Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[katydid23]

I’m sorry, I need clarification on that. If he kidnapped her, how can he be charged with murdering her?

Because it is a 'cause and affect thing.'

If two burglars go into a house, and the homeowner wakes up and shoots/kills one of them, guess who will be charged with murder?

The surviving burglar can be charged with murder, because during the felony, their partner died. They can hold the survivor responsible.

IF RA was bridge guy, and he forced the girls off the bridge, down the hill, and handed them off to Odinists, or KAK, or anyone else, who then killed the girls----RA would still be charged with their murder.

Reason being, he was in the process of a felony which resulted in someone's death.


The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.[1]

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[m00c0w]

I think I’m misunderstanding your last paragraph.. If the judge missed deadline as recognized by the CAO, who’s fault would it be other than her own ? If it’s gotten to the point that this ruling is now 100 days overdue, what excuse would constitute this not being her own fault?

If she felt the repetitive franks motions were repetitive motions, she is allowed to miss the deadline, and she is not required to file anything in response:

Trial Rule 53.1:
"The time limitation for ruling on a motion established under Section (A) of this rule shall not apply where:
[...]
(4) The ruling in question involves a repetitive motion..."

Trial Rule 53.4:
"...Unless such a motion is ruled upon within five (5) days it shall be deemed denied, and entry of service of notice of such denial shall not be required..."

Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Some are making a large assumption that because the CAO merely said she "missed a deadline", the CAO was finding fault instead of just stating a fact as it relates to the timing of the defense's motion. She could have been well within her rights to miss the deadlines. Unfortunately, the defense messed up, so we'll never know the actual answer.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I think I’m misunderstanding your last paragraph.. If the judge missed deadline as recognized by the CAO, who’s fault would it be other than her own ? If it’s gotten to the point that this ruling is now 100 days overdue, what excuse would constitute this not being her own fault?

She didn't have to meet those deadlines because the DT kept filing other copy cat motions, which nullified and paused the legal requirement of Judge G needing to reply to the previous motions.



They ruled that "the DT waived any right to relief in this manner by filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. "

And, because "Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief."

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case​

 

[katydid23]

I think I’m misunderstanding your last paragraph.. If the judge missed deadline as recognized by the CAO, who’s fault would it be other than her own ? If it’s gotten to the point that this ruling is now 100 days overdue, what excuse would constitute this not being her own fault?

Basically, it seems they got some bad legal advice from the Due Cause Gang, because all of those repetitive motions they filed were nullifying their prior motions.

Instead of just filing a complaint about JG not responding to their Franks motion, they instead just filed another Frank's Motion, over and over.

Each time they did that, Judge G had the legal right to ignore the previous motion. So they outwitted themselves?

 

[grannygates]

If she felt the repetitive franks motions were repetitive motions, she is allowed to miss the deadline, and she is not required to file anything in response:

Trial Rule 53.1:
"The time limitation for ruling on a motion established under Section (A) of this rule shall not apply where:
[...]
(4) The ruling in question involves a repetitive motion..."

Trial Rule 53.4:
"...Unless such a motion is ruled upon within five (5) days it shall be deemed denied, and entry of service of notice of such denial shall not be required..."

Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Some are making a large assumption that because the CAO merely said she "missed a deadline", the CAO was finding fault instead of just stating a fact as it relates to the timing of the defense's motion. She could have been well within her rights to miss the deadlines. Unfortunately, the defense messed up, so we'll never know the actual answer.

JMO

So we are pretending it was really this other hypothetical acceptable reason to ghost the franks -which is never mentioned anywhere- after the judge states specifically that she would rule and it’s not that she just obviously didn’t meet the deadline but it doesn’t matter anyways because everything is the defenses fault including that the judge can’t meet her own deadlines. Exhausting.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Do they have to prove he was the only one responsible to get the conviction? Not a lawyer so it’s a genuine question.

No. NM has already stated others may be involved and proceeded to charge RA with the murders. RA can be convicted even if others were involved.

 

[m00c0w]

So we are pretending it was really this other hypothetical acceptable reason to ghost the franks -which is never mentioned anywhere- after the judge states specifically that she would rule and it’s not that she just obviously didn’t meet the deadline but it doesn’t matter anyways because everything is the defenses fault including that the judge can’t meet her own deadlines. Exhausting.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying the CAO never made a ruling as to the judge's actions or lack thereof, so we have no idea what the CAO would have ultimately done if the defense had filed the motion properly in the first place. There are potential affirmative defenses to why she never entered responses, but the motion apparently never got past the first cursory stages. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that the CAO ruled one way or the other regarding the judge, when the simple fact is that they denied the motion because the defense waived their right to the remedy multiple times.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying the CAO never made a ruling as to the judge's actions or lack thereof, so we have no idea what the CAO would have ultimately done if the defense had filed the motion properly in the first place. There are potential affirmative defenses to why she never entered responses, but the motion apparently never got past the first cursory stages. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that the CAO ruled one way or the other regarding the judge, when the simple fact is that they denied the motion because the defense waived their right to the remedy multiple times.

JMO

If the judge determined the motions were repetitive and was not obligated to rule on the motion, I would expect the wording to reflect that, rather than “the trial judge failed to issue a ruling by X date”.

Obviously I don’t expect you to ever agree but I did want to make mention of the wording stating the judge failed to rule by the deadline, not that the judge didn’t have to for whatever hypothetical reason.

 

[m00c0w]

If the judge determined the motions were repetitive and was not obligated to rule on the motion, I would expect the wording to reflect that, rather than “the trial judge failed to issue a ruling by X date”.

Obviously I don’t expect you to ever agree but I did want to make mention of the wording stating the judge failed to rule by the deadline, not that the judge didn’t have to for whatever hypothetical reason.

View attachment 519060

The wording wouldn't reflect it because it's irrelevant to the denial. The CAO is explaining why he's denying the motion, not litigating the entire thing and tacking on "oh and it's denied" at the end.

In the instances you've noted, the CAO is simply stating the judge failed to issue a ruling in 30 days, and the defense should have filed after that. The CAO is not saying the judge was improper, erred, or any other assessment. The CAO is not saying the judge violated the rule, or that any of the exceptions did not apply. The CAO did not examine any of the merits of the defense's claims, just the timing in which the defense filed the Praecipe.

It is entirely possible that JG messed up and could have been kicked off the case if it were properly filed. I am not denying that. My issue is with people claiming the CAO said something that he did not.

JMO

 

[grannygates]

I appreciate what you said and can understand the importance of keeping certain details under wraps while investigating a crime. However, after almost eight years of investigating and still no conviction yet, anyway.
I think if the general public was given a little more information about the evidence, perhaps that would or could have opened up some other avenues to look into. Perhaps that could have expedited the process as well. I’m just afraid that the longer this saga drags on, the more likely a juror could find a reasonable doubt. JMO

I definitely agree with you. I think we’d all agree that we would want to protect the dignity of the victims and save the family from being re-traumatized but releasing some info is going to prompt the public to give tips and information to keep the investigation active.

We heard in the early years the original prosecutor Ives discussed the 3-4 “signatures” found at the scene. This seems like something helpful for the public to know more about in case it could trigger someone to call in and identify a group or persons. I wonder if these signatures were also what connected the crimescene of the murdered elderly couple in Kentucky. I believe that one had religious tones to it. I don’t think we have heard how LE is relating these signatures in RAs case.

all MOO

 

[katydid23]

So we are pretending it was really this other hypothetical acceptable reason to ghost the franks -which is never mentioned anywhere- after the judge states specifically that she would rule and it’s not that she just obviously didn’t meet the deadline but it doesn’t matter anyways because everything is the defenses fault

Yes, it was the D's fault because they filed the wrong motions. The ones they filed nullified the judge's legal need to respond to the prior motion. It was on the D, not the judge. She followed the law correctly.

including that the judge can’t meet her own deadlines.

The deadline was nullified by the repetitive motions filed by the DT. It was a bad legal strategy on their part.

Exhausting.

Yes, totally.

 

[photographer4]

No, I don't think that is what the ruling said.

What I took from it was that every time the DT filed a new Frank's motion, the judge was legally able to 'pause' any written responses for the previous motions. So essentially, instead of filing a motion asking for the courts to rule upon the judge being late, they were dismissing/nullifying that issue, by the repetitive Frank's motions.

They were basically 'releasing' the judge from having to respond to the previous filing, by filing their new motion.

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case

The attorneys for Richard Allen asked the Supreme court to remove Judge Francis Gull, after they say she showed a bias.

www.wishtv.com

The court ruled that Allen waived any right to relief in this manner by “filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. The court also ruled that because “Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief.”

If you read the actual order, it says “failed to respond by…” I think the date was May 29, but I don’t have it before me and I don’t have a link to it. I only have a screenshot and mods have asked we post link with screen shots so I can’t post it. Read the entire order. It is up near the top somewhere. So they agree she failed to rule by X day but they kept filing motions which waived RA’s right to relief. The relief he sought being her removal from the case.

As always, since I have no link, moooooo. Maybe someone can post the actual court order link to help people see my point here. The article I cited upthread made the same point. The Scion agreed she failed to respond by X date etc etc.

 

[grannygates]

If you read the actual order, it says “failed to respond by…” I think the date was May 29, but I don’t have it before me and I don’t have a link to it. I only have a screenshot and mods have asked we post link with screen shots so I can’t post it. Read the entire order. It is up near the top somewhere. So they agree she failed to rule by X day but they kept filing motions which waived RA’s right to relief. The relief he sought being her removal from the case.

As always, since I have no link, moooooo. Maybe someone can post the actual court order link to help people see my point here. The article I cited upthread made the same point. The Scion agreed she failed to respond by X date etc etc.

I got you @photographer4 !

2024-07-19 - Notice of Chief Administrative Officer's Determination Pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1E.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[photographer4]

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case​

The attorneys for Richard Allen asked the Supreme court to remove Judge Francis Gull, after they say she showed a bias.

www.wishtv.com
The court ruled that Allen waived any right to relief in this manner by “filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. The court also ruled that because “Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief.”




Seems ironic that the DT was likely getting bad advice upon their filing of motions, after we just got a look behind the scenes with their legal advisors.

According to AM, she and her husband and CW and MA were giving the DT legal advice concerning what motions should be filed and when to file them....oops....

I mean who says it was these in particular they received advice about from CW? Could be on any number of issues imo.

 

[photographer4]

Because it is a 'cause and affect thing.'

If two burglars go into a house, and the homeowner wakes up and shoots/kills one of them, guess who will be charged with murder?

The surviving burglar can be charged with murder, because during the felony, their partner died. They can hold the survivor responsible.

IF RA was bridge guy, and he forced the girls off the bridge, down the hill, and handed them off to Odinists, or KAK, or anyone else, who then killed the girls----RA would still be charged with their murder.

Reason being, he was in the process of a felony which resulted in someone's death.


The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.[1]

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I thought the kidnapping charges were dropped and instead he was charged with murder only: “Judge Frances Gull approved both counts of murder but dismissed both counts of kidnapping during a hearing on Monday in Fort Wayne”

Murder charges approved, kidnapping charges dismissed for Delphi murders suspect

The special judge in the Delphi murders case made a few key decisions in two separate hearings on Monday that will determine how the case moves forward.

www.wndu.com

Not that it matters he is still facing big penalties. But then I wonder, if they can’t get him for murder, does that mean they can bring it back as a kidnapping that lead to their deaths charge and do this all over again?

 

[sunshineray]

I wonder if they just wanted to draw attn to the lazy judge thing by filing for her removal, but since they also knew it would create a massive long delay if she was infact removed, filed something further to prevent them from actually removing her. May be actually a clever move on their part.

Oh so they were inept and foolish on purpose so the judge they've been trashing and hounding for months and months, all the way to the SCOIN, could stay because that was really their intention? To what purpose did they maybe do this clever thing? To influence the public and therefor prospective jurors? And that kind of unethical skulduggery seems clever? Ya got my head spinning on this one...I just don't see it. I think is was probably just a lack of legal intelligence, plain and simple. I wonder who actual wrote those redundant briefs and who thought it was a good idea? Maybe the zealous pro bono people were the ones that messed up? But then again AB & BR, the buck stops with them doesn't it? Just some thoughts.

 

[grannygates]

My compete laypersons interpretation was that the CAO agreed that the judge failed to meet the expected deadline for ruling but that their (the CAOs) expectation was that if counsel was unhappy with the slow timing of the judges rulings, they expected the defense to stop work and file the praecipe at the 31 day mark rather than continue working and filing additional motions, regardless of whether they were completely unrelated filings etc.

Not a lawyer obviously but it doesn’t seem right to me that a person forfeits their right to a timely ruling just because you continue working on your case while you await a response that a judge said they would give to you.

All MOO

 

[sunshineray]

That's my wish but I bet it won't happen in October. The defense isn't ready and will make up some other delay tactic.

At this point I'm just hoping the pretrial evidentiary hearings happen as scheduled.

 

[photographer4]

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying the CAO never made a ruling as to the judge's actions or lack thereof, so we have no idea what the CAO would have ultimately done if the defense had filed the motion properly in the first place. There are potential affirmative defenses to why she never entered responses, but the motion apparently never got past the first cursory stages. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that the CAO ruled one way or the other regarding the judge, when the simple fact is that they denied the motion because the defense waived their right to the remedy multiple times.

JMO

How is a denial of a motion not issuing a ruling? They appear to have ruled that yes, she failed to meet the deadline BUT they couldn’t grant the order sought (her removal) due to them filing further motions.

If there had been no ruling (motion granted or denied), wouldn’t we have had continued silence forever instead of “denied and here is why”?

 

[photographer4]

At this point I'm just hoping the pretrial evidentiary hearings happen as scheduled.

I’m hoping they happen and that matters get resolution! A lot of times I feel like JG never really actually gets anything accomplished or settled at hearings. She just decides to hear it later or not hear it at all (eg: no hearing on her removal of B&R). Mooooo.