sunshineray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2019
- Messages
- 9,369
- Reaction score
- 76,085
Who's trial is it?Well, not if they're not available, they won't be. Of course, they could be helpful for a SODDI defense, but we'll never know.
IMO MOO
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Who's trial is it?Well, not if they're not available, they won't be. Of course, they could be helpful for a SODDI defense, but we'll never know.
IMO MOO
Well, not if they're not available, they won't be. Of course, they could be helpful for a SODDI defense, but we'll never know.
IMO MOO
But they did.. and the FBI agent attested to it under oath during his deposition. They informed UC of the confession and asked for a search warrant for the guy and their request was ignored. IMOWhat would further a SODDI defense aside from an outright confession? I doubt a jury would believe LE ignored a confession during an interview in those early days, then waited more than six years for RA’s incriminating interview to arise from the dust. Successful SODDI defenses usually must pass the logical test. MOO
I believe in the prior thread I saw some people asking about Aine Cane of the The Murder Sheet's journalistic credentials:
6 years at Business Insider, ending up as a Senior Retail Reporter. Looking through article titles, she definitely did do investigative pieces.
Correct and IMO this D's SODDI defense is anything but logical. Even Click admitting that nobody in LE believes it and that the D has "twisted facts for sensationalism". That about says it all in a nutshell...BUT the new three-part MS podcasts flesh that out and leaves no doubt that Click's words were actually mild in definition as to what this D has done to twist things for sensationalism. It's appalling and it should be to any logical and truth-seeking person. All just my opinion of course.What would further a SODDI defense aside from an outright confession? I doubt a jury would believe LE ignored a confession during an interview in those early days, then waited more than six years for RA’s incriminating interview to arise from the dust. Successful SODDI defenses usually must pass the logical test. MOO
If you’re ignoring it, it doesn’t. If you respect it, you must avoid making any revelations of case details unnecessary to the point of your filing. IANAL, MOO, etc.How does a gag order impact what they'd put in court filings?
Well when you knowingly take ex parte material, under seal stuff, not to be publicized and put it in filings/motions that are accessible to the public, is that not skulduggery? IMO it is.How does a gag order impact what they'd put in court filings?
But they did.. and the FBI agent attested to it under oath during his deposition. They informed UC of the confession and asked for a search warrant for the guy and their request was ignored. IMO
When the things destroyed were not intentional done, there are written reports made of the interviews and those things were investigated and not of any substantive to the case against Richard Allen, the man on trial...why would a jury need to consider such things?The idea of discovery is handing over the entire case so that the defense has the exact same information as the prosecution. The prosecution doesn’t get to decide what parts to share and what to withhold. Having huge chunks of the case deleted, missing or not handed over is a big deal in a fair trial/due process sense. Isn’t that why the Baldwin case got dismissed ? Because the prosecutors withheld discovery ?
I reread the motion in limine and Nick just asks for defense not to bring up prior bad acts by his witnesses and the way discovery was labeled. It doesn’t say anything about all the missing evidence, unless that’s the prior bad acts?
I wonder if there is a standard practice for the court to handle the jury becoming aware of destruction of evidence/missing/withheld etc evidence ? It doesn’t seem right the jury won’t get to know. What’s stopping every prosecutor from just destroying everything exculpatory?
all MOO
What FBI guy was this?But they did.. and the FBI agent attested to it under oath during his deposition. They informed UC of the confession and asked for a search warrant for the guy and their request was ignored. IMO
It’s not hidden anymore because Click came forward with it. The prosecution says even if they withhold or delete something, if the defense finds it elsewhere, the prosecution shouldn’t get in trouble for it because it’s not missing anymore.So if EF’s ‘confession’ to his sister is hidden exculpatory evidence the why hasn’t the D filed a Motion to Dismiss on that basis?
Probably because they relalize it's nonsense? Just a guess, idk.So if EF’s ‘confession’ to his sister is hidden exculpatory evidence the why hasn’t the D filed a Motion to Dismiss on that basis?
I believe, IIRC, that the prosecution said it was not exculpatory? There are many, many dead ends in an investigation that go nowhere. It amazes that even though Click has said nobody in LE (I would think that means him too) believe the girls were murdered by ritual (Odinists) sacrifice and that RA's defense "twists facts for sensationalism" he is somehow considered the end all with "his" un-factual report. I still wonder where's ISP Murphy, actually one of the people on that FBI Joint Task Force, opinion in that report's validity now in 2024, after RA's arrest. He's under a gag order and honoring it it seems? JMOIt’s not hidden anymore because Click came forward with it. The prosecution says even if they withhold or delete something, if the defense finds it elsewhere, the prosecution shouldn’t get in trouble for it because it’s not missing anymore.
They did file a motion to dismiss based on all the BH stuff. I wonder if they’d have any better luck pursuing motion to dismiss with Gull based on EF because they didn’t get any further than the request for the search warrant. I’m sure it would be the standard LE response “we cleared him” with nothing proving how he’s cleared and then rubber stamp, denied without hearing. MOO
It’s not hidden anymore because Click came forward with it. The prosecution says even if they withhold or delete something, if the defense finds it elsewhere, the prosecution shouldn’t get in trouble for it because it’s not missing anymore.
They did file a motion to dismiss based on all the BH stuff. I wonder if they’d have any better luck pursuing motion to dismiss with Gull based on EF because they didn’t get any further than the request for the search warrant. I’m sure it would be the standard LE response “we cleared him” with nothing proving how he’s cleared and then rubber stamp, denied without hearing. MOO
We already heard that the two main investigators testified in their depositions that there is no direct evidence linking RA to the crime or the victims. No fingerprints, DNA, cell phone, digital data. I’m not sure what else there could be?It’s fascinating how some followers of this case are far more interested in a SODDI than knowing what evidence the P has on the person actually accused of the double murder of Libby and Abby, specifically RA.
I’d be certain the D knows how and why EF was cleared. Better the public doesn’t know so allegations of incompetent police work can continue.
What you write is a good example.
MOO
I would guess, considering the D has filed 4 FMs, that there just might be some very good evidence against RA from the search of his property and vehicle.We already heard that the two main investigators testified in their depositions that there is no direct evidence linking RA to the crime or the victims. No fingerprints, DNA, cell phone, digital data. I’m not sure what else there could be?
Based on the discussion of experts and information in court filings, the prosecutions case appears to be tool mark ballistics on a bullet with IMO no chain of custody and “confessions” after a year in solitary confinement. I’m not sure how they’ll be handling the eyewitnesses since IMO their recorded statements apparently don’t match what the PCA says?
IMO I reaaaallyyy don’t think that Nick would have some juicy piece of evidence that just nails RA and not have it come out in filings somehow. We all know about the confessions because of court filings.
My interest in the SODDI is more about the overwhelming amount of loose ends and puzzling decisions by the UC that I can’t be confident in any of the work they did. I want the right person to be convicted of this crime and pay for what they did. Not just any person.
All MOO
The prosecution doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide what is exculpatory and what evidence have to give to the defense. They’re supposed to give everything over, so it’s a completely fair trial and everyone has the same facts.I believe, IIRC, that the prosecution said it was not exculpatory? There are many, many dead ends in an investigation that go nowhere. It amazes that even though Click has said nobody in LE (I would think that means him too) believe the girls were murdered by ritual (Odinists) sacrifice and that RA's defense "twists facts for sensationalism" he is somehow considered the end all with "his" un-factual report. I still wonder where's ISP Murphy, actually one of the people on that FBI Joint Task Force, opinion in that report's validity now in 2024, after RA's arrest. He's under a gag order and honoring it it seems? JMO