Seriously? Guess they're worried that the Defense theory of Odins did it might sway a jury.... lmao. This is ridiculous. Again, this comment does NOT reflect on my view of RA's innocence or guilt. Its merely a statement regarding the antics of the lawyers in this matter.
But does it though? Could his sudden departure be a medical issue that he has opted not to share with the public? Could it be he's just ready to retire? Why does something have to be stinking in Delphi because a judge quits?
No need to resort to vulgarity, that was practically poetic.
If they didn't cross the creek, then how did they arrive at the scene where the kids were found dead? Just wondering what your thoughts are.I'd like to know if the clothes Abby was dressed in (Libby's clothes, but not the ones she was reported to be wearing) were wet or dry.
I, too, have dropped my phone in the toilet
I guess the question is if a submerged phone automatically turns off?
It's a good question/line of thinking.
However, I don't think the trio (RA, AW, LG) crossed the creek.
IMO MOO
A pedometer counts steps. But the accelerometer is more like the compass. What does the iPhone accelerometer do?
Ah. Just realized I'd missed this from last evening.
BbmI wonder how often he had walked across the bridge in the past. Because as a Kid I would have walked that a million times over and not even given it a thought in the world it was sketchy with no barriers. When you reach your 30’s I suddenly look at it and think “hell no”.
So the fact he was old and overweight I can understand why he would be watching his steps -and looking down instead of looking straight ahead at the girls. He knew they were trapped regardless at the end there.
Moo
Given the injuries inflicted on AW, which were graphically detailed in the original Franks Motion, and which I won't get into here out of respect for the loved ones of the victims and members who may not want to read about them -- I doubt highly that AW had the phone on her mind at all at the time when she was being killed. I do not think that she'd have had the mental capacity / foresight / ability / strength to do anything more than try to survive.If the phone was under her shoe, then I think it's likely she did that. If he ordered them to undress, then she knows she has her phone on her, she might have tried to hide it. She takes her shoes off first because pants don't usually come off over shoes. She puts the shoe on the phone on purpose.. then when he's done with whatever he was doing
The defense might like to suggest that it was some conspiracy about this phone, but I think the solution is much more simple.
I have no doubt they do. I’ve seen people’s theories/questions/doubts absolutely paraphrased in motions days later.
I mean, we have to hope they did, because if it is there and could prove guilt, surely they'd be using it? No way to explain why RA's DNA is ON or IN the device if he was never there, wasn't the killer, right?
| 05/01/2024 | Order Issued The Court, having had this matter under advisement following a hearing conducted on March 18, 2024, and having reviewed the evidence admitted at the hearing (the Court did not review any evidence that was offered but not admitted), the arguments of counsel and the briefs and memorandums submitted by Counsel now finds that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was sloppy, negligent, and incompetent in their handling of discovery materials. Counsel failed to properly secure evidence and discovery material in this matter. Counsel negligently allowed their discovery outline to be sent to an individual unrelated to this matter (Brandon Woodhouse) who then disseminated that information to the public. Counsel further allowed their discovery materials to be compromised by Westerman (who, in turn, provided the information to Fortson and Cohen). Counsel has described Westerman both as a criminal and a valued consultant and confidante. Despite this Court's findings of sloppiness, negligence, and incompetence, the State is required to prove that Counsels' conduct was willful and intentional beyond a reasonable doubt for the Court to find Counsel in contempt. As the State has not met that burden, the Court declines to find them in contempt of Court for violating the Protective Order issued February 17, 2023, regarding discovery. The State has also alleged that defense counsel violated the "gag order" issued by the Court on December 2, 2022. Defense counsel issued a Press Release on December 1, 2022. The release contained statements that are potentially violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct. As Defense Counsels' Counsel correctly argues in his post-hearing brief, the gag order was not yet issued. As such, the Court declines to find Counsel in contempt of Court as no Order was in place. To the extent that the Press Release violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to enforce those Rules. As required by the Rules of Professional Responsibility, the Trial Court will, therefore, send a copy of this Order and the Press Release to the Office of Judicial and Attorney Regulation, Executive Director Adrienne Meiring for that Office to enforce the Rules or determine Counsels' ethical misconduct. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 0 |
| 05/01/2024 | Order Issued Defendant's Motion for Pre-Trial Hearing and State's Motion in Limine set for hearing in the Allen Superior Court May 7, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. without objection by the defense, who consents to the venue. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed: 04/30/2024 |
I didn't say while they were being killed. I said it's likely he ordered them to undress while they were alive and she attempts to hide the phone perhaps thinking she could try to call for help at some point. I think he killed them once they were naked. It seems much easier to order them to undress at gunpoint than it does for him to kill them and then try to undress and redress them.
I have wondered that as well - waiting car or something there at the drive at the end of the bridge. I have considered that LG's shoe may have been tossed by LG as a omg we went THIS way clue for people she knew would be coming out for her (eg: dad very soon due to pick them up and would surely look for them!). Or it may have fallen off in a scuffle before being loaded to a car of some sort, but I don't think there was evidence of a scuffle at that side of the bridge (was there)?
And ... the Court repeats her complaints/concerns about the Defense's handling of discovery, punts on consequences ... pulls a Pontius Pilate.
I can't hit like on the theory - my heart breaks for the kids, but I think its a reasonable assertion that this is how it could have happened.
Where does it say the phone would have been in the same location between the times? Per the 4th Franks (linked below):
drive.google.com
