Hi
@vinayd I wanted to reply to your reply to me on the last thread, I’m still behind!
Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182'
Bbm
In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/17/2024):
8. The law enforcement geofence reports have been provided to the Defense to the best of our knowledge.
In the State’s Response to the Defendant’s Amended Motion to Compel and Request for Sanctions (3/23/2024):
7. In response to request 11, all geo-fence data in the State's possession has been provided to the Defense and is listed in the Discovery Releases.
The agency responsible for the interpretation of the geo-fence data is the FBI CAST team; specifically, Special Agent Kevin Horan (retired) and Special Agent Sabric.
On 4/3/2024 in the State’s Response to the 3rd Frank’s:
“
The Defense was advised on March 4th, 2023, that State witnesses specializing in geofencing data would be ISP First Sergeant Christopher Cecil, FBI Agent Kevin Horan, and/or ISP Sergent Pete Glogoza. However, the Defense filed their 3rd Motion for Franks Hearing based on "newly discovered evidence" that was available during the first discovery disclosure in October 2023 and in the second discovery disclosure after counsel was reinstated. The State witnesses for geofencing data interpretations would testify that:”
View attachment 500655
A couple of weeks later in the Motion in Limine filed 4/29/2024
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401. IRE 401. Burden is on the opponent to show why it is relevant. Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Evidence may be excluded if it confuses the issues.
View attachment 500656
What happened between 4/3 and 4/29 when the P filed the Motion in Limine seemingly trying to silence 2 LEOs, including one of the FBI agents mentioned in the state’s previously filing who they said would testify the D’s concerns about geofencing were misconstrued/not applicable?
This is all AFTER this was cited by the D in the 3rd Frank’s Motion on 3/13/2024
8. Specifically, the defense received certain geofencing evidence that at least 3 persons were in or around the crime scene at a time while the murders were taking place (according to law enforcement timelines) and none of the owners of the phones have any connection to Richard Allen.
9. This geofencing evidence would provide evidence of any of the following scenarios:
a. Those persons walking with the phones are witnesses that would have observed the murders as they were taking place and none of them have identified Richard Allen; or
b. Those persons walking with the phones were witnesses who observed nothing, as the murders did not take place the afternoon of February 13, 2023, but the victims were taken to the crime scene after the search was called off.
c. Those persons walking with the phones were participants in the murders.
10. Said geofencing evidence was so important to somebody involved in the investigation that they created a map and plotted the movements of these persons, including movements that show that at least one of these persons was within 60-100 yards of the crime scene at a time while the murders would have been committed according to law enforcement's timelines. The phones, once again, had no connection to Richard Allen.
11. Furthermore, the map shows that the other two phones, and the persons carrying those phones, were in and around the crime scene between 12:39:54 pm and 5:49 pm on February 13, 2017.
12. That defense has sought out, but has not been provided, any documents or reports that contradict or refutes said geofencing evidence, but have not found such evidence, nor has the prosecutor provided any when defense requested reports on said geofencing.
View attachment 500657
View attachment 500658
In my opinion, the chronological order of these mentions of the FBI’s geofencing then the Motion in Limine, almost sounds like at least (Ret) Agent Horan’s geofencing analysis does not support RA as a suspect in the area at the time of the murders. Otherwise the P would be citing the FBI reports and definitely wouldn’t be mentioning any of it in the Motion in Limine. IANAL but if I was a juror this sequence of filings on the geofencing data specifically wouldn’t convince me beyond a reasonable doubt, exactly the opposite.
Who is the state’s geofencing witness now? Is there support re: geofencing data that RA is a suspect or not? Why are 2 LEOs listed in the P’s Motion in Limine?
AJMO
Sources:
3rd Franks Motion
filed by Baldwin 3/13/2024 p. 2 & 3
Third Franks Notice & Request For Franks Hearing
State's response to defendant's motion to compel and request for sanctions
filed by Mcleland 3/17/2024
Adobe Acrobat
STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS p. 3 &4
filed by Mcleland 3/23/2024 10:29PM
Adobe Acrobat
States response to the 3rd Franks
filed by Mcleland 4/3/2024 p. 3
State’s Response to 3rd Franks Motion
Motion in Limine
filed by Mcleland 4/29/2024
Adobe Acrobat
! Great job pulling all this and chronological order surely helps! Nice noticing Horan was mentioned by the State as one of the experts the D could work with.. then the request to not let him testify. Is that what you are showing me?
