Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

[girlhasnoname]

State's Motion to Dismiss the Defense's Motion to Suppress
(suppress RA's statements while incarcerated)

View attachment 504294

View attachment 504296

The Defense REALLY doesn't want those first tape-recorded confessions to his wife and Mother dismissed. They know that's a deal breaker for Defendant Allen.

IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Word search turns up 31 "ping"s.

I wonder what this is about? (j/j)

It appears that the Defense doesn't understand how 'pings' actually work IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

So the P was well aware of this new information when he wrote his ping-filled 5/17 response to the 4th Franks Motion.
I didn't make it through all 5 pages but I suspect it read something like 'the D don't know what they are talking about; and even if they do, they're not being truthful.'

Discovery still dripping in from the P.
MOO

Excerpts From the Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)
10. Additionally, on May 15, 2024, the State of Indiana just turned over
new phone extraction that had been conducted this past weekend.
11.The defense received possession of that new phone extraction
less than week before the motion in limine hearing was set and
needs more time to review the phone extraction data.
13.Additionally, the witness who extracted the phone data last weekend
has indicated that he will be issuing report on his findings as well as
investigating matters identified by the defense that the defense
believes provide important information concerning third-party suspects.

Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)

Motion to Continue All Hearings

drive.google.com

State's Reply to the 4th Franks

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

146 Reasons in the latest 40 pager.

Judge Gull's a meanie and she says things that are true about us, but we don't want those out in the public. That was a good laugh this morning. It was originally a 24 page Motion for Judge Gull's Recusal, I guess the D had time to add another 16 pages.

Rozzi should have commented on his own very unprofessional behavior in the Court during latest hearing as reported by numerous MSM outlets.

<snipped & BBM>
Meanwhile, co-defense counsel Andrew Baldwin announced a new motion to seek Judge Gull’s recusal from the trial, a move that has been denied in the past.

McLeland said he was “frustrated” by the defense tactics and had not yet had an opportunity to review the 24-page recusal motion.

Rozzi then announced he was withdrawing his client’s request for a speedy trial.

Gull granted the request and set new trial dates, admonishing the defense, “If you can’t try this case in a month, there’s something wrong.”

“You don’t know anything about this case,” a clearly irritated Rozzi shot back, chastising the judge for her failure to schedule pre-trial hearings to consider evidence the Allen team wants excluded and overruling virtually every defense motion that has been filed, not mentioning Gull’s attempt, overruled by the Supreme Court, to force Rozzi and Baldwin off the case.
Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

So for the last two weeks, instead of getting ready for the evidentiary hearings, the defense teams has been working hard putting together more ridiculous stuff.
They do not want to try this case because RA is guilty and the evidence is overwhelming. Instead they want to whine about the judge and other off kilter things.
They want to whine about not having time to go through discovery but waste their time on this silly stuff. And it is silly and a complete waste of time and money. Their hate for JG far exceeds any desire they have to help RA or have justice served.
Argue the d@mn evidence you cowards!
My opinion.

The Defense desperation is beginning to unwind Rozzi and Baldwin IMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday May 21st, but this Motion to Disqualify Judge Gull precludes JG from conducting any other business than considering/responding to this DQ motion.

Defense's Motion to Continue (re: ALL MATTERS):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16n-iHxA3f58tRnFtPd0Dp4XWSH_LLTcP/view?usp=drivesdk…

As the Court is aware, at the time Richard Allen petitions this Court
for change of venue from the judge, this Court will be "without
jurisdiction to do anything other than rule on the motion." Lucas V.
State, 249 Ind. 637, 648 (S.Ct.1968), citing Weer V. State, 37 N.E.2d
537 (1941).

Given the D's Motion to Continue ALL Matters and the DQ Motion ... by Monday, JG must either responds/rules on the DQ Motion, or cancel the Tuesday/Wed/Thurs 3-day hearing.

JMHO

 

[FrostedGlass]

It appears that the Defense doesn't understand how 'pings' actually work IMO.

Why does the P even bother to try to block it?
Let the D bring it to trial and give Nick the chance to show the world how ignorant they are.

Seems to me that he could just blow them right out of the water with all the things he's working hard to block.
My opinion only, of course.

 

[FrostedGlass]

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday May 21st, but this Motion to Disqualify Judge Gull precludes JG from conducting any other business than considering/responding to this DQ motion.

Defense's Motion to Continue (re: ALL MATTERS):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16n-iHxA3f58tRnFtPd0Dp4XWSH_LLTcP/view?usp=drivesdk…


Given the D's Motion to Continue ALL Matters and the DQ Motion ... by Monday, JG must either responds/rules on the DQ Motion, or cancel the Tuesday/Wed/Thurs 3-day hearing.

JMHO

What if JG ignores all that and continues on as planned?

 

[Emma Peel]

What if JG ignores all that and continues on as planned?

First she must Order and deny the DQ motion/refuse to recuse ... as she did once before.
Then the hearing(s) proceed. JMHO

 

[Emma Peel]

Why does the P even bother to try to block it?
Let the D bring it to trial and give Nick the chance to show the world how ignorant they are.

Seems to me that he could just blow them right out of the water with all the things he's working hard to block.
My opinion only, of course.

IMO the P's motion fails to address the very thing the P is trying to block.
The 4:30 AM PING.
The motion (conveniently)(attempts to) ignore the 4:30 AM Feb 14 ping. And the long overnight silence between pings.
The whole motion as to pings is a red herring, IMO.
JMHO

 

[steeltowngirl]

It appears that the Defense doesn't understand how 'pings' actually work IMO.

Or they know, and don’t like the answers. They have 26TB of discovery data, and want the prosecution to interpret the results of digital evidence for them. When the results don’t fit their narrative, they ask the same questions over and over again, in hopes of a different answer. It has to be exhausting for the teams (on both sides) to keep writing and answering these motions, while trying to prepare witnesses for trial.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Why does the P even bother to try to block it?
Let the D bring it to trial and give Nick the chance to show the world how ignorant they are.

Seems to me that he could just blow them right out of the water with all the things he's working hard to block.
My opinion only, of course.

The P is 'blocking it' because it's one of the D's desperate and untrue reasons for the 4th FM to have the SW tossed.

<snipped & BBM>

The historical location data from the AT&T “pings” does not mean the phone was not in the area during the evening of February 13th, 2017 until the morning of February 14th, 2017. It is another example of the Defense taking information and stating that it means something that it doesn’t. This is consistent throughout all their Franks’ motions.

Adobe Acrobat

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Or they know, and don’t like the answers. They have 26TB of discovery data, and want the prosecution to interpret the results of digital evidence for them. When the results don’t fit their narrative, they ask the same questions over and over again, in hopes of a different answer. It has to be exhausting for the teams (on both sides) to keep writing and answering these motions, while trying to prepare witnesses for trial.

jmo

Oh for sure, if the D is soooo confident about Rick's innocence, stop whining, wasting time and money on an endless paper shuffle, get your Defendant Allen to trial and let the jury decide.

They've repeatedly complained about the time RA has spent in IDOC, yet they continue to push back the trial dates. We could have had jury selection this past week. Do your jobs R&B.

They can't because THEY ARE STILL NOT READY, RA is guilty IMO, which they know the State can prove, so they're using precious time to delay and scramble. The D has to get the SW quashed and RA's confessions dismissed, there is evidence too incriminating. Not going to happen fellas, and if RA is truly innocent, why are you so worried about them anyway??

ALL MOO

 

[Tealgrove]

Legal Question.

Is there a finite number of continuances permitted or can this keep happening and happening?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday May 21st, but this Motion to Disqualify Judge Gull precludes JG from conducting any other business than considering/responding to this DQ motion.

Defense's Motion to Continue (re: ALL MATTERS):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16n-iHxA3f58tRnFtPd0Dp4XWSH_LLTcP/view?usp=drivesdk…


Given the D's Motion to Continue ALL Matters and the DQ Motion ... by Monday, JG must either responds/rules on the DQ Motion, or cancel the Tuesday/Wed/Thurs 3-day hearing.

JMHO

Seems like Deja vu to the motion for speedy trial filed and then immediately a motion to stay all other hearings (including contempt and sanctions against defense) just 4 months ago.
They sure do know how to play the system.
AMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

So the P was well aware of this new information when he wrote his ping-filled 5/17 response to the 4th Franks Motion.
I didn't make it through all 5 pages but I suspect it read something like 'the D don't know what they are talking about; and even if they do, they're not being truthful.'

Discovery still dripping in from the P.
MOO

Excerpts From the Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)
10. Additionally, on May 15, 2024, the State of Indiana just turned over
new phone extraction that had been conducted this past weekend.
11.The defense received possession of that new phone extraction
less than week before the motion in limine hearing was set and
needs more time to review the phone extraction data.
13.Additionally, the witness who extracted the phone data last weekend
has indicated that he will be issuing report on his findings as well as
investigating matters identified by the defense that the defense
believes provide important information concerning third-party suspects.

Motion to Continue Hearings (on All Matters...)

Motion to Continue All Hearings

drive.google.com

State's Reply to the 4th Franks

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

My guess here and only my guess is that because defense strategy keeps changing and their SODDI target keeps moving. The LE still has the right to investigate or circle back around and re interview or pull phone data to show opposing proof. So with every Frank motion filed or deposition, it creates new discovery.
Defense is really just creating more work for LE, Prosecution and ultimately themselves.
Example. Franks 1 introduced TC and his Odinism theory and 4 other POIs. Then LE follows up by going over old interviews and alibis and then also scheduling new interviews, depositions etc. ie: new discovery.
2nd or 3rd franks offered additional players and the whole geofencing issues. P just can’t let those wait until trial. They need to address the Franks so they have to show proof that those theories a) didn’t hold weight at the time of the SWA and b) don’t hold weight now. More discovery
All this is my non lawyer opinion. I don’t think it’s nefarious I think it’s the nature of the situation.
IMO it’s a dangerous game because the longer RA waits for trial and the more times he may confess to the crimes.
JMO

 

[snarast]

When will this end? It’s like a nightmare, a legal cacophony.

 

[justtrish]

IIRC The SCOIN did not say Judge Gull is not bias. They said the evidence brought by the defendant at that time did not support a finding of bias.

Agree the defense’s major challenge are RA’s statements against interest while incarcerated, should they be admitted as evidence.

That being said, the issue at hand is that RA should have a non-bias judge ruling as to whether evidence with regard to statements from incarceration should be admitted at trial.

IMO, Judge Gull will likely not be making those decisions. I don’t see her surviving a 2nd Original Action on this topic.

JG’s decision/opinion re contempt fully cleared the D of contempt. And then she took a swipe at them - same old disdain game.

IMO Judge Gull lost the ability to try this case fairly in the eyes of RA and the public when she decided to gratuitously malign the Defense just two weeks prior to jury selection on this highly publicized trial - after finding them not guilty.

Many believe that by maligning the exonerated D immediately prior to voir dire that Judge Gull tainted the jury pool - a structural error.

If Judge Gull again refuses to recuse, this will likely return to the SCOIN - expedited. Why would the Supreme Court allow a structural error to loom over a high profile murder trial?

I’m curious to see how quickly Judge Gull will respond to this latest motion to DQ. My sense is judge Gull likely made a conscious choice writing that decision; and expected to recuse if challenged.
IMO she is as good as off the case.

JMHO

If the evidence submitted didn't show bias, then why didn't the defense present evidence that did show bias if they have it?

I don't see Judge Gull's ruling as taking a swipe at them. She wrote the truth.. maybe it wasn't contempt, but they were in the wrong and if anyone is tainting a jury pool it's the defense lawyers who were careless and leaked photos and then continue to write motion after motion with their interpretations of the crime scene and evidence. That is putting more out to the public before trial and it is definately an attempt to sway public opinion and in doing so taint a jury pool. I don't see anyone expect the defense trying to try this case in the court of public opinion ahead of the actual trial

 

[justtrish]

My guess here and only my guess is that because defense strategy keeps changing and their SODDI target keeps moving. The LE still has the right to investigate or circle back around and re interview or pull phone data to show opposing proof. So with every Frank motion filed or deposition, it creates new discovery.
Defense is really just creating more work for LE, Prosecution and ultimately themselves.
Example. Franks 1 introduced TC and his Odinism theory and 4 other POIs. Then LE follows up by going over old interviews and alibis and then also scheduling new interviews, depositions etc. ie: new discovery.
2nd or 3rd franks offered additional players and the whole geofencing issues. P just can’t let those wait until trial. They need to address the Franks so they have to show proof that those theories a) didn’t hold weight at the time of the SWA and b) don’t hold weight now. More discovery
All this is my non lawyer opinion. I don’t think it’s nefarious I think it’s the nature of the situation.
IMO it’s a dangerous game because the longer RA waits for trial and the more times he may confess to the crimes.
JMO

Exactly!

Since the defense seemed to have so many questions about the pings maybe the state went back to get more detailed analysis of these pings. Now the defense makes it seem like this was discovery that they failed to turn over??

If the defense doesn't want the true answers to questions, maybe they should quit asking them. OR maybe they should find out the answers before insinuating that it somehow favors their client when it doesn't. I've always heard lawyers don't ask questions they don't already know the answers too.

 

[al66pine]

"Structural Error" in Crim. Cases. Appellate Ct. Tests.

.... Many believe that by maligning the exonerated D immediately prior to voir dire that Judge Gull tainted the jury pool - a structural error.
If Judge Gull again refuses to recuse, this will likely return to the SCOIN - expedited. Why would the Supreme Court allow a structural error to loom over a high profile murder trial?

snipped for focus @Emma Peel Thx for your post.
Not directing this to you specifically, just posting w quote & link as an FYI or refresher to sleuthers generally. I'm not commenting on whether any of the types of structural errors listed below may apply to this case.
Article was authored (no date of pub. in article) by an appellate practitioner, who wrote:

"... the prime difficulty for an appellant is not to demonstrate error. Rather, the most difficult hurdle is to establish that the error compels reversal. The purpose of this article is to assist defense counsel in persuading an appellate court that either precedent or the equities of a particular case require that a remedy be given to the defendant."

"A PRIMER ON PREJUDICIAL ERROR: THE APPLICABLE TESTS AND HOW TO SATISFY THEM"
".... the list of "structural errors" includes:
(1) the total deprivation of the right to counsel at trial;
(2) a proceeding held before a biased judge;
(3) the exclusion of prospective jurors on racial grounds;
(4) the denial of the defendant's right to self representation;
(5) the denial of a public trial;
(6) a directed verdict in favor of the state;
(7) the deprivation of a jury trial where guaranteed by law;
(8) an improper instruction which dilutes the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt;
(9) the involuntary medicating of the defendant at trial;
(10) a defense lawyer’s failure to file a notice of appeal upon the defendant’s timely request; and
(11) the deprivation of the right to counsel of choice."

(More at 43 page link. Note: I added ^ line breaks)

________________________________

https://sdap.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/research/criminal/prejudice.pdf