whose names appear on the brief. Especially for massive-record trials like this one. We don't know - may never know - who's joined the PCR's or Appellant's team, who's working pro-bono, etc..

JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

White Van arrives 12 minutes after the phone quit = State Timeline error.
Timeline error may/may not be material.
State's Napu violation - material to Timeline error.
Defense argued confessions were coerced.
Appellant's motion reports that the White Van video exhibits are missing from the record.
Don't know if any of this shows up in the appellate brief.
Focus is on facts and process.
The rest is noise and irrelevant.
JMHO

 

[INfisherman]

White Van arrives 12 minutes after the phone quit = State Timeline error.
Timeline error may/may not be material.
State's Napu violation - material to Timeline error.
Defense argued confessions were coerced.
Appellant's motion reports that the White Van video exhibits are missing from the record.
Don't know if any of this shows up in the appellate brief.
Focus is on facts and process.
The rest is noise and irrelevant.
JMHO

I could be wrong, but this van arrival time is what the defense claims - they never provided proof the timestamps on the videos were accurate. There was another separate security camera video which had the same issue (the one where the defense used angle of the sun to try & determine the time). I feel the state didn’t reference these videos for that very reason, not that they didn’t fit their timeline. NM was too thorough, in my mind, to let something like that slip through & be used to chip away at his case or even cast a shadow of a doubt near it.

Me alone, I ask myself, could the crime still be committed if 12 minutes were removed from the time the phone stopped moving & the time the convicted was next seen (which was on 300N). Well, he had ~90 minutes & I feel it’s still very feasible to accomplish what all was done in ~78 minutes. Keep in mind, NM never provided a choreography of events after down the hill other than when the phone stopped moving & when SC saw a man along 300N.

The reality is my thoughts matter little & the appellate judge will make that decision. I don’t believe anything will change. I’d be less confident if the appellate team was hinting at a different theory or strategy than anything that’s been on the table before. So far they’re not & I am well aware there’s still time for them to put something else together.

MOO

ETA Last sentence, 2nd paragraph.

 

[Emma Peel]

Good points.

The van videos were in the State's discovery, delivered to the Defense. Is it the Defense's job to correct the State's discovery? (Defense didn't correct anything.) The obvious am/pm discrepency - a common home security video error.

There may or may not be an issue re the Napu Rule - BW's erroneous testimony needed to be corrected by the State. It wasn't. What's important about that?

Who (jury/judge) relied on BW's incorrect testimony for decision making? Important? Irrelevant? ... That's the stuff - as you say - for the experts at the appellate.

Generally speaking - it feels like the available info for this case has greatly expanded. At this point folks might be looking at very different support docs while making their comments.

There is so much that has come out via transcripts, exhibits etc.. post-trial - things not seen pre-trial or even during trial.

It is hard to know - when folks try to discuss something ... are they even looking at the same materials? I'm trying to keep that in mind.

If I'm relying on only what was known before the trial record was made public ... I can't even be sure I'm making sense to those who are working with more recently provided case info.

best to be patient, she says to herself. and JMHO