Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

[sunshineray]

Please provide a link showing Click had Brady violations.

14. That the State has also turned over all known Brady material to the Defense in its letter dated April 26th, 2024, which consists of no Brady violation information.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Those records are under State subpoena. Like I said before, I doubt Rushville PD personnel files are available for public viewing. I'm sure when the State receives them they will be sealed from the public until and if they come out at pre-trial or trial. The link I provided is the State's motion to subpoena asking for records pertaining to Brady-Giolio violations. As I said before, IMO, I don't think the State is in the habit of subpoenaing records that don't exist. AJMO

 

[TTF14]

Those records are under State subpoena. Like I said before, I doubt Rushville PD personnel files are available for public viewing. I'm sure when the State receives them they will be sealed from the public until and if they come out at pre-trial or trial. The link I provided is the State's motion to subpoena asking for records pertaining to Brady-Giolio violations. As I said before, IMO, I don't think the State is in the habit of subpoenaing records that don't exist. AJMO

Prosecutors also aren't usually in the practice of going after the reputations of accomplished law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions, but here we are.

IMO MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Appeal 100% guaranteed unless ra takes a plea first

Nearly every murder case I’ve followed that ended in a conviction was appealed. Even my go-to for ridiculousness - Darrell Brooks, who was videoed plowing down innocent citizens during the Waukesha parade - is appealing.

So yes. Will be appealed, if RA is convicted.

jmo

 

[TTF14]

Nearly every murder case I’ve followed that ended in a conviction was appealed. Even my go-to for ridiculousness - Darrell Brooks, who was videoed plowing down innocent citizens during the Waukesha parade - is appealing.

So yes. Will be appealed, if RA is convicted.

jmo

Yes, but being granted an appeal seems quite rare (haven't checked statistics). This one will be granted one. IMO.

 

[katydid23]

She is not required to have a hearing on everything.
If she had a hearing on every ridiculous fantasy ridden motion filed by the defense team we wouldn’t be seeing a trial before 2026.
Just my opinion.

Edit: added the opinion thing

You are correct. A judge does not need to set a hearing for every Frank's motion. There is a high bar that must be met:

A trial court is obligated to conduct a Franks hearing only if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that: 1) The affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the warrant affidavit; and, 2) that the allegedly false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.

What is A Franks Hearing? | Search Warrant Justification

A law firm dedicated to criminal defense including Frank's Hearings in Southwest Michigan. Offices located in Kalamazoo & Berrien County.

www.hillslawoffice.com

I did not see anything in those Frank's that proved that there was 'a reckless disregard for the truth' or that there was a
'false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.'

IMO

 

[TTF14]

I did not see anything in those Frank's that proved that there was 'a reckless disregard for the truth' or that there was a
'false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.'

IMO

But how would anyone, including JG, know that without a hearing? I'm speaking specifically about the discrepancies in BB's and SC's statements.

 

[photographer4]

I have no idea what RA thinks or why he does things and I wish we could all understand these types better because maybe we could prevent some of the evil things that occur in the world.

I personally theorize that he didn't didn't realize the bullet could be traced to his gun just from being in it. He didn't fire it and he didn't know he was recorded and the girls are heard saying something about a gun. So I just think it's as simple as he had no idea the gun would link him to anything. Maybe he likes that gun and he's used it before (I wonder what this other bullet in evidence is from??)

I think it's possible someone that commits this type of murder also likes to keep things for whatever reason they have.. fetish, souvenir, something else??

I hope we hear more about all of it at trial because I really am curious. If others are involved, I wish RA would say that. I just can't believe he had zero to do with this and I do think that video Libby took shows him and there is no other possibility if BG on video is RA, then he either had a gun and told them down the hill or he saw and knows who did do that because 43 seconds of video is not enough time to have him in the video and then he just walks away and some other guy arrives and RA is oblivious and sees nothing (what he told DD about that day.. didn't see Abby or Libby).

I hear you but this assumes he IS the guy in the video. I'm not sure how it could *not* be but there is that witness who said she saw a guy with puffy hair - which RA does not seem to have at the moment - did he ever? Ideally, the State coughs up an actual identifiable, clear photo of BG and its clearly, unmistakably RA. I know there is more on the video wherein they got "Down the hill" from. I wonder if there is other video / photo evidence they have that we just don't know about yet? But then, if that were the case, surely the Defense would know about it and have blabbed it to the world via some motion or other by now?

 

[katydid23]

I'm aware. But this matter could easily be settled by getting BB and SC on the stand and asking them what they said and if LE misstated their words. I honestly don't really care since it will come out in trial, but she could have shrunk the stack of appeal evidence if she had a hearing about it, IMO.

In the whole scheme of things, this case does not hinge on the memory or descriptions given by BB and SC.

And even if they gave inconsistent testimony to the description set forth in the PCA, that would not be enough to throw out the Search Warrants or the Arrest. The legal definition says that in order to justify a hearing, the Frank's memo must show intentional lying, reckless disregard for the truth in which the false statement 'was necessary to a finding of probable cause.'

The issue of BB and SC was not necessary to a finding of probable cause, IMO.

My belief is that they needed to get RA arrested, hoping he'd flip/plea, so a lot of "fudging" was done to obtain that PCA. If he's involved and his trial ends up in the rest of the dominos falling, even I think, "well, maybe the end justifies the means..."

Unfortunately for the State, RA didn't cave like they expected him to at Westville. MOO IMO

I think maybe he did cave, about 30 times apparently.

MOO, IMO.

 

[TTF14]

In the whole scheme of things, this case does not hinge on the memory or descriptions given by BB and SC.

And even if they gave inconsistent testimony to the description set forth in the PCA, that would not be enough to throw out the Search Warrants or the Arrest. The legal definition says that in order to justify a hearing, the Frank's memo must show intentional lying, reckless disregard for the truth in which the false statement 'was necessary to a finding of probable cause.'

The issue of BB and SC was not necessary to a finding of probable cause, IMO.

Thank you for this. So, I guess what this says is it's OK to lie in a PCA as long as it's not the most compelling part of the PCA. Now I have to go back and read the PCA to figure out what else was so compelling without these lies.

IMO MOO

 

[katydid23]

But how would anyone, including JG, know that without a hearing? I'm speaking specifically about the discrepancies in BB's and SC's statements.

JG has seen EVERYTHING about this case. If anyone would know that the Search Warrant was proper and the Arrest was appropriate, she would.

The court is trying to protect the sanctity of this case, IMO. That Frank's motion was a ridiculous attempt to deflect and distort the facts of this case. NONE of that stuff will even be acknowledged during the actual trial because they are irrelevant. And the defense team knows that too.

Let's get on with it.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you for this. So, I guess what this says is it's OK to lie in a PCA as long as it's not the most compelling part of the PCA. Now I have to go back and read the PCA to figure out what else was so compelling without these lies.

IMO MOO

That's not what it says, unless one wants to word it that way in order to make it appear one way or another.

What it says, IMO, is that IF it turns out that there are untrue statements in the PCA, and if they are not necessary to the Probable Cause determination, then 'no harm, no foul.'

It is quite possible that someone investigating a case may have reason to believe something at the beginning of the investigation which ends up being untrue. That happens quite often because things change as new information comes forth. JMO

 

[TTF14]

JG has seen EVERYTHING about this case. If anyone would know that the Search Warrant was proper and the Arrest was appropriate, she would.

I'll respectfully disagree. But won't say more until I find the link I'm looking for.

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

The inconsistencies with the cars and colors of the jacket are not enough to toss the search warrant. The probable cause could have had just the tip from DD and that would have been enough for a search warrant. That RA loves to talk.

 

[TTF14]

The inconsistencies with the cars and colors of the jacket are not enough to toss the search warrant. The probable cause could have had just the tip from DD and that would have been enough for a search warrant. That RA loves to talk.

But then why not just put that in the PCA? Why fabricate? I don't get it. They were super intent on getting THIS guy arrested.

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

But then why not just put that in the PCA? Why fabricate? I don't get it. They were super intent on getting THIS guy arrested.

IMO MOO

I think the word is streamline. Why streamline? To get to the point. They can tear apart their eye witness accounts when they are on the stand. But anyone who knows true crime knows those accounts will be skewed because of perception. Perception is reality but not ultimate truth. That will convict him. IMOO

 

[nadia90]

Yes, but being granted an appeal seems quite rare (haven't checked statistics). This one will be granted one. IMO.

I disagree, it won't be granted nothing. IMO

 

[Megnut]

Sure, but I can't get behind it happening at that place, in that timeframe, according to that timeline (especially now that we know that Libby's phone might not have been there in the middle of the night, something Nick still has yet to respond to). Delphi defense points to new cellphone data in murders

I really think the Defense is exploiting discovery. Ping data is the least accurate. By now LE (and the Defense) have her CAST data which is far more precise! The Defense isn't "lying", likely there are holes in the ping data. (FWIW in another trial, there were gaps on Berla data from a vehicle. It did drive a known route but for reasons that defied explanation, the data simply didn't record so that can always happen. In this case, I don't think that. I think ping data is spotty and has a different measure of reliability. GPS is the gold standard and it will pinpoint her phone. Notice the Defense isn't talking about GPS technology. The State is. In fact, the State is so sure of their GPS evidence, they're asking the judge, ahead of trial, to rule on the scope of testimony, to limit the Defense to what is scientific and relevant, and not some pop up phony phone voodoo designed only to confuse. Saw it in yet another trial. Defense called a tech guy to the stand who used all kinds of irrelevant "science" to talk smart but say nothing. Judge sustained about 500 objections because, while something may be interesting, it has to be relevant.

Every trial depends on it. Justice depends on it.

JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

But then why not just put that in the PCA? Why fabricate? I don't get it. They were super intent on getting THIS guy arrested.

IMO MOO

What is it that you think was fabricated,?
<modsnip>

JMO

 

[TTF14]

I really think the Defense is exploiting discovery. Ping data is the least accurate. By now LE (and the Defense) have her CAST data which is far more precise! The Defense isn't "lying", likely there are holes in the ping data. (FWIW in another trial, there were gaps on Berla data from a vehicle. It did drive a known route but for reasons that defied explanation, the data simply didn't record so that can always happen. In this case, I don't think that. I think ping data is spotty and has a different measure of reliability. GPS is the gold standard and it will pinpoint her phone. Notice the Defense isn't talking about GPS technology. The State is. In fact, the State is so sure of their GPS evidence, they're asking the judge, ahead of trial, to rule on the scope of testimony, to limit the Defense to what is scientific and relevant, and not some pop up phony phone voodoo designed only to confuse. Saw it in yet another trial. Defense called a tech guy to the stand who used all kinds of irrelevant "science" to talk smart but say nothing. Judge sustained about 500 objections because, while something may be interesting, it has to be relevant.

Every trial depends on it. Justice depends on it.

JMO

Are you saying ping data is "phone voodoo?"

This is interesting and helpful. Thank you. I don't know what Berla data is....off to Google.

 

[Megnut]

I want to talk about the bullet.

But first I want to remind myself that wr have the privilege and agony of following true crime throughout the process. Many people have no such interest and, if anything, read the headline when a crime hsppens snd the headlune when a verdict occurs. We're here in the in-between.

We don't know what we don't know. We don't know what has been investigated, amassed, corrected, developed since the PCA.

One thing I have experienced, having followed now several crimes from commission to conviction, is the evolution of the accused's story, namely something dubbed presplaining.

Let me explain.

I'll try to use real-life RA examples.

RA presplained that he was at the bridge that day, before anyone even asked him. In case anyone had seen/identifies him there.

Now to the bullet.

We know he denied being in the specific location where it was found, denied occasioning his gun to anyone else. We do not know the order in which LE asked questions or how they worded them. Now, assuming RA is BG, RA knows what he did and didn't do so the truth would be easy to tell, he's just not likely to tell it because self-preservation. So he'll adjust his answers based on what he thinks LE might know.

He knows he never fired his weapon. He knows they can shake that park lose and NEVER find spent bullet from his gun. Maybe LE didn't tell him whether the bullet recovered was spent or unspent... and his mind went to spent... because the human mind doesn't know what it doesn't know... it only knows what it knows. To be a convincing liar, you have to know what is true so you can dance around it...

JMO