Fair point!You know what would have kept either side from having these issues? A hearing to determine what evidence can and can't be introduced at trial. I know, novel idea.
I’m at 99.3% and going down .01% every day until trial.What are the chances the trial gets delayed? Any opinions?
You know what would have kept either side from having these issues? A hearing to determine what evidence can and can't be introduced at trial. I know, novel idea.
It shouldn't. It should be the expectation that one would desire a speedy trial, IMO.Fair point!
What I don't understand is why exercising the right to a speedy trial should in any way compromise the right to a fair trial. Maybe I misunderstood the OP.
I don't even want to try to unravel that mess. For starters, it appears to be saying that only 2 of the 44 pings turned over on Nov 9, 2023 were originated on Feb 13th, 2017... meaning the other 42 were other dates.Can anyone figure out what this means? What exactly did the State provide in November? Just evidence that pings were generated, but didn't actually provide the evidence?
I don't think a speedy trial request means they compromise the right to a fair trial at all. I would think a defense attorney requesting a speedy trial (I believe that means within 70 days of the request date) means the defense is READY for trial. The judge isn't there to interprte weather they are or are not ready, she just set the date for the trial which she allotted 3 weeks for. She notes that she doesn't know what the defense is going to be or how long they will need. I think if the defense needed more time they would have said that at some point after the trial dates were set and 3 weeks was allotted for it. If they see that they need more time than that, why would they not say something right away or even a week or so after that? The judge can't read their minds and they haven't said anything so she is letting both sides know that this is the time we have so have witnesses ready, no games with needing a witness to come next week because they can't get there and so on.Fair point!
What I don't understand is why exercising the right to a speedy trial should in any way compromise the right to a fair trial. Maybe I misunderstood the OP.
I don't even want to try to unravel that mess. For starters, it appears to be saying that only 2 of the 44 pings turned over on Nov 9, 2023 were originated on Feb 13th, 2017... meaning the other 42 were other dates.
Yeah, like I said it's a mess to unravel. There might even be other interpretations.Hmmm. I hadn't considered that. Or maybe earlier in the day? Like that morning?
I also remember in an interview that fairly early on in the search Libby’s parents stated that the first few phone calls from DG rang through and then they all began going straight to voicemail, which was something that made them go from worried to very worriedI need help on the pings.
A phone will ping when it gets close to a new tower, when you change the connection status and when it needs to establish a connection (such as for a phone call). Source
Wouldn't the tower have registered a ping every time someone called and it bounced off that tower to ring Libby's phone? Same with incoming texts.
IOW, Is it possible we're looking at people calling/looking for them.
Add to that the convo between Mullin and Blocher only lasted from 9 pm to 1 am; so there were pings before and after that the D weren't aware of.I don't even want to try to unravel that mess. For starters, it appears to be saying that only 2 of the 44 pings turned over on Nov 9, 2023 were originated on Feb 13th, 2017... meaning the other 42 were other dates.
Maybe NIck is playing games, maybe it's just a 26 TB mountain of evidence that took 7 years to compile and would likely take 70 years to completely digest. Dare I ask who Mullin and Blocher are?Add to that the convo between Mullin and Blocher only lasted from 9 pm to 1 am; so there were pings before and after that the D weren't aware of.
Yes I guess I misinterpreted and can't edit! So under the shoe.Thanks!
So it was Libby's shoe. Ah, but that says under the shoe, not inside. Maybe it fell out.
Gah
Agreed. Furthermore I think any court of appeals will uphold the Judges ruling. So they can appeal away.Everything in any of the Franks motions I consider speculation or information highly twisted to forward their narrative.
That’s my opinion after all these months. The defense has earned my distain.
Pings are not only used to find out where a phone last was.I'm no phone expert but I know this: a battery dying doesn't cause a phone to ping.
Phones are constantly communicating with towers. All those apps.
The point of the ping is to find where a phone was LAST at.
In the case of a dead battery, it's the ping right before it died. It would have continued to ping for as long as it had juice!
IMO the Defense is exaggerating the significance of these pings, implying movement and agency (that someone was actively interacting with the phone).
IMO there will be CAST data at trial, geolocation or somesuch showing that the phone didn't move, that no human interfaced with it and that changes to the phone occurred in tandem with verifiable activity on other phones. Sent messages and outgoing calls corresponding to unread messages and unanswered phone calls.
Her phone may have bounced off towers because of the nature of the activity. Verizon and AT&T utilize their own towers. A lot of technical stuff I follow better when experts explain it!
If this doesn't get shut down outside of the trial, it'll be exposed post haste within it.
JMO
Steve Mullin of the Delphi Police Department and Sgt. Mitch Blocher of the Indiana State PoliceMaybe NIck is playing games, maybe it's just a 26 TB mountain of evidence that took 7 years to compile and would likely take 70 years to completely digest. Dare I ask who Mullin and Blocher are?
Editing it now would only ruin the reply chain.Yes I guess I misinterpreted and can't edit! So under the shoe.