Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

[snooptroop88]

Ya know, personalities may actually matter to a jury. Ironically, today I was reading an old article about why Casey A was acquitted. It’s a good read. Here’s a quote.

“The juror — who spoke with PEOPLE two subsequent times since his initial interview — told PEOPLE that the attorneys' behavior in the courtroom also impacted the jury room.”

How Casey Anthony Was Acquitted: The Jurors Explain Their Controversial Verdict

Several jurors have spoken out in the past seven years to explain why they declared Casey Anthony not guilty of murder

people.com

Am doing some checking to see if there are actual studies on this, but I would think this is borne out in studies.

If the D conducts itself in the trial in any manner approaching the way they conducted themselves pre-trial, jmo, it will be a handicap for the defendant. MOO. Whatever about the combined years of experience, the P has largely conducted their business in a pretty professional manner. The D's tactics have been sensationalistic and at times antagonistic. Again, MOO.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I provided one a few pages back, if you missed it I'll post again.

We only know what has been RELEASED to the public. Here is a link. We must wait until trial for other evidence.

Court documents say investigators found important evidence against Allen at the crime scene — an unspent bullet found between Abby and Libby's bodies. Investigators claim ballistics testing on that bullet matches a gun they found inside Allen's home when they conducted a search warrant. It is some of the most powerful evidence offered by the state to link Allen to the crime scene.

Judge in Delphi murders case to allow evidence found during search of Richard Allen's home​

Richard Allen's attorneys claimed the sheriff and others lied to get the search warrant and, therefore, what they found should be thrown out.

www.wthr.com

I have seen that but not impressed. MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

I think the conduct of this Defense Team and all their SM quasi legal experts and hangers on have lead this case right into the toilet that it is in now. It isn't about personalities, I don't care about R&B personally. I want them to act like professionals and bring RA to trial. Their filings are filled with enough childish words and accusations. Ding dong, really?

I'm not frustrated, I'm disgusted...big difference there. What I do care about is Justice and Truth for Abby & Libby, and to see the killer of these girls taken to trial, found guilty by a jury of his peers and for him to spend the rest of his days behind bars. Abby & Libby were innocent, they've been buried for 7 years. RA has been allowed to enjoy his life like nothing has happened until his arrest. Time for that to change.

Accountability, the D doesn't have it and RA hasn't taken it either even though he has confessed numerous times. I see that changing in the near future, unless the D continues to drag this thing out.

It's comical considering according to R&B RA's' so innocent and they're so emotionally invested in seeing him exonerated. Let's go gentlemen, put up or shut up.

MOO

Thanks for the clarification.
It's just a quirk of mine but, I lost interest in disparaging commentary a long long time ago.
moo

 

[steeltowngirl]

If "NO useful DNA" was found on the girls ... why would we expect that EF's DNA would be found on the girls?

Just thinking that the expert coroner did not have the benefit of EF's confession before releasing the bodies.

I'm wondering if - at trial - we'll come to better appreciate the difficulty of the forensics in this case.

jmho

Oh, I had to jump back 4 posts to see how that started. Someone thought EF said his DNA would be on the girls because he spit on them. Someone else thought that would be hard for a jury to ignore. I think the jury would ask if his DNA was found. And ask if it was proven he was at the crime scene. Both would be a no, I presume, since he since placed himself elsewhere and the jury wouldn’t focus on it. Also, it is hearsay from the sister saying it of her disabled brother. If he had truly spit on the girls, there should have been his DNA.

I don’t believe the coroner would need a confession from anyone to collect DNA in a homicide case. That’s protocol, as you know, of course.

Agree, the trial forensics alone will be fascinating.

jmo

 

[TTF14]

<modsnip>

I don't think the trial should be canceled.

I do think there should be a Franks hearing.

And I do think that everyone shouldn't automatically say every word in the Franks memo is "fiction" <modsnip>....defense attorneys, especially ones with as much storied experience as these two (plus Hennessey), have reputations to uphold and defense attorneys don't just go around making up wild stories....their licenses depend on them not doing so. <modsnip>

IMO MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

I don't think the trial should be canceled.

I do think there should be a Franks hearing.

And I do think that everyone shouldn't automatically say every word in the Franks memo is "fiction" <modsnip>....defense attorneys, especially ones with as much storied experience as these two (plus Hennessey), have reputations to uphold and defense attorneys don't just go around making up wild stories....their licenses depend on them not doing so. <modsnip>

The actual good and valid points made in the FM were shrouded by the sensationalism and rhetoric. They named people. They placed motive for murder on hatred for an alleged dating relationship of a victim’s mother. So much of the document was so distasteful that it upset a lot of people. And it was speculative. Had they pointed to mistakes in the investigation, addressed known evidence step by step, and provided clear legal basis for the search warrant to be tossed, civil discussions would have been had here as is done on other cases. Defense made it personal and attacked family, LE, and alleged a conspiracy. That’s hardcore for what could have been a simple, clear document requesting a Franks hearing. Heck, they had to issue a follow up document to make the actual legal request. The story they told IS wild. Wilder yet if it were true! But they provided no evidence. Just sticks and social media. It read like fiction, thus many call it that.

It is not ignorance, it’s anger at what many felt was an unprofessional, and frankly, disrespectful document.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

Oh, I had to jump back 4 posts to see how that started. Someone thought EF said his DNA would be on the girls because he spit on them. Someone else thought that would be hard for a jury to ignore. I think the jury would ask if his DNA was found. And ask if it was proven he was at the crime scene. Both would be a no, I presume, since he since placed himself elsewhere and the jury wouldn’t focus on it. Also, it is hearsay from the sister saying it of her disabled brother. If he had truly spit on the girls, there should have been his DNA.

I don’t believe the coroner would need a confession from anyone to collect DNA in a homicide case. That’s protocol, as you know, of course.

Agree, the trial forensics alone will be fascinating.

jmo

Ah that's how this got started. Okay.
Yes ma'am. Bring on the forensics!

 

[steeltowngirl]

Ah that's how this got started. Okay.
Yes ma'am. Bring on the forensics!

Looking forward to the forensics.. and the questions from the jury. I just learned in Indiana, per Rule 20 -

(7) that jurors, including alternates, may seek to ask questions of the witnesses by submission of questions in writing.

Indiana Jury Rules

 

[Tealgrove]

Am doing some checking to see if there are actual studies on this, but I would think this is borne out in studies.

If the D conducts itself in the trial in any manner approaching the way they conducted themselves pre-trial, jmo, it will be a handicap for the defendant. MOO. Whatever about the combined years of experience, the P has largely conducted their business in a pretty professional manner. The D's tactics have been sensationalistic and at times antagonistic. Again, MOO.

Once we get to trial the conduct of the Defence will be very important. If they choose to be disrespectful to the Judge and court, I can see trouble afoot.

MOO I don’t think the Jury would take kindly to that.

 

[TTF14]

Looking forward to the forensics.. and the questions from the jury. I just learned in Indiana, per Rule 20 -

(7) that jurors, including alternates, may seek to ask questions of the witnesses by submission of questions in writing.

Indiana Jury Rules

Is this at the discretion of the judge? Pretty sure that's how it is in Florida. I've watched trials where it happened and where it wasn't allowed (same case, different defendants and different judge).

I don't see Judge Gull allowing this in any way, shape or form.

IMO MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

Looking forward to the forensics.. and the questions from the jury. I just learned in Indiana, per Rule 20 -

(7) that jurors, including alternates, may seek to ask questions of the witnesses by submission of questions in writing.

Indiana Jury Rules

whoa that's fun and hopefully helpful for the jury.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Is this at the discretion of the judge? Pretty sure that's how it is in Florida. I've watched trials where it happened and where it wasn't allowed (same case, different defendants and different judge).

I don't see Judge Gull allowing this in any way, shape or form.

IMO MOO

Appears it is a rule, but here’s more:

d) Questioning by Juror. A juror may be permitted to propound questions to a witness by submitting them in writing to the judge. The judge will decide whether to submit the questions to the witness for answer. The parties may object to the questions at the time proposed or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present. Once the court has ruled upon the appropriateness of the written questions, it must then rule upon the objections, if any, of the parties prior to submission of the questions to the witness.
Ind. R. Evid. 614

614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court and Jury

rules.incourts.gov

 

[iamshadow21]

Appears it is a rule, but here’s more:

d) Questioning by Juror. A juror may be permitted to propound questions to a witness by submitting them in writing to the judge. The judge will decide whether to submit the questions to the witness for answer. The parties may object to the questions at the time proposed or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present. Once the court has ruled upon the appropriateness of the written questions, it must then rule upon the objections, if any, of the parties prior to submission of the questions to the witness.
Ind. R. Evid. 614

614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court and Jury

rules.incourts.gov

They did this in the Gannon Stauch trial. The jury in that case asked some absolutely fantastic questions.

MOO

 

[TTF14]

Appears it is a rule, but here’s more:

d) Questioning by Juror. A juror may be permitted to propound questions to a witness by submitting them in writing to the judge. The judge will decide whether to submit the questions to the witness for answer. The parties may object to the questions at the time proposed or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present. Once the court has ruled upon the appropriateness of the written questions, it must then rule upon the objections, if any, of the parties prior to submission of the questions to the witness.
Ind. R. Evid. 614

614. Calling and Interrogation of Witnesses by Court and Jury

rules.incourts.gov

Yes, from what I've seen, the judge rules on whether or not the question is appropriate based on the "regular" rules of the court that the judge would apply to any other question from either attorney.

But, I think allowing questions at all is at the discretion of the attorney, at least in Florida. I would assume it's the same in all states that allow jury questions. And, if that's the case, I doubt Judge Gull will allow it, based on decisions she's made so far. IMO MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Yes, from what I've seen, the judge rules on whether or not the question is appropriate based on the "regular" rules of the court that the judge would apply to any other question from either attorney.

But, I think allowing questions at all is at the discretion of the attorney, at least in Florida. I would assume it's the same in all states that allow jury questions. And, if that's the case, I doubt Judge Gull will allow it, based on decisions she's made so far. IMO MOO

Hopefully, an attorney will answer, but I’m feeling it’s not discretionary. It’s a court rule.

Rule 20: Preliminary Instructions​

Question:
Regarding juror questions, are attorneys then allowed to ask additional questions in response to this new information?

Answer:
Yes, within the scope of the new question.

Question:
Can a judge refashion or rephrase a juror question and ask follow up question of his or her own?

Answer:
Yes. The judge may rephrase a juror's question provided that counsel has the opportunity to object on the record. It is permissible, but not advisable, for a judge to ask follow up questions.

Question:
Can alternate jurors ask questions of witnesses during trial?

Answer:
Yes, alternate jurors should be allowed to ask questions of a witness in the same manner as other jurors.

Question:
Is there a standard procedure for allowing jurors to ask questions during trial?

Answer:
See: Ashba v. State, 816 N.E.2d 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (discussing procedures for allowing juror questions during trial and the need to explain the procedure to the jury).

Jury Rules FAQ

www.in.gov

back

 

[sunshineray]

Is this at the discretion of the judge? Pretty sure that's how it is in Florida. I've watched trials where it happened and where it wasn't allowed (same case, different defendants and different judge).

I don't see Judge Gull allowing this in any way, shape or form.

IMO MOO

JG strikes me as being a judge that will try and be as accommodating as she possible can for the jurors. I think they matter very much to her because she truly appreciates their service and sacrifice having to be sequestered. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Yes especially his stock ticker app and his vehicle's GPS data.

The stock ticker story could be a real issue

RA's phone should have showed up in the geofence logically - even if he left by 1.30pm - as he was on the bridge (i presume the geo included the bridge and immediate GEO of the trails - after all, that is where the killer is seen on video). So he should be in the area up to an hour before the abduction, even on the defence version. I think we can assume he wasn't in the Geofence - otherwise he would have been identified long ago.

Since then, the investigators obviously pulled all his phone data - unfortunately years late.

MOO

 

[Charlot123]

Oh, I had to jump back 4 posts to see how that started. Someone thought EF said his DNA would be on the girls because he spit on them. Someone else thought that would be hard for a jury to ignore. I think the jury would ask if his DNA was found. And ask if it was proven he was at the crime scene. Both would be a no, I presume, since he since placed himself elsewhere and the jury wouldn’t focus on it. Also, it is hearsay from the sister saying it of her disabled brother. If he had truly spit on the girls, there should have been his DNA.

I don’t believe the coroner would need a confession from anyone to collect DNA in a homicide case. That’s protocol, as you know, of course.

Agree, the trial forensics alone will be fascinating.

jmo

I don’t know if interviews stay on YouTube or disappear, but people’s memory can’t be erased. I remember DC, in one of earlier video interviews to someone local, said, “oh, we have DNA”. I remember it because of his tone - he usually was saying a lot without saying anything, liked to mystify and enjoyed attention, but that phrase was said in the tone that showed that he didn’t want to discuss it. Then, much later, they were discussing “partial DNA,” this is what we all remember. That was pre-arrest. Did they compare it with RA’s one? Was that a match? A match would be a strong point in favor of it being RA. But did it match? There was also a thumbprint, as I remember.

 

[FromGermany1]

Oh, I had to jump back 4 posts to see how that started. Someone thought EF said his DNA would be on the girls because he spit on them. Someone else thought that would be hard for a jury to ignore. I think the jury would ask if his DNA was found. And ask if it was proven he was at the crime scene. Both would be a no, I presume, since he since placed himself elsewhere and the jury wouldn’t focus on it. Also, it is hearsay from the sister saying it of her disabled brother. If he had truly spit on the girls, there should have been his DNA.

I don’t believe the coroner would need a confession from anyone to collect DNA in a homicide case. That’s protocol, as you know, of course.

Agree, the trial forensics alone will be fascinating.

jmo

Apropos EF: Wouldn't it be nice, if one could ask EF, if he saw RA at the crime scene and ask RA, if he had seen EF at the crime scene? (I know, that the respective statements are years apart.)

 

[mrjitty]

If EFs DNA was found at the crime scene this all would have been resolved long ago.

Interestingly when we get the hearing on admissibility of 3rd party suspects we'll finally get the lowdown on what evidence there actually is on some of these people. I suspect the answer will be none AND that alibis were chased down.

Especially re the Click narrative, the prosecution view is going to be they worked on it for ages and basically found nothing.

I do think the Judge will allow Click himself to testify, along the lines of a bungled investigation - but as many of us are seeing in the Karen Read case - she was not allowed to directly accuse other people of doing it.

My wild speculation.