Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

[girlhasnoname]

We see things differently again!
As mentioned, I happen to think the ding dong clause - is strategic.
Not like it's going to become some famous legal move or anything.
It's just one of those little pieces you put on the board.
Or maybe it's frosting?

Whatever it turns out to be, I've tagged it for the moment b/c ... this case ... at this moment ... is just so darn ding dong.

IMO.

RBBM

Ahhh, but that is precisely my whole point. This is not a GAME... it is NOT a game.

It's a brutal murder trial of two innocent teenage BFFs. Someone's daughter, granddaughter, friends. They deserve Justice not a checkers game. I would have said chess but...

R&B do your jobs and let's go. You can play games after the trial.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

Which memory would be more accurate, information given within a few days of doing something or one almost 6 years later?

Whichever one didn't have a "lost recording."

IMO MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

RBBM

Ahhh, but that is precisely my whole point. This is not a GAME... it is NOT a game.

It's a brutal murder trial of two innocent teenage BFFs. Someone's daughter, granddaughter, friends. They deserve Justice not a checkers game. I would have said chess but...

R&B do your jobs and let's go. You can play games after the trial.

JMO

I'm referring to legal strategy; which is part of the Defense's job description.
The victims deserve justice regardless, no argument.

 

[sunshineray]

Yeah, I remember that one.
Seemed a fair assessment; she's heard none of their motions (except safekeeping) ... denied each and every one. She'll hear a few at the end of July. These will be the first.
It's not like she disagreed.
It would be impractical for her to assert she understands their case when she's heard nothing.
JMHO

She read every one of their motions. It's their job to convince with the motion that a hearing is warranted. They weren't convincing.

 

[sunshineray]

Whichever one didn't have a "lost recording."

IMO MOO

You're talking BH again, I'm wasn't. RA's memory as to the time he was at the trails would logically be better remembered very close to the event rather than almost 6 years later.

 

[TTF14]

You're talking BH again, I'm wasn't. RA's memory as to the time he was at the trails would logically be better remembered very close to the event rather than almost 6 years later.

Huh? I'm not talking about BH.

 

[steeltowngirl]

RBBM
Would you have a link for that statement? I don’t recall reading or hearing that.

https://www.scribd.com/document/717389407/Richard-Allen-Appendix

 

[TTF14]

The public probably will not see the confessions until the trial. His defense team admitted he confessed/made incriminating statements. In a hearing, the warden says he confessed to him in letters but the defense stopped that. People who are at the hearing heard that he also confessed to health workers. The defense are trying to dismiss the confessions/incriminating statements because "coerced" or because he isn't in his right mind (they are constantly changing the reason) and the prosecution asked them to put in filings which confessions are coerced. The defense didn't answer until now.

What people? Do you have a link?

 

[Betty P]

RBBM

Ahhh, but that is precisely my whole point. This is not a GAME... it is NOT a game.

It's a brutal murder trial of two innocent teenage BFFs. Someone's daughter, granddaughter, friends. They deserve Justice not a checkers game. I would have said chess but...

R&B do your jobs and let's go. You can play games after the trial.

JMO

Agree, what the defense is doing is very disrespectful to the victims and their families.

 

[snooptroop88]

d u

RBBM

Ahhh, but that is precisely my whole point. This is not a GAME... it is NOT a game.

It's a brutal murder trial of two innocent teenage BFFs. Someone's daughter, granddaughter, friends. They deserve Justice not a checkers game. I would have said chess but...

R&B do your jobs and let's go. You can play games after the trial.

JMO

I'm grateful there IS going to be a trial. In this adversarial process, one group clearly didn't want the trial to happen. If they'd gotten their wish, there would be many, many unanswered questions and there's been plenty of pre-trial time to address those questions, but many of them clearly haven't been addressed. Like RA's unusual memory processes, where things that happened long ago are dramatically clarified years after. (Most people remember things better at the point in time closer to when the event actually occurred, not later. Very unusual.) But I'm sure there's a really good (and possibly very involved) explanation for this.

So even though we're going to be waiting until October, I'm grateful to Judge Gull that a trial will be a reality. And I've got no doubt the games won't be postponed until after the trial. It's going to be extremely interesting to see if the jurors are as impressed by things like, say, the "ding dong" strategy. (Hopefully, they'll be dazzled.)

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Appreciate your candidness regarding your intense feelings re the defense in this case. (And of course you're not the only one.)

I don't suppose it helps to know that the IN Bar has absolutely no problem with either member of this Defense team?

Then I don’t think much of them either.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I'm referring to legal strategy; which is part of the Defense's job description.
The victims deserve justice regardless, no argument.

They don’t just deserve justice, they deserve respect.

 

[susiQ]

https://www.scribd.com/document/717389407/Richard-Allen-Appendix

The D did NOT call NM a “coke head” in this document. I believe the document (Appendix) was a compilation of RF’s communications with others. The word “coke head” does not exist in this document as far as I can see. If these words were from RF communications, he documented, “Nick drunk at bar. My cousin was there.” (65) And then the next line says, “I know he does blow too.” (66)

So, your assertion that the D called NM a coke head is incorrect. JMO

 

[katydid23]

RA's phone data vs the geofencing record seems pretty relevant, IMO

IDK---it seems pretty confusing. RA said he was on his cell, looking at the stock ticker, while he was on the bridge, and looking at fish in the river.

So if his phone is not in the geo-casing, then what? Was he lying or did he have a burner that was never traced to him?

 

[sunshineray]

Huh? I'm not talking about BH.

Only lost recording I know about that been talked about ad naseum, IIRC. DD didn't record RA's interview on the street

 

[katydid23]

The D did NOT call NM a “coke head” in this document. I believe the document (Appendix) was a compilation of RF’s communications with others. The word “coke head” does not exist in this document as far as I can see. If these words were from RF communications, he documented, “Nick drunk at bar. My cousin was there.” (65) And then the next line says, “I know he does blow too.” (66)

So, your assertion that the D called NM a coke head is incorrect. JMO

So some random person says the DA 'does blow' and that is included in a court document?

How do we know that person is credible? Maybe they knew him in college and saw him do a line 40 years ago? If ever?

 

[grannygates]

IDK---it seems pretty confusing. RA said he was on his cell, looking at the stock ticker, while he was on the bridge, and looking at fish in the river.

So if his phone is not in the geo-casing, then what? Was he lying or did he have a burner that was never traced to him?

The geofence is surrounding the crime scene 100m. It doesn’t include any of the bridge, roads, etc. it’s fairly tight. These 3 phones within that immediately area will have been within eyesight of the crime scene during the time the state says the murders occurred, so either those phones belong to the killers or they will be entirely random people that have nothing to do with the crime, which would mean the states timeline is incorrect IMO

I am assuming the FBI knows who these phones belong to. They are able to track burners to find who is using them.

All MOO.

 

[katydid23]

Data speaks for itself and won't need to be twisted. None of us (to my knowledge) have seen Baldwin or Rozzi at trial, so we can't make judgements on what they will do. I feel confident the jury will be smart and won't be gullible or influenced by manipulation. Let's let the experts explain the data to them and have confidence in their abilities.

IMO

I haven't seen them in trial. But I have seen their many motions, which seem to distort and twist the facts. Many 'facts' in the FM are just plain wrong.

And the lied to the judge and twisted the facts when they chose to step down but then admitted they are just lying. Then said they would be happy to be pro bono, but that was false as well, they were never in a position to do so---they twisted the facts to make it look favourable for them.

They were also misleading when they asked repeatedly for a quick trial when ,in reality, they were nowhere near ready to go forward ----they had to eventually backtrack and admit they hadn't gone through the voluminous discovery yet----and they were still fishing for 'experts' in Odinism.

They claimed they were sick with worry about the life and safety of their client and yet we found recently that one of them had visited him only one time during that 'dangerous' time, the other had ben grand total of 3x---they mostly sent their intern to drop off the discovery. So were they really concerned he was in an imminently lethal situation? I think they twisted and distorted the facts.

The jury pool has likely been somewhat tainted and poisoned already. The defense seems to be working hard to make that happen. The Franks being so wordy and salacious---released on a Friday afternoon, so the content creators, who had their own copies already, could make hay all weekend.

Some people, like myself, feel that the 'accidental leak' was not all that accidental. I guess we will see more when that trial takes place.

But ALL of these wordy, spicy filings, attacking the judge, attacking the DA, ridiculing LE and crying grand conspiracy are designed to make the public believe that poor little RA is being railroaded by Odinist white supremacists.

So excuse me if I don't agree that the jury cannot be manipulated or fall victim to gullibility.

 

[katydid23]

<modsnip>

I don't think the trial should be canceled.

I do think there should be a Franks hearing.

And I do think that everyone shouldn't automatically say every word in the Franks memo is "fiction" <modsnip>....defense attorneys, especially ones with as much storied experience as these two (plus Hennessey), have reputations to uphold and defense attorneys don't just go around making up wild stories....their licenses depend on them not doing so. <modsnip>

IMO MOO

Yes, they do have reputations to uphold. As do the prosecutors and this Judge. Does the Defense team concern itself with that?

How about the men that were named by them and labeled as white supremacist ritual murderers? What about their reputations and their families?

I think in some cases defense attorneys do just make up wild stories. Some of the accusations in the FM, like the bloodletting and hanging by the feet----are totally made up wild stories just for the sake of negative publicity. IMO

 

[katydid23]

If EFs DNA was found at the crime scene this all would have been resolved long ago.

Interestingly when we get the hearing on admissibility of 3rd party suspects we'll finally get the lowdown on what evidence there actually is on some of these people. I suspect the answer will be none AND that alibis were chased down.

Especially re the Click narrative, the prosecution view is going to be they worked on it for ages and basically found nothing.

I do think the Judge will allow Click himself to testify, along the lines of a bungled investigation - but as many of us are seeing in the Karen Read case - she was not allowed to directly accuse other people of doing it.

My wild speculation.

Yes, and I wonder if this will be reminiscent of the McStay trial. So much of the time was spent dispelling the defence's implied accusations against Joseph's brother and his business partner, whose alibi was an extended trip to Hawaii.

How far will the defense be able to take their allegations?