Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[Ward Thisperer]

This is the portion explaining the denial to remove JG, because "the party seeking disqualification must identify facts reflecting the judge's actual bias or prejudice," and the adverse ruling denying counsel was mistaken but a genuine attempt to resolve her concerns, which were legitimate.


I still really don't think that JG is justified in denying the D's motion to recuse based only on this opinion. The motion to recuse makes several more allegations and legal arguments about her bias which were not ever argued in the original action. The original action wanted her removed based only on the wrongful removal of B&R and interference with their counsel. No other legal arguments are made in the brief, it's a measly 2 paragraphs which were not argued at all during the oral arguments either. I agree that removing JG based on that argument would be an overstep by the Supreme Court, but nothing here says a DQ motion couldn't be heard if additional facts and record regarding potential bias are presented. And this isn't to say I think that she couldn't deny the motion at all, though I do think we need a new judge, but the argument she gave that the SCOIN denied this based on 2 paragraphs in a separate brief therefore she doesn't need to address any of their arguments or explain her decision, seems to me to be at best incredibly lazy.

 

[mrjitty]

That doesn’t follow because the FM isn’t a portion of discovery, its work product. Some discovery material is contained in the exhibits and marked as confidential.

RSBM - just to reply to the comment @ me

I get that argument, but surely i can't end run the discovery protection order by pasting parts of the discovery into my work product then sharing the new work product with a 3rd party?

IMO the protection must logically apply both to the form (i.e the original docs) and the content

my 02c

 

[FrostedGlass]

By beginning, when do you mean - back in 2017?
IMO - RA will be the hardest to convict of the suspects, based simply on past record and the groundswell of social media support he is receiving.

What he DOES have is no alibi. The others may have had unbreakable alibis.

LOL all that depends on who's talking.
There are people to this day who think RL did it and he has no alibi. I always thought a person would have to be blind to see RL as BG. I don't think GK ever had an alibi; I don't have an opinion on any of the others. Well, DN might have been with his wife at that time; but was it ever proven?

Social media isn't supposed to matter to the jury.

How hard he'll be to convict will depend on what discovery JG allows to be presented to the jury. MOO

 

[photographer4]

I had both of them on my early POI list. I was curious as to why BH would bring up PW to LE when questioned about the murders. I could understand questioning LH (and even BH) due to the connection with Abby, (though even that is somewhat odd, if Abby’s family wasn’t aware she was friends with LH).

Was BH initially questioned because he was LH’s father, or because the crime scene looked to be staged with Odin symbols? How and who connected PW and BH to the crime? I’ve heard that BP may have suggested it, but I’ve not seen anything confirming that, and it makes me uncomfortable to discuss it since she cannot speak to anything about her granddaughter‘s murder due to the gag order.

I had wondered this as well!

 

[Salah11]

I feel like RA’s team are literally just throwing a lot of dirt at the wall to see what sticks. They know with him confessing multiple times and placing himself at the Bridge is a massive hurdle to over come.

IMO

 

[TL4S]

Justice Slaughter was the dissenter opposed to AB and BR's reinstatement. My understanding of his reason was because he thought it should have been an interocutory appeal instead of an original action. He didn't seem otherwise opposed to them coming back on. JMO.

 

[legalmomma]

Indiana Supreme Court Decision link:

SCT Decision.pdf

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[FromGermany1]

It's like we have all had a full year of law school in three months time!

Unfortunately, some of us didn't pass the exam (like me).

 

[TL4S]

This is the portion explaining the denial to remove JG, because "the party seeking disqualification must identify facts reflecting the judge's actual bias or prejudice," and the adverse ruling denying counsel was mistaken but a genuine attempt to resolve her concerns, which were legitimate.
View attachment 481817
View attachment 481818
I still really don't think that JG is justified in denying the D's motion to recuse based only on this opinion. The motion to recuse makes several more allegations and legal arguments about her bias which were not ever argued in the original action. The original action wanted her removed based only on the wrongful removal of B&R and interference with their counsel. No other legal arguments are made in the brief, it's a measly 2 paragraphs which were not argued at all during the oral arguments either. I agree that removing JG based on that argument would be an overstep by the Supreme Court, but nothing here says a DQ motion couldn't be heard if additional facts and record regarding potential bias are presented. And this isn't to say I think that she couldn't deny the motion at all, though I do think we need a new judge, but the argument she gave that the SCOIN denied this based on 2 paragraphs in a separate brief therefore she doesn't need to address any of their arguments or explain her decision, seems to me to be at best incredibly lazy.

I agree, she used that argument prematurely.

I also agree with the SCOIN's reasonings about her staying on, overall. I guess my concern is that JG could have followed due process, let both sides prepare equally and with full knowledge of issues being addressed, and held a hearing about the leaks, versus handling it the way she did. The justices agreed it was not proper, and she did not consider less severe avenues, or all consequences to RA by putting his attorneys in that position. While they are giving her the benefit of doubt that she was in a tight situation (they acknowledge the seriousness of the leaks) and time constraint, I do not understand why following due process was not an avenue she was willing to consider, and that is concerning to me going forward. IANAL, though, and likely am missing something significant. JMO.

 

[steeltowngirl]

LOL all that depends on who's talking.
There are people to this day who think RL did it and he has no alibi. I always thought a person would have to be blind to see RL as BG. I don't think GK ever had an alibi; I don't have an opinion on any of the others. Well, DN might have been with his wife at that time; but was it ever proven?

Social media isn't supposed to matter to the jury.

How hard he'll be to convict will depend on what discovery JG allows to be presented to the jury. MOO

I mention social media in the context of your comment that RA potentially is the easiest to convict, thus why they allegedly chose to frame him. Curious about your thoughts on why you feel RA might be easier to convict - especially in the eyes of a jury.

 

[mrjitty]

I'd prefer the Judge to have recused but I agree with the SCOIN decision based on the briefings. Team Wieneke didn't advance any authorities for the idea that adverse decisions by themselves could raise a perception of bias. Clearly SCOIN didn't see this as any kind of special case.

Hopefully this is the end of that talk now.

At least we have avoided the potential shocker where SCOIN asked Gull to hold a recusal hearing after she already rejected it LOL.

 

[legalmomma]

Hoping someone can link and explain the SCOIN decision.

It's in.View attachment 481813

https://x.com/theshamingofjay/status/1755629193428152526?s=20

Everyone keep your notifications on, Bob gonna go live from the airplane bathroom to discuss

Defense Diaries
@defense_diaries

#DELPHI UPDATEOf course while I'm on a plane, there is more movement in the case that never sleeps.
-----------------
Link to Defense Diaries YouTube - remember Bob is very defense oriented which is understandable

https://www.youtube.com/@DefenseDiariesPod/streams

 

[steeltowngirl]

Hopefully this is the end of that talk now.

Don’t count on it.

 

[TL4S]

I'd prefer the Judge to have recused but I agree with the SCOIN decision based on the briefings. Team Wieneke didn't advance any authorities for the idea that adverse decisions by themselves could raise a perception of bias. Clearly SCOIN didn't see this as any kind of special case.

Hopefully this is the end of that talk now.

At least we have avoided the potential shocker where SCOIN asked Gull to hold a recusal hearing after she already rejected it LOL.

I also don't get the sense that they are kicking this all back to her to have a DQ hearing to get rid of AB and BR, either. Although, to be honest, I don't know enough about the law to know if I'm reading that right.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I sure wish that if the defense was making up outrageous lies about what witnesses stated on specific timestamps in their interview, that the State would have bothered to correct that or to request sanctions on the defense for such outrageous behavior. Yet, while they have made allegations about the defense lying in specific other instances, and so has JG, they have never ever alleged that the defense lied about what SC stated.
All the State bothered to tell us was a vague statement that the defense arguments about false or omitted evidence in the FM were "not true" and "not supported" in general. They don't bother to explain this in the least or even make a general statement such as "The Defense misquoted witness interviews."
View attachment 481812
And JG didn't bother to have this straightened out at a hearing.

Personally, I think that since when State and JG have expressed such concern with the behavior of the D, if anything in the FM was a clear lie or falsehood we would have been informed about this by now, as it would have been clearly relevant to the Contempt allegation and JG's reasons for dismissing them in October.

I believe the State were unable to respond due to the gag and discovery order or offering evidence of their theory. That blank generic statement was the best the State could do and I'm sure the Defense knew exactly that.

MOO

 

[photographer4]

Also from the linked discovery above, the DEFENSE postponed 2 bail hearings that were set for RA. One in Feb. which they wanted to change from Motion to Let Bail to Motion to Suppress in July (getting the SW thrown out would have helped that cause). Which Judge Gull approved.

There's a lot of information in these documents that show the Defense and their outraged SM podcasters and Appealate Lawyer hangers on have failed to read obviously. Like Judge Gull has denied the State RA's medical and psych records while at Westville even though they cite often (especially after his phone confessions stating he did murder the girls) that he is mentally unstable and possibly psychotic. Funny how he was faring pretty well up until that point, and has since resumed his normal activities now.

Also there were photos shown to witnesses that picked RA out as the man they saw that day. I questioned that back a few threads ago. Good to know though.

The FM twisted and contorted the facts to fit their narrative IMO. This latest attempt is another one of their ploys. They cleared BH and PW and I'm sure we will know exactly why even without the recordings.

JMO

Wondering if you happen to have a date as to when the witnesses identified RA in a photo (lineup?) as the man they saw that day?

Surely this was BEFORE they arrested him?

Also, which witnesses identified him in a photo? EG: the three (4) girls who said they saw him? The lady who saw the muddy man?

I'd give more weight to the witness who saw muddy man because by then a crime had been committed, vs the three (4) girls who saw a man because no crime had happened as of when they saw him (that we know of).

 

[TL4S]

New filings

02/08/2024	Appearance Filed Appearance For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/07/2024
02/08/2024	Motion Filed for Summary Denial of State's Information Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/07/2024

Have we figured out what these are yet?

 

[Emma Peel]

Have we figured out what these are yet?

I think these are both Ausbrook, likely his appearance notice and his filing for Summary Denial of the State's Contempt motion - that motion, I posted late yesterday.

IMO, it's eyes on Ausbrook now. He works a level above SCOIN - all Federal appellate. JMHO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Devil's advocate...

This information is coming from the PCA. There are claims that things might have been omitted from that PCA. There have been no hearings for us to hear facts, either way, being presented before the court. Just because many people dislike and don't trust the D does not necessarily mean everything the State presents is whole and accurate. That's just entirely my own take on things. I don't trust anything when it isn't transparent to me. JMO.

Devil's other advocate:

The State only has to present the minimum of information in their PCA. They didn't have to include other facts about about their theory, just the likelihood that based on their interview with RA & KA the had reasonable belief that evidence relating to the murders of Abby & Libby could be found at that location based on X,Y,Z.

Unlike the Franks Memo crafted by the defense at 136 pages (and should have been at most 10-12) they laid out their whole theory of their case. They named suspects (Named them for all the world to see), they described in graphic and exploitive details the CS of Abby & Libby which was completely reprehensible. They accused LE of lying and withholding information purposely, although...bingo....footnote - we might not have reviewed all discovery. What?

The PCA is also a sworn and notarized statement to the Court, not a Memo with a crap ton of footnotes that mitigate about 1/4 of what they're even suggesting. What they did was wrong, they knew it was wrong, they did it deceitfully; filing at 2:04 am without the Clerk being present, without it being marked Confidential..."Oooopsie, we didn't know heehee" because they planned on getting around the gag order and pushed it out to media and SM ASAP.

It really is that simple, and to me if they're willing to stoop to that kind of behavior I don't trust one word that comes out of their mouths or one word that comes from their pens.

Too bad the SCOIN didn't have the latest LE findings showing how much more culpable R&B are than they knew at that time. I wonder if that would have changed their opinion? I wonder if Judge Gull will now follow procedural process to get them removed from the case?

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO

 

[Justice101]

Devil's other advocate:

The State only has to present the minimum of information in their PCA. They didn't have to include other facts about about their theory, just the likelihood that based on their interview with RA & KA the had reasonable belief that evidence relating to the murders of Abby & Libby could be found at that location based on X,Y,Z.

Unlike the Franks Memo crafted by the defense at 136 pages (and should have been at most 10-12) they laid out their whole theory of their case. They named suspects (Named them for all the world to see), they described in graphic and exploitive details the CS of Abby & Libby which was completely reprehensible. They accused LE of lying and withholding information purposely, although...bingo....footnote - we might not have reviewed all discovery. What?

The PCA is also a sworn and notarized statement to the Court, not a Memo with a crap ton of footnotes that mitigate about 1/4 of what they're even suggesting. What they did was wrong, they knew it was wrong, they did it deceitfully; filing at 2:04 am without the Clerk being present, without it being marked Confidential..."Oooopsie, we didn't know heehee" because they planned on getting around the gag order and pushed it out to media and SM ASAP.

It really is that simple, and to me if they're willing to stoop to that kind of behavior I don't trust one word that comes out of their mouths or one word that comes from their pens.

Too bad the SCOIN didn't have the latest LE findings showing how much more culpable R&B are than they knew at that time. I wonder if that would have changed their opinion? I wonder if Judge Gull will now follow procedural process to get them removed from the case?

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO

Great post @girlhasnoname !!!