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

[vinayd]

Yes the D previously focused on 3 dots on the geofence map. Assuming that is what the P is saying can't come in unless there is relevance.

 

[zh0r4]

I think the phrase “that is not relevant” is the key here.
Jmo

But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?

 

[sunshineray]

Can someone please explain to me why the P would want any geofencing conducted by FBI Koran thrown out? I am so confused. Again.

Pic related:
View attachment 500415

9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Mullins v. State, 646 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 1995). Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Rolston v. State, 81 N.E.3d 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.

Source:
Adobe Acrobat

Because it's "not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401"?

 

[vinayd]

But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?

Paid witness. We have seen cases where experts testify to the very limited scope they are presented with from either side.

 

[TTF14]

I think the phrase “that is not relevant” is the key here.
Jmo

According to whom, though? Nick McLeland because it may hurt his chances of winning the case?

This is such a dangerous precedent to set if he wins this.

IMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

But why would an FBI agent bring up anything that is not relevant to the case?

There's lots in an investigation that winds up not being relevant to the defendant on trial. It's an investigation that lasted over 6 years, lots of dead ends that have no relevance to RA.

 

[vinayd]

Well let's consider this. Who are the 3 dots? Let's say it's the couple under the bridge arguing and FSG. If the dots were identified and the users questioned and deemed not suspects... why introduce this to the jury?

 

[zh0r4]

Paid witness. We have seen cases where experts testify to the very limited scope they are presented with from either side.

So you’re saying the FBI agent is going to be a witness for the defense? (Along with Click)

Will the P have their own geofencing expert from the FBI? I assume the FBI wouldn’t have 2 agents contradicting each other? Or is the P going to throw out the geofencing data?

 

[TTF14]

Well let's consider this. Who are the 3 dots? Let's say it's the couple under the bridge arguing and FSG. If the dots were identified and the users questioned and deemed not suspects... why introduce this to the jury?

The same investigators who lied in the PCA?

I'd want the geofence evidence in.

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

So you’re saying the FBI agent is going to be a witness for the defense? (Along with Click)

Will the P have their own geofencing expert from the FBI? I assume the FBI wouldn’t have 2 agents contradicting each other? Or is the P going to throw out the geofencing data?

Not sure in the least bit so just assuming off the top of the dome. I believe the D has a geofence expert. At least I remember seeing either they wanted one or had one. Their witness could focus on those 3 dots to cause reasonable doubt.
The State's expert will be testifying to exactly where RAs dot was. Where it moved, how long it stayed etc. This is JMO as I am not totally sure.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

According to whom, though? Nick McLeland because it may hurt his chances of winning the case?

This is such a dangerous precedent to set if he wins this.

IMO MOO

I would assume to the judge. Keeps the distractions to the minimum.
Confusing a jury is not the job of defense. Presenting substantiated doubt is.
IMO this defense has a history of dragging everything and the kitchen sink to confuse the issue at hand.
If it’s relevant. It’s in. I question why anyone would want irrelevant evidence in?
Jmo

 

[vinayd]

Looking into Kevin Horan and I see he now has a company called "Precision Cellular Analysis" in my city of Dayton, OH.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The same investigators who lied in the PCA?

I'd want the geofence evidence in.

IMO MOO

Oh it’s going to be in. State is just asking for relevant to be in

Those 3 dots may be victims family members searching for the girls. Irrelevant and damaging to the victims family and absolutely unnecessary.

If 3 dots are RSO’s with no known alibi then relevant.

Easy peasy. JMO

 

[vinayd]

Rule 403:

Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons.

 

[vinayd]

ACCUSED’S REPLY TO THE STATE’S REPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT’S, RICHARD ALLEN, FOURTH FRANKS MOTION BASED ON NEWLY DISCLOSED EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING

 

[vinayd]

Oh man.. 2nd crime scene true?

22.The exculpatory report the defense received on Friday, April 26, 2024 (17 days before trial begins) provides evidence that the victims were not at the crime scene on February 13, 2017.
Accused's reply

 

[AugustWest]

Well let's consider this. Who are the 3 dots? Let's say it's the couple under the bridge arguing and FSG. If the dots were identified and the users questioned and deemed not suspects... why introduce this to the jury?

Because the jury is the trier of fact, not the judge. Those three dots have to be proven to be who they are, which is a fact question.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Oh man.. 2nd crime scene true?

22.The exculpatory report the defense received on Friday, April 26, 2024 (17 days before trial begins) provides evidence that the victims were not at the crime scene on February 13, 2017.
ACCUSED’S REPLY TO THE STATE’S REPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Or the phone was not working. Two options listed. One emphasized in effort to confuse. Big surprise.
JMO

 

[vinayd]

Or the phone was not working. Two options listed. One emphasized in effort to confuse. Big surprise.
JMO

Yup just have to read the whole thing. Franks 4.0. DENIED.

 

[sunshineray]

The same investigators who lied in the PCA?

I'd want the geofence evidence in.

IMO MOO

What did the investigators lie about in the PCA? A nd what's your proof for that, the FM?