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

[sunshineray]

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.

Maybe relevant and yes as I did mention prejudice is a concern also.

 

[Ravenmoon]

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

Please read what August West has stated.

There is nothing unfair or unjust being asked for.

 

[sunshineray]

I was responding to AugustWest, who used that terminology. Relax.

I guess the terminology hit a nerve with me being that this is NOT suppose to be a circus of jumping through hoops, it's the trial of an accused double child murderer. Sometimes I think the D still forgets that, like they have in the past. AJMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

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

Nobody said the Indiana Supreme Court got it wrong.
Of course the original defense team should have been reinstated.

Here is where you can listen to the oral argument:

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

Here is where you can read the opinion:
Case # 23S-OR-00311

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[layer]

Please read what August West has stated.

Okie dokey

 

[sunshineray]

Nobody said the Indiana Supreme Court got it wrong.
Of course the original defense team should have been reinstated.

Here is where you can listen to the oral argument:

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

Here is where you can read the opinion:
Case # 23S-OR-00311

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Check and check. You obviously differ on what you percieve was ruled and why. Agreeing to disagree with you. Different perceptions make good discussion.

 

[mrjitty]

DBM

 

[FrostedGlass]

Check and check. You obviously differ on what you percieve was ruled and why. Agreeing to disagree with you. Different perceptions make good discussion.

Thanks. We're good.
This is what I was looking for and couldn't find when I posted.
This is the ruling of the SC; I've never figured out exactly what bias is in their minds.
(excerpt)
But “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”

 

[susiQ]

#10 ……..There are a lot of felonies that (probably?) have nothing to do with Richard Allen.

IMO MOO

RSABBM
He would want anything related to that out as it could lend itself to third party motive. Although it would have nothing to do with RA, revenge for past deeds could be motive. Sometimes snitches get stitches and sometime worse.
JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

Thanks. We're good.
This is what I was looking for and couldn't find when I posted.
This is the ruling of the SC; I've never figured out exactly what bias is in their minds.
(excerpt)
But “judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”

It means that the judge disapproving of shenanigans in their court doesn't mean they're bias. MO

 

[layer]

I guess I don't understand why the defense shouldn't be allowed to present even preposterous theories to juries. Sometimes the truth is kind of preposterous, and shouldn't the jury get to decide?

 

[nadia90]

Because if there's evidence proving a third party did it, that's a bad thing for the defendant.

Are you related to ra?

 

[layer]

Are you related to ra?

The brotherhood of man

 

[nadia90]

The brotherhood of man

Not you

 

[TTF14]

I guess I don't understand why the defense shouldn't be allowed to present even preposterous theories to juries. Sometimes the truth is kind of preposterous, and shouldn't the jury get to decide?

I can't speak to the law (and why it's a law?), but maybe it's simply because trials could drag on and on?

 

[susane7]

I am expected the motion in limine about the odinism "suspects" a long time ago. Probably will be sucessfull if the odinists have alibis. Interesting about the Klines. Seems the State doesn't believe they are involved and I agree. I always thought this is a lone wolf with a sick fantasy. I have doubts the Klines and Ron Logan will be excluded from the trial but depends on the evidence about them.

 

[katydid23]

I just don't. In all that time it took to strip, murder, redress, pose, stage... it just seems to me like if sex was the motivator, sex would have happened.

There are alternative ways for 'sex' to happen that do not leave telltale signs. For some sexual predators, the act of stabbing can be their sexual release. Or seeing the fear they create can be the ultimate turn on. JMO

 

[TTF14]

I am expected the motion in limine about the odinism "suspects" a long time ago. Probably will be sucessfull if the odinists have alibis. Interesting about the Klines. Seems the State doesn't believe they are involved and I agree. I always thought this is a lone wolf with a sick fantasy. I have doubts the Klines and Ron Logan will be excluded from the trial but depends on the evidence about them.

I'm surprised to see the Klines, especially KK, on that list. I've really been thinking there has to be a connection there (i.e. the Dropbox).

IMO, MOO

 

[layer]

There are alternative ways for 'sex' to happen that do not leave telltale signs. For some sexual predators, the act of stabbing can be their sexual release. Or seeing the fear they create can be the ultimate turn on. JMO

I know, and this is close to OT. I just think precise language is important. Remember "homicide bombers"? They had a valid argument for altering the words "suicide bombers" but it came at the loss of precision and meaning - all bombers are homicide bombers, not all intend to go along for the ride. I won't be touching this issue anymore because no matter what you say, no matter how delicately or earnestly, or which side, someone with personal experiences can be hurt. Again, I know.

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

I really hope Judge Gull doesn't rule to allow the Prosecution's State's Motion in Limine. If simply blows my mind how RA would get a fair trial.

Simply already with no cameras, lost interviews, issues of evidence issues regarding evidence being shared between the Prosecution and Defense and the whole Judge throwing the Defense off then back on.

I guess the Defense are not allowed to show reasonable doubt lets just gag them ... lets just throw him in jail for good... wait he is already there!!!!

I kept saying .. lets think RA is innocent until proven guilty. At the trial and the evidence will prove one way or another for the jury to decide. Well if the Defense are not allowed to show the reasonable doubt of the evidence which is what I supposed was suppose to happen. Then I find it impossible for the Jury to give him a fair trial.

Allow the Prosecution's State's Motion in Limine then that is basically gagging the Defense and RA will not get a fair trial. Which will result in endless appeals and eventually he will probably be granted another trial. You can not tell me RA rights have not already been overstepped. None of the other accused murders have been thrown in a jail treated where they can barely communicate freely with their Defense Counsel.

Things are very wrong if he does not get a fair trial.