Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #187

[TTF14]

If that means they have to slow down the process to highlight the flaws of the legal proceedings to date, well, it sucks, but its necessary in my opinion. What point is there to race to trial when there have been questions of the legitimacy of the search warrant and other issues in the case to date? Its fine to sit here and say we'd race to trial because we're innocent, but when we're actually the ones being railroaded, I wonder how many of us would still want to race to the trial and skip the legal issues / rights issues?

RSBM

Well said!! Those of us who see this are not shouting "RA is innocent!" from the rooftops. That's NOT the point!

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Judge Gull has made rulings and all Motions do not require hearings legally. She hasn't been sitting there doing nothing and I do not believe she is biased against RA especially. I think she truly wants to see him represented by competent counsel and by the actions of this D, that has been rightfully called into question. JG had 3 days of rulings scheduled in May and Defense asked for a continuance.

They withdrew their MST because they said they weren't going to have enough time at trial, yet they waited until just before the hearings when they had the trial date from March and agreed to it. Juror questionnaires were already mailed out. Who is consistently playing the games here?

Regardless, the SCOIN allowed R&B back on the case and chose to keep JG in place. Enough with the absurd and childish name calling Motions and Notices, do your jobs guys. This isn't clown court, and the saddest part is that Abby and Libby are an afterthought at this point. Their families have endured countless re-victimization by all these stops and starts. Inexcusable.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO

Sadly yes, L & A *are* an afterthought in the proceedings against RA. The trial is not about them nearly as much as it is about him. Its about proving his guilt or innocence while ensuring his rights are upheld the entire way through. Their lives are no longer impacted by what goes on in their case. Its terrible! Their family and loved ones are still living the nightmare, and all of this does impact them - but RA isn't obligated to accept a plea, or plead guilty just to spare them. Perhaps to him its a game. Perhaps to him, it doesn't matter that he is guilty or why... he may just enjoy the circus of it all at this point (if he's advised lawyers to fight every step for instance)... we don't know. Its just not about the girls in the legal proceedings.

 

[photographer4]

RSBM

Well said!! Those of us who see this are not shouting "RA is innocent!" from the rooftops. That's NOT the point!

IMO MOO

To be clear, RA is an odd duck with clear mental health issues, as evidenced by his behavior in corrections (eating paperwork, smearing fecal matter and other socially unacceptable behaviors per his OWN legal team in a recent filing linked many times upthread by many of us). He probably has some guilt in this case. Whether it was him alone or him and others, I do not know. But I don't think he was innocent of all charges here. I just think the legal team is doing their job - even if it looks atrocious to us on the outside, they're doing their job.

 

[susiQ]

How many Franks are before her currently without rulings? LIke it or not, she's supposed to rule on motions before her. If she finds them frivolous, surely there is a means to put an end to them swiftly? Ya know, by ruling on them?

First she’d have to read them! JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

But their job is NOT to get justice for the murdered kids. We'd like it to be, but it just isn't. Their job is ONLY to ensure that RA has a fair trial, to defend him and to ensure his rights are not trampled. And just because WE might want them to get a deal for RA, doesn't mean RA wants a deal. He instructs the legal team as to his wishes. Even if they do not agree with his wishes, they have to act on them. They can advise him X is a terrible idea because XYZ but that is all they can do. Its not up to them if he is offered a deal or if he accepts one. If they suggest he pleads guilty and hopes for mercy, he can STILL instruct them to take this to trial. And we have no idea what his instructions to them have been to date - this might be them doing what they're told, even if it makes them look bad to everyone else.

IF they can win on a technicality, they SHOULD. If his rights were violated in the process of his arrest or subsequent detainment, then I'm sorry, but they SHOULD win this. No, I don't want a child killer on the streets. But I don't want a man railroaded either. If that means they have to slow down the process to highlight the flaws of the legal proceedings to date, well, it sucks, but its necessary in my opinion. What point is there to race to trial when there have been questions of the legitimacy of the search warrant and other issues in the case to date? Its fine to sit here and say we'd race to trial because we're innocent, but when we're actually the ones being railroaded, I wonder how many of us would still want to race to the trial and skip the legal issues / rights issues?

I actually agree with you here - up until the railroading part. That’s a hard no from me. There were way too many other and more suitable POIs that could have been railroaded.

jmo

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Interestingly, they may not have to win on facts. If JG keeps going the way she is, I wonder if they'll win a mistrial and he will go free regardless??

So is that OK?
Is anybody OK with that?
I’m not OK with that.
I’ll ask this nicely….that a man who was charged with two brutal murders is never tried on the facts, but is freed because his defense team has a grudge with the judge and manipulates the legal system or finds a technicality to facilitate it?
Raise your hand if you want to volunteer to go explain that to the families.
JG is not the problem. The defense can have temper tantrums and point fingers all they want but THEY are the problem.
They have a guilty client and no case.

 

[sunshineray]

You call it tripe. I call it a legal filing. Procedure exists for a reason.

Yes but the legal system shouldn't be abused in the manner these attorneys have done, AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

I'm guessing there's a code for this. If a judge has already ruled on a motion, there's an automatic denial for resubmission. If the motions aren't relevant, substantiative or meet the proper thresholds, no hearing is required. Rehashing is hash. MOO

The Defense went to law school. They know it. They add a few pages, plug in a few new footnotes but that doesn't make it a new motion if it's repetition and STILL fails to meet the standard.

JMO

Exactly, it's just regurgitated, it's not a whole new meal. MO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

But their job is NOT to get justice for the murdered kids. We'd like it to be, but it just isn't. Their job is ONLY to ensure that RA has a fair trial, to defend him and to ensure his rights are not trampled. And just because WE might want them to get a deal for RA, doesn't mean RA wants a deal. He instructs the legal team as to his wishes. Even if they do not agree with his wishes, they have to act on them. They can advise him X is a terrible idea because XYZ but that is all they can do. Its not up to them if he is offered a deal or if he accepts one. If they suggest he pleads guilty and hopes for mercy, he can STILL instruct them to take this to trial. And we have no idea what his instructions to them have been to date - this might be them doing what they're told, even if it makes them look bad to everyone else.

IF they can win on a technicality, they SHOULD. If his rights were violated in the process of his arrest or subsequent detainment, then I'm sorry, but they SHOULD win this. No, I don't want a child killer on the streets. But I don't want a man railroaded either. If that means they have to slow down the process to highlight the flaws of the legal proceedings to date, well, it sucks, but its necessary in my opinion. What point is there to race to trial when there have been questions of the legitimacy of the search warrant and other issues in the case to date? Its fine to sit here and say we'd race to trial because we're innocent, but when we're actually the ones being railroaded, I wonder how many of us would still want to race to the trial and skip the legal issues / rights issues?

I am very aware of what their job is.
I disagree….and I’m allowed to do that…with how they are doing it and I 100% disagree that RA’s rights are being trampled., so to me, that doesn’t even enter in to it.
If I thought like so many, that RA had been wronged I’d think differently, but I do not believe that. Not at all.
The defense team are avoiding a trial because they cannot defend him, not because he is being stomped on legally.


Opinion

 

[TTF14]

The defense team is not avoiding a trial. They are making sure all Ts are crossed and all Is are dotted so their client gets the most fair trial possible. I don't see what the issue is with that, even if it takes longer than we would like. There's a reason they say the wheels of justice turn slowly.

JMO MOO

 

[sunshineray]

But their job is NOT to get justice for the murdered kids. We'd like it to be, but it just isn't. Their job is ONLY to ensure that RA has a fair trial, to defend him and to ensure his rights are not trampled. And just because WE might want them to get a deal for RA, doesn't mean RA wants a deal. He instructs the legal team as to his wishes. Even if they do not agree with his wishes, they have to act on them. They can advise him X is a terrible idea because XYZ but that is all they can do. Its not up to them if he is offered a deal or if he accepts one. If they suggest he pleads guilty and hopes for mercy, he can STILL instruct them to take this to trial. And we have no idea what his instructions to them have been to date - this might be them doing what they're told, even if it makes them look bad to everyone else.

IF they can win on a technicality, they SHOULD. If his rights were violated in the process of his arrest or subsequent detainment, then I'm sorry, but they SHOULD win this. No, I don't want a child killer on the streets. But I don't want a man railroaded either. If that means they have to slow down the process to highlight the flaws of the legal proceedings to date, well, it sucks, but its necessary in my opinion. What point is there to race to trial when there have been questions of the legitimacy of the search warrant and other issues in the case to date? Its fine to sit here and say we'd race to trial because we're innocent, but when we're actually the ones being railroaded, I wonder how many of us would still want to race to the trial and skip the legal issues / rights issues?

Yes, "Lawyers must be honest, but they do not have to be truthful." Go figure

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2019/december-2019/_truthiness_-and-professional-responsibility/#:~:text=Being%20truthful%20means%20actively%20making,to%20actively%20present%20the%20truth.

 

[grannygates]

Do you all think that the prosecution will bring the eyewitnesses from the PCA to testify at trial? And if so, which ones ?

 

[TTF14]

Do you all think that the prosecution will bring the eyewitnesses from the PCA to testify at trial? And if so, which ones ?

I sure hope so. Especially since it seems that at least one law enforcement officer stretched the truth in order to get the PCA signed off on in the first place.

(Source: Franks memo and the cited sources that include discovery from the State, depositions, etc.)

IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Being in the park does not make him a criminal or a suspect.
The fact that he admitted seeing the girls, certainly plays into his likely innocence. True criminals want to distance themselves from every aspect of the crime.

There were no witnesses to the killing so how does he match the description of the suspected killer? What did witnesses claim to see other than a man who matched the description in the one brief video released by law enforcement?
"Bridge Guy" was never proven to be the killer.

The bullet had extraction marks, that were similar to that which would have been created when racked from his weapon. However, any manufacturer with good quality control would create weapons with similar patterns in each weapon produced. I wonder if they tested any other weapons from that particular lot. I don't see that as being "forensically linked."

As for his confession...people confess to all manor of crimes. That does not make him the killer.

Statistically, it is very rare for a killer, especially in a case such as this, to step out of character, commit a heinous double murder, and then step back into a character of normalcy.

The only two that I can think of:
Dennis Rader (BTK killer) Lived a double life, appearing as a normal family man and community member while committing a series of murders.

Chris Watts: Seemingly led a normal life before murdering his wife and daughters.

There were no other similar crimes near Delphi that I am aware of, so this appears a singular case.

Being in the park at the same time the murders happened, dressed in a similar manner as BG, in the same general area BG was in, fitting the description of BG certainly does make him a suspect. These are things he admitted, himself. And of course he'd admit these things if he were the killer, because other people saw him there. He had no idea if he'd be recognized or not, and it would be super weird if multiple people came forward identifying him while he denied being there.

There were no witnesses to the killing, but BG is the suspected killer based on witnesses, audio, and video. And RA is now suspected of being BG with plenty of evidence to support that suspicion, contrary to some beliefs.

Perhaps you can offer your expertise in toolmark forensics to the defense.

People also routinely confess to crimes they committed. This doesn't make him not the killer.

There were no other similar crimes near Chris Watts' house before Chris Watts. There were no other similar crimes in Wichita before BTK, nor in California before GSK. This is not a meaningful argument.

Additionally, you completely failed to address your claim that 1) RA's behavior didn't change after the murder, which would require him to be a psychopath and he's not (because you said so), and 2) you saw no behavioral change that would indicate him being a psychopath... which heavily contradicts your first point about a psychopath being a requirement for unchanged behavior. How do these contradictory claims work? Here is what you said directly, for easy reference:

People do not go from living a seemingly normal life to torturer, murderer of children, then back to a normal life.

To do so, would take the mindset of a psychopath, which Richard Allen does not appear to be.

There were no signs that I am aware of regarding a change in his demeanor after the crime that would indicate psychopathic behavior.

All JMO

 

[sunshineray]

RSBM

Well said!! Those of us who see this are not shouting "RA is innocent!" from the rooftops. That's NOT the point!

IMO MOO

I find it hard to agree with "that's not the point". RA is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guily. I have no problem with that concept at all. What I find indigestible is making apologies for shoddy tactics and unethical behaviors by calling it being zealous. In my opinion it's as atrocious as the ABA saying, "Lawyers must be honest, but they do not have to be truthful." (link in my previous post) To me honesty and truthfulness are one in the very same thing. And that's all just my opinion.

 

[photographer4]

I actually agree with you here - up until the railroading part. That’s a hard no from me. There were way too many other and more suitable POIs that could have been railroaded.

jmo

But if we go with what the D has put out in their long line of Franks…. Those weren’t well examined because well ya know…. Conspiracy and cahoots. I ain’t saying I buy it but that’s an interesting idea - why NOT go for other viable suspects? Why not scare the crud out of them and hope they flip? Why go to RA and treat him as they do? Weakest link maybe? A hope he turns on someone?

Whatever the reasons are for not going for anyone else as a viable suspect in this case, I don’t care who’s on trial. The rights of the accused have to be upheld. If the legal team has a way to point out where and how they’ve not been then this is a problem for the courts and law makers overall. It’s clear changes to how things are done are needed. I hope changes are made. Maybe that will be the legacy of the poor kids killed in the woods that day.

 

[photographer4]

So is that OK?
Is anybody OK with that?
I’m not OK with that.
I’ll ask this nicely….that a man who was charged with two brutal murders is never tried on the facts, but is freed because his defense team has a grudge with the judge and manipulates the legal system or finds a technicality to facilitate it?
Raise your hand if you want to volunteer to go explain that to the families.
JG is not the problem. The defense can have temper tantrums and point fingers all they want but THEY are the problem.
They have a guilty client and no case.

I volunteer to go explain to the families of RA gets off on some technical issue vs the facts. Why? Because maybe then people will be angry enough to change the stupid rules and laws that allowed him to go free in the first place. Maybe it will take pissed off citizens to finally say enough is enough and to force changes to the way things are done.

I wouldn’t be happy to explain it to them or to see the pain it would cause them. But I volunteer to be the one to explain the flaws that let it happen to them.

Maybe it should not ever get to this point. Maybe those in power and who are dealing with this case should figure it out before it ends up this way!

 

[TTF14]

I find it hard to agree with "that's not the point". RA is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guily. I have no problem with that concept at all. What I find indigestible is making apologies for shoddy tactics and unethical behaviors by calling it being zealous. In my opinion it's as atrocious as the ABA saying, "Lawyers must be honest, but they do not have to be truthful." (link in my previous post) To me honesty and truthfulness are one in the very same thing. And that's all just my opinion.

Only speaking for myself, but I'm not making apologies for shoddy tactics.

I don't think the tactics are shoddy at all. I think it's good lawyering.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Exactly, it's just regurgitated, it's not a whole new meal. MO

Then JG should rule and make it clear how she decided it was the same crap in a new pile of shiny paper. The issue is partly their filings and partly her handling (or lack of handling) them that’s causing so many problems for this circus.

 

[sunshineray]

The defense team is not avoiding a trial. They are making sure all Ts are crossed and all Is are dotted so their client gets the most fair trial possible. I don't see what the issue is with that, even if it takes longer than we would like. There's a reason they say the wheels of justice turn slowly.

JMO MOO

I'm sitting in the bleachers and that's not the game I'm seeing. I'm curious that if and when this case goes to trial and say they play RA's confession phone call to his wife and mother and it's sounds truthful and compelling. Then they read RA's letters to the warden and in them he to the point admits his guilt. Then his mental health doctor gets on the stand and they play a video of RA confessing his guilt...BUT his lawyers then get up and say ohh no, he was so upset when he did all of those things, you can't believe that. How many will say, "He's right!!" Not me, JMO all of it.