Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

[AugustWest]

Presumably he won’t need to ask, she will deny without hearing.

>inb4

I hope I’m wrong.

JMO.

If Gull denies without hearing there will be a massive problem. Being able to present a defense that someone else is responsible is a constitutional right, you just have to jump through certain hoops before using it.

 

[TTF14]

Explain then how the SCOIN got it wrong? Do you mean AB&BR shouldn't have been reinstated?

Explain how it's not possible for @FrostedGlass to have an opinion that differs from what SCOIN said. I highly doubt members of the SCOIN have been watching every detail of this case and how everything has unfolded. They were ruling on what was presented to them, but there's been a whole heck of a lot more going on, hence the opinion of FrostedGlass that the judge is biased. It's not difficult to understand.

I respect the SCOIN because of their experience, expertise, position, etc. But at the end of the day, they are human beings whose breath stinks in the morning, too. They aren't infallible and they can't "see all."

IMO MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

He may have been upset and speaking loudly. I wonder why he didn’t call an attorney and/or walk out the door?

Yeah RA walked out and took a bathroom break and went outside for a smoke break. Pretty sure that means he was free to move around. According to the State Response for Motion to Suppress filed today.

MOO

 

[TTF14]

If Gull denies without hearing there will be a massive problem. Being able to present a defense that someone else is responsible is a constitutional right, you just have to jump through certain hoops before using it.

And that's what my question is about this motion. Are they actually asking that these things not be allowed or just reminding everyone that the defense will have to jump through hoops if they are going to do it?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I understand the SCOIN reinstated two attorneys and ruled the trial judge showed no bias. Are you saying the SCOIN doesn't understand the legal definitions of what they're ruling? That can't be right?

I'll try one more time to explain, The legal definition of a judge's bias is different from what we (the general public) see as being biased.

For example, the way she's really nice to Nick but rude and short to the D. I think that's biased. The Indiana Supreme Court does not see that as bias.

 

[sunshineray]

If Gull denies without hearing there will be a massive problem. Being able to present a defense that someone else is responsible is a constitutional right, you just have to jump through certain hoops before using it.

The P isn't asking that or would I think expect it. They want those things listed to come before the judge for relevance to be proven or not. Isn't this all part of the pre-trial? It's not unusual. The D is probably going to ask that some crime scene or autopsy photos not be admitted, for prejudice. Pre-trial issues.

 

[AugustWest]

They'd have to prove it's relevance, each and every thing, with evidence...before the judge, not the jury.

Not exactly. Yes, the defense will have to show it relevant, but some of it clearly is. Someone killed the girls. Evidence that a third party did so is clearly relevant. The problem will be whether the evidence, despite being relevant, is overly prejudicial, or will confuse the jury, etc.

 

[sunshineray]

And that's what my question is about this motion. Are they actually asking that these things not be allowed or just reminding everyone that the defense will have to jump through hoops if they are going to do it?

Geez not jump through hoops, just show evidence that something is relevant.

 

[Tealgrove]

Why are we still talking about this ad nauseum when the SCOIN determined there was no bias?

Maybe there should be a sub thread somewhere to hash this all out.

Abby and Libby. Remember them?

MOO

 

[AugustWest]

And that's what my question is about this motion. Are they actually asking that these things not be allowed or just reminding everyone that the defense will have to jump through hoops if they are going to do it?

Just reminding; I gotta run but will read up everyone's questions and respond this evening if I can.

 

[sunshineray]

Explain how it's not possible for @FrostedGlass to have an opinion that differs from what SCOIN said. I highly doubt members of the SCOIN have been watching every detail of this case and how everything has unfolded. They were ruling on what was presented to them, but there's been a whole heck of a lot more going on, hence the opinion of FrostedGlass that the judge is biased. It's not difficult to understand.

I respect the SCOIN because of their experience, expertise, position, etc. But at the end of the day, they are human beings whose breath stinks in the morning, too. They aren't infallible and they can't "see all."

IMO MOO

Oh, piecemeal the decisions of the SCOIN? I could gladly do that too, in my heart of hearts but I'm trying to be fair, since the actual trial is very close to starting. It IS hard sometimes.

 

[TTF14]

Not exactly. Yes, the defense will have to show it relevant, but some of it clearly is. Someone killed the girls. Evidence that a third party did so is clearly relevant. The problem will be whether the evidence, despite being relevant, is overly prejudicial, or will confuse the jury, etc.

Some would argue that the jury should be confused.....the man who admitted to being there and spitting on the girls isn't the one on trial. Some other dude is. That's confusing.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Easier to read but without the supporting law throughout it to clarify why these things are being requested.

I thought I included the link so those who needed more could read the whole thing.
In case you overlooked it, here it is again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[TTF14]

Oh, piecemeal the decisions of the SCOIN? I could gladly do that too, in my heart of hearts but I'm trying to be fair, since the actual trial is very close to starting. It IS hard sometimes.

I'm going to stop talking about this now.

 

[sunshineray]

Why are we still talking about this ad nauseum when the SCOIN determined there was no bias?

Maybe there should be a sub thread somewhere to hash this all out.

Abby and Libby. Remember them?

MOO

Not everyone agrees with what the SCOIN had to say. I guess I can relate to that well enough. But I'm looking forward now...unless someone wants to plea, the trial is happening soon!

 

[sunshineray]

I thought I included the link so those who needed more could read the whole thing.
In case you overlooked it, here it is again.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

No thanks I've read it and digested it

 

[Ravenmoon]

Some would argue that the jury should be confused.....the man who admitted to being there and spitting on the girls isn't the one on trial. Some other dude is. That's confusing.

Right. The guy on trial simply admitted to killing the girls is being held and will face a jury, not the one that was already looked at and ruled out.

 

[layer]

Gah, go to bed, board is dead. Get up, and holy cow.
This trial is already an appeals magnet. Does anyone really think it's a good idea to handcuff the defense like this? Maybe this is just a normal tactic but it gives me the impression that the state is desperate. They can "prove" anything if no one is allowed to test the evidence. That would make this a show trial, in effect... except it can't be shown.
I need coffee

 

[TTF14]

Geez not jump through hoops, just show evidence that something is relevant.

I was responding to AugustWest, who used that terminology. {mod snip}

 

[TTF14]

Right. The guy on trial simply admitted to killing the girls is actually on trial, not the one that was already looked at and ruled out.

So we have two people who have admitted to being there or doing it. One even got the cause of death wrong.

It's definitely confusing.