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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

photographer4 said:
This would make me laugh so hard. LMAO. She'd fight that to the end no doubt. Maybe that will be the next big "delay tactic" by the D?

I actually did wonder though if they could call the original judge to testify as to why he granted the original Search Warrant? Is that a thing? Does this happen?
Click to expand...
Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too. :D

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO
 
girlhasnoname said:
Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too. :D

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO
Click to expand...
That was what I was asking though - someone upthread asked if JG might be called as a witness for the D (on what, I actually wasn't sure, and didn't ask yet). And I asked, how this would work because wouldn't that be a conflict of interest given she is the presiding judge on the case? WHo would then preside over her testimony and questioning? So someone suggested she may have to recuse? So I am wondering, is this a thing? Can they actually call her to the stand somehow???
 
photographer4 said:
That was what I was asking though - someone upthread asked if JG might be called as a witness for the D (on what, I actually wasn't sure, and didn't ask yet). And I asked, how this would work because wouldn't that be a conflict of interest given she is the presiding judge on the case? WHo would then preside over her testimony and questioning? So someone suggested she may have to recuse? So I am wondering, is this a thing? Can they actually call her to the stand somehow???
Click to expand...
According to IN.gov

<snipped>

Rule 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness

The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue.

Indiana Rules of Evidence
 
girlhasnoname said:
Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too. :D

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO
Click to expand...
What are "fee fees"? Again, someone upthread suggested she may need to if the D were to call her as a witness but I think you just clarified with a link that she cannot be called as a witness over the matter as she is the sitting judge. :)
 
photographer4 said:
What are "fee fees"? Again, someone upthread suggested she may need to if the D were to call her as a witness but I think you just clarified with a link that she cannot be called as a witness over the matter as she is the sitting judge. :)
Click to expand...
Does she get to just skip over it then? If something is brought up that requires her to be a witness? For example, how either she, TL, or the jail worker lied about that witness who was supposed to show up to court and testify? Can she just throw that out and not settle the matter?

IMO MOO
 
Cyber sleuth said:
It was and denied.
My understanding is the defense motion never attacked the timing or location the bullet was found but rather the science used to connect it to RA’s SIg Sauer.


Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings
Click to expand...
Of course denied without hearing. it’s a rubber stamp at this point.

The relative paragraph in the link:

In her denial of the motion regarding the ballistics evidence, Gull said “Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant’s Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury.”

I’m looking for a PDF of the original motion so I can read what the defenses argument was. This paragraph doesn’t seem to say anything specific. MOO
 
TTF14 said:
Does she get to just skip over it then? If something is brought up that requires her to be a witness? For example, how either she, TL, or the jail worker lied about that witness who was supposed to show up to court and testify? Can she just throw that out and not settle the matter?

IMO MOO
Click to expand...
This is what I’m wondering. Is there going to be nothing further to find out who lied about this situation? MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
Holeman told RA in their last talk before his arrest that they found his bullet where they found the girls remains. Then we had the conspiracy theory lovers claiming no COC and no photographs were taken of the bullet at the crime scene showing it being literally being taken out of the ground. Huh?

We don't even have the State's evidence yet, thank goodness we shall see at trial.

JMO
Click to expand...

Is this not almost unbelievable? Frightening the mindset of these people. Fabricate lies to get an accused murderer, Richard Allen, off on lies and technicalities. They spend their time not disputing the charge of murder because Richard Allen did not committee the murder, they spend their time attempting to get the charges dismissed due to technicalities.

Add the issue of the families of the victims not being able to discuss these lies is horrific for them to endure. What are these people going to say should the evidence lead directly to Richard Allen? "oh, I didn't know?" Of course the public wouldn't know, we haven't been privy to the state's evidence. The families pain and suffering can not be "taken back".

It is one thing for a person to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. To spread and support lies in hopes of getting an accused murderer set free is a whole other form of evil. Libby and Abby did nothing wrong, they are innocent.
 
grannygates said:
Of course denied without hearing. it’s a rubber stamp at this point.

The relative paragraph in the link:

In her denial of the motion regarding the ballistics evidence, Gull said “Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant’s Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury.”

I’m looking for a PDF of the original motion so I can read what the defenses argument was. This paragraph doesn’t seem to say anything specific. MOO
Click to expand...
Based on this, can we assume she thinks the jury will be smarter than the D thinks the jury might be?
 
Willow Knight said:
Is this not almost unbelievable? Frightening the mindset of these people. Fabricate lies to get an accused murderer, Richard Allen, off on lies and technicalities. They spend their time not disputing the charge of murder because Richard Allen did not committee the murder, they spend their time attempting to get the charges dismissed due to technicalities.

Add the issue of the families of the victims not being able to discuss these lies is horrific for them to endure. What are these people going to say should the evidence lead directly to Richard Allen? "oh, I didn't know?" Of course the public wouldn't know, we haven't been privy to the state's evidence. The families pain and suffering can not be "taken back".

It is one thing for a person to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. To spread and support lies in hopes of getting an accused murderer set free is a whole other form of evil. Libby and Abby did nothing wrong, they are innocent.
Click to expand...
Not being a lawyer, I wanted to ask: is trying to get a case dismissed on technicalities somehow not part of what they're supposed to do? Isn't part of their job to highlight things that were done improperly (by the books), or skipped over? Is this not a valid strategy included in any trial defense?

In terms of the FM - I think I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet - is the D allowed to outright lie in their FM or otherwise allowed to bend the truth in some way? I'm asking because they were quite clear in their assertion that a witness did NOT say she saw a muddy & bloody man etc etc. (I forget which FM, probably the first) among other things. If she did NOT say that she saw a muddy & bloody man, then how come that is what was represented by the State in I think their SW? MOO because I've no idea where the links are to this right this second and no time to go find them.

I wonder what the families may say at the conclusion of the trial when the order silencing them is lifted? Actually, will it be lifted post conviction or lack thereof? Or will they be held to the gag until all the possible appeals have played out?
 
photographer4 said:
Not being a lawyer, I wanted to ask: is trying to get a case dismissed on technicalities somehow not part of what they're supposed to do? Isn't part of their job to highlight things that were done improperly (by the books), or skipped over? Is this not a valid strategy included in any trial defense?

In terms of the FM - I think I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet - is the D allowed to outright lie in their FM or otherwise allowed to bend the truth in some way? I'm asking because they were quite clear in their assertion that a witness did NOT say she saw a muddy & bloody man etc etc. (I forget which FM, probably the first) among other things. If she did NOT say that she saw a muddy & bloody man, then how come that is what was represented by the State in I think their SW? MOO because I've no idea where the links are to this right this second and no time to go find them.

I wonder what the families may say at the conclusion of the trial when the order silencing them is lifted? Actually, will it be lifted post conviction or lack thereof? Or will they be held to the gag until all the possible appeals have played out?
Click to expand...
The “muddy or muddy/bloody” argument can be found in the FM pg. 117
www.scribd.com

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf
www.scribd.com www.scribd.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 79 more.
Total: 1,788 (members: 80, guests: 1,708)

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,708
Total visitors
1,788
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,386
Messages
18,107,915
Members
230,992
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top