Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #177

[Schatz]

Wait - now I have to reread the 18 pages. I swear it said within 60-100 yards of where they were FOUND, but I see point 30 that I shared earlier states “crime scene,” which definitely includes the bridge. Hmm. Will hunt back through to see if I am misremembering having read that.

 

[Betty P]

Right - but if they had RA's phone on the trails that day, that into would either have been in the PCA or the Franks because it would support one case or the other.

Not necessarily. Prosecution doesn't put all the evidence in the PCA, only enough to meet requirements.

 

[Megnut]

But at least Walker, Juveniles, FSG, Arguing Couple, Witnesses - those folks were not within the 60-100 yards of where the girls were found that the Defense alleges is indicated by the geofence.

Wait - now I have to reread the 18 pages. I swear it said within 60-100 yards of where they were FOUND, but I see point 30 that I shared earlier states “crime scene,” which definitely includes the bridge. Hmm. Will hunt back through to see if I am misremembering having read that.

I will put my bias up front. I am not a juror and we're not at trial.

That being said, I lean toward guilty because ... mostly because I believe the State has even more than what's in the PCA, and the actions of Defense point toward what's important.

So I am skeptical of the Defense because, at this point, it's been unchallenged in a court of law.

And I have followed enough cases to know how defenses are often drawn up ahead of trial.

Whew. Four disclaimers before I get to my point.

We have already seen a suggestion from the Defense, if I'm remembering correctly, that there's no DNA from RA at the crime scene. But is this absolutely? Is there DNA from the crime scene in his home, in his car? Is there transfer DNA from his home at the crime scene? Wordsmithing?

Are we seeing wordsmithing relative to the geo fence?

Crime scene. Where they were found? From where they were abducted? All points between?

The Defense, outside of the court of law, might have us believe that multiple killers were at whichever crime scene and the State sat on this information...

Let me try to unpack that.

IF there is only one perpetrator and LE has been investigating for five years, WHY would they ignore hot leads? In order to frame a random CVS employee years later? Beggars belief.

If LE tracked down those numbers and eliminated those leads (and it's in parts of discovery that the Defense hasn't read yet), there's nothing to see here. Defense noise.

If those numbers belong to hot leads that the State vetted and mistakenly cast aside or ignored in the first place, is the Defense aiding the State (I say this facetiously) by ferreting out any co-conspirators? Do they really think the State hasn't exhausted those leads already?

Fact: if the Defense, at trial, presented 50 people who might have been within inches of the crime scene at the offending hour with pitchforks and knives, RA could still be guilty of the abduction and the subsequent murder-in-the-event-of. SODDIS don't help them out. State already said could be, he didn't work alone.

I think we'll find that the Defense is purposely moving the 60-100 yard bubble to where there WAS more phone traffic...

Just my own theory, willing to watch how it does or doesn't play out at trial.

Recognizing that a rigorous Defense often pulls out all the stops. Obfuscation. Misdirection. Noise.

Anything the Defense can mitigate, waterdown, get suppressed aids them.

We already know that timing puts RA on the bridge, alone with the girls around 2:10. That's A LOT for a Defense to have to (try to) overcome. Which is why, in my long-winded opinion, the Defense wants to populate the park with abundant sweatered ninjas with cellphones.

I am eager for trial -- with facts subject to direct and cross examination.

I hope justice prevails.

JMO

 

[Justice101]

I will put my bias up front. I am not a juror and we're not at trial.

That being said, I lean toward guilty because ... mostly because I believe the State has even more than what's in the PCA, and the actions of Defense point toward what's important.

So I am skeptical of the Defense because, at this point, it's been unchallenged in a court of law.

And I have followed enough cases to know how defenses are often drawn up ahead of trial.

Whew. Four disclaimers before I get to my point.

We have already seen a suggestion from the Defense, if I'm remembering correctly, that there's no DNA from RA at the crime scene. But is this absolutely? Is there DNA from the crime scene in his home, in his car? Is there transfer DNA from his home at the crime scene? Wordsmithing?

Are we seeing wordsmithing relative to the geo fence?

Crime scene. Where they were found? From where they were abducted? All points between?

The Defense, outside of the court of law, might have us believe that multiple killers were at whichever crime scene and the State sat on this information...

Let me try to unpack that.

IF there is only one perpetrator and LE has been investigating for five years, WHY would they ignore hot leads? In order to frame a random CVS employee years later? Beggars belief.

If LE tracked down those numbers and eliminated those leads (and it's in parts of discovery that the Defense hasn't read yet), there's nothing to see here. Defense noise.

If those numbers belong to hot leads that the State vetted and mistakenly cast aside or ignored in the first place, is the Defense aiding the State (I say this facetiously) by ferreting out any co-conspirators? Do they really think the State hasn't exhausted those leads already?

Fact: if the Defense, at trial, presented 50 people who might have been within inches of the crime scene at the offending hour with pitchforks and knives, RA could still be guilty of the abduction and the subsequent murder-in-the-event-of. SODDIS don't help them out. State already said could be, he didn't work alone.

I think we'll find that the Defense is purposely moving the 60-100 yard bubble to where there WAS more phone traffic...

Just my own theory, willing to watch how it does or doesn't play out at trial.

Recognizing that a rigorous Defense often pulls out all the stops. Obfuscation. Misdirection. Noise.

Anything the Defense can mitigate, waterdown, get suppressed aids them.

We already know that timing puts RA on the bridge, alone with the girls around 2:10. That's A LOT for a Defense to have to (try to) overcome. Which is why, in my long-winded opinion, the Defense wants to populate the park with abundant sweatered ninjas with cellphones.

I am eager for trial -- with facts subject to direct and cross examination.

I hope justice prevails.

JMO

Well done.

Thanks!

 

[layer]

Wait - now I have to reread the 18 pages. I swear it said within 60-100 yards of where they were FOUND, but I see point 30 that I shared earlier states “crime scene,” which definitely includes the bridge. Hmm. Will hunt back through to see if I am misremembering having read that.

see # 31
... at or very near the location (within 60-100 yards) of where the bodies were ultimately found the following day.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Today’s motion for continuance filed by Attorney David Hennessy claims that Indiana State Police and McLeland were tardy in supplying interviews of social media posters that began in early October of last year when the leak was first discovered. The motion asserts that the defense team received those interviews only this week, leaving it little time to examine or confirm the statements contained within before Monday’s hearing which will partially rely on arguments that Baldwin and Rozzi were careless with case evidence.

The motion quotes an Indiana State trooper telling social media posters that their failure to cooperate with the investigation could result in contempt of court charges and the man who was the first recipient of the leaked photographs took his own life after the ISP interview.

The motion also alleges, but provides no verification, that one social media poster told an ISP detective that, “She also revealed that a person known to her had hired a private investigator to follow Mr. McLeland.”

Delphi defense team attorney seeks postponement of Monday’s contempt of court hearing

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — A lawyer representing Delphi double murder suspect Richard Allen’s defense team has filed a motion seeking continuance of a hearing before Special Judge Fran Gull Monda…

fox59.com

This motion was filed 03/13 and is not showing on the docket yet but DD did a live on it and reads/shows it.

Boy this Defense really, really doesn't want to go to that hearing on Monday. If they have nothing to be afraid of, why wouldn't they want to get in there, clear their names and get to the defense of RA at trial? You know, their client they fought so hard to continue to represent? Him.

I mean DH even used the 'my favorite Aunt is ill' card. I'm sorry if that is true, but I don't think they're going to rearrange a serious Court hearing because of that.

Again, I will say, most of the statements in the Motion for delay are largely Defense speculation IMO. They keep saying Holeman threatened everyone with the Judges admonition. I simply don't believe he/they went around threatening all of the people and forcing them to write letters to the Judge, and why would some random YTer or FBer hire a PI to follow NMcL around? Now that is seriously a bridge too far and dangerous IMO.

The saddest part of the Motion to Delay is they are implying Holeman is in some way responsible for that gentleman's suicide. That's a low blow considering that the leak of the very information they are investigating came from the DEFENSE. Of course LE is going to run this down as far as possible. Those pictures should have never been passed around on the internet for all eternity. It's sickening and exploitive to Abby and Libby and their families, the real victims.

It will be interesting to see how Judge Gull rules on this.

MOO

 

[susiQ]

see # 31
... at or very near the location (within 60-100 yards) of where the bodies were ultimately found the following day.


View attachment 490435

I don’t off hand have the link to this, but it was stated that the crime scene encompassed about “the size of a football field,” which we know is 100 yards from goal line to goal line.

 

[twall]

Recent motions filed

 

[Schatz]

see # 31
... at or very near the location (within 60-100 yards) of where the bodies were ultimately found the following day.


View attachment 490435

Thanks! I was certain I had read that.

 

[Schatz]

Recent motions filed

Oh boy. Haven’t seen the new/third Franks doc yet.

 

[photographer4]

Oh boy. Haven’t seen the new/third Franks doc yet.

Oh boy indeed! I had plans for today but now not sure

 

[susiQ]

Oh boy indeed! I had plans for today but now not sure

It is rather overwhelming, but by all accounts necessary if these girls and their families are to receive justice, and that goes for RA as well. If he is innocent, convicting him is not justice for anyone. Many only find fault with the defence, they need to stall this because THEY have nothing. Well, they’d have a whole heck of a lot more if the P had handed over ALL the discovery in a timely fashion. That goes for the contempt charge as well now. How on earth do people expect the D to put on a robust defence without the discovery??

The D are asking that the ancillary issues be left until later so they can get to trial. Why? Because they truly believe their client is innocent and rotting in jail and they want him out. Think about it. They and their families live down there. Would they be fighting tooth and nail to get him out if they really thought he was a savage murderer of two young girls? I doubt it. They smelled rats and they are going to expose them, ALL of them. I can’t wait to see how JG handles this. JMHO

 

[photographer4]

It is rather overwhelming, but by all accounts necessary if these girls and their families are to receive justice, and that goes for RA as well. If he is innocent, convicting him is not justice for anyone. Many only find fault with the defence, they need to stall this because THEY have nothing. Well, they’d have a whole heck of a lot more if the P had handed over ALL the discovery in a timely fashion. That goes for the contempt charge as well now. How on earth do people expect the D to put on a robust defence without the discovery??

The D are asking that the ancillary issues be left until later so they can get to trial. Why? Because they truly believe their client is innocent and rotting in jail and they want him out. Think about it. They and their families live down there. Would they be fighting tooth and nail to get him out if they really thought he was a savage murderer of two young girls? I doubt it. They smelled rats and they are going to expose them, ALL of them. I can’t wait to see how JG handles this. JMHO

I agree with you here! It’s odd to me that the P is so intent on withholding exculpatory or even possibly exculpatory evidence from the D? They want to get this case done so badly, they’re appearing desperate!

I think JG should have recused herself already. I am a fan of her lack of rulings for months on end without benefit of hearings etc. I’m not sure how the Prosecution read and managed to cite an ex-parte without the judge even taking issue with it?? Maybe she should hold a hearing to address this?

Not a lawyer and I’m days behind but all this nonsense between the prosecution, defence and even the judge do not inspire confidence that RA is going to get a fair trial. Sure that’s the defence goal - but it still makes you wonder how this all works out and correctly in the end.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Recent motions filed

The last one sounds like the Ds are tired of getting handwaved away by JG. I think it's understandable that they want to hear her reasons why if she does it a third time.

03/14/2024

Motion Filed Richard Allen's Third Franks Notice and Request for Franks Hearing Based Upon Newly Discovered Evidence and Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law Upon Any Ruling on this Request Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 03/13/2024

 

[photographer4]

The new Franks - reading it now. Oh boy.

 

[photographer4]

I can’t for y’all to read this one. They finally suggest maybe the kids were not killed on the day they were taken and maybe they were brought back there after the search was called off.

 

[TL4S]

Today's Franks motion:

Adobe Acrobat

 

[Megnut]

FWIW I have never met a criminal court case where the defense didn't claim discovery violation.

Often it's a remarkable stall technique.

And it feeds the media beast.

 

[Megnut]

Today's Franks motion:

Adobe Acrobat

A for effort.

But IMO a misrepresentation of what a search warrant is and isn't.

It's based on LE's work product. It's loaded toward the individual in LE's sights. It doesn't pretend to include everything.

I find the Defense's questions interesting. All good things for them to go hard on cross over.

Mostly I'm thinking about the fruits of that search. Must be strong stuff because IMO the Defense is posturing hard to get it thrown out.

My needle hasn't moved.

 

[TL4S]

I can’t for y’all to read this one. They finally suggest maybe the kids were not killed on the day they were taken and maybe they were brought back there after the search was called off.

This was only one of several suggested reasons for there being 3 phones near the CS. They did not put any other emphasis on this idea, just so people who don't read the document don't get the wrong idea. JMO.

What I'm curious about is whether or not one of these three phones belonged to L, the phone we already know about. If it is, and the second phone is the phone possibly linked as a second victim phone, then that pretty much leaves the third phone as the killer's phone, an unknown witness's phone, or someone's who participated. They are saying none of these phones are affiliated with RA. My issue here is that the identity of the owner of that third phone is unknown. Does LE even know? Because if not, I'm wagering on it being a burner phone, which then doesn't exclude RA. JMO.

RA said he was looking at a stock ticker, so his phone number, linked to him via the DD interview, should have been on the trail at some point between noon and 4pm. If it wasn't, it would prove he's lying about being on his phone. Or, if it was on the trail but turned off during the murders, or was stationary the entire time, that would look suspicious. But I'm not convinced there even is any data from the trails at all, which is concerning. I think RA's phone data will be very significant, no matter if it was on or off. JMO. It could work for or against him, especially if the 3rd phone from the CS was a burner. JMO.