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

[sunshineray]

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.

JG has ruled on the FMs, twice

 

[Megnut]

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?

I am not a lawyer but I did Google some stuff.

IMO she is not required to rule on motions she has previously ruled on. Just because a regurgitated motion is LONGER doesn't make it substantially different.

There are rules for a reason. How to file. Where to file. The Defense knows this and are creating the exact chaos this forum is experiencing-- the illusion of some kind of prejudicial bias. The judge isn't responding to motions. False narrative. She is. When warranted, she rules. If warranted, she'd hold hearings. If not warranted, no hearing. If not warranted, no ruling. At this point, IMO they're LUCKY she HASN'T sanctioned them for filing frivolous, unanswerable motions. This isn't kindergarten. Even though she DID once already, IT'S NOT HER JOB to show the Defense how to file motions, how to write motions, how to invite a hearing, etc.

The Defense represented to SCION that they, and they alone, were ready to go to trial back when. On fact, they leveraged it, saying SCION would be jeopardizing RA's right to a speedy trial if SCION didn't reinstate them.

They accepted the trial dates, didn't object to the projected timeline ... knowing full well they had not filed an alibi defense nor achieved standing for a third party one. Judge twice denied it. Defense came just make one up, name people without having substantiated evidence. Them's the rules.

It's the defense who suddenly needed way more time, more than the State needs -- which is unprecedented in my limited experience of criminal trials! Some Defenses put on no witnesses. It's not required. They may have done all their work during cross. Perfectly acceptable. But the thing here is, the Defense couldn't, wouldn't, didn't make a case before the Judge for why they needed as much or more time than the State. They didn't say, "we intend to call these witnesses, these experts and we expect that to take eleventeen days". And they didn't do that because IMO they're still trying to backdoor their pet theory, the swimming dog with no legs (the Odinism fantasy). They need more time in order to find an expert who will say something, anything they can use to tie it in. So far, the Judge has been right about quashing that. Odinism isn't on trial. RA is.

Just like the Judge would rule that, say, any episodes in TA's past, if there were some, maybe can't be presented by the State, not because they're prejudicial but because they're UNFAIRLY prejudicial, the Judge is within her scope to deny third party defenses that don't hold water.

There is NO REASON for the Defense not to be ready if they were ready before.

It is my opinion they aren't ready now and they weren't ready then.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

One thing that just clicked for me is that there must have been something pretty damning found during the search warrant at RA's house. The defense would not be spending so much time trying to get the warrant thrown out if nothing of value was found - that would actually be exculpatory and beneficial to the defense. Franks memo after Franks memo seems to indicate they want whatever was found at that house to be suppressed, desperately.

JMO

 

[susiQ]

Personally, I’d love to see the SCOIN get involved again. Her actions and lack thereof raise serious concerns about her suitability to hold this trial. JG does NOT care about justice for RA. Quite frankly, I feel she’s on some kind of ego/power trip and using this case as her stage while she simultaneously attempts to ruin the reputations of two respected attorneys. JMHO

Just to reiterate, I am not saying RA is innocent. I don’t know what if any involvement he may have had. What I do know is that the evidence thus far does not convince me in the least that he is guilty.

 

[iamshadow21]

One thing that just clicked for me is that there must have been something pretty damning found during the search warrant at RA's house. The defense would not be spending so much time trying to get the warrant thrown out if nothing of value was found - that would actually be exculpatory and beneficial to the defense. Franks memo after Franks memo seems to indicate they want whatever was found at that house to be suppressed, desperately.

JMO

The gun?

MOO

 

[photographer4]

I am not a lawyer but I did Google some stuff.

IMO she is not required to rule on motions she has previously ruled on. Just because a regurgitated motion is LONGER doesn't make it substantially different.

There are rules for a reason. How to file. Where to file. The Defense knows this and are creating the exact chaos this forum is experiencing-- the illusion of some kind of prejudicial bias. The judge isn't responding to motions. False narrative. She is. When warranted, she rules. If warranted, she'd hold hearings. If not warranted, no hearing. If not warranted, no ruling. At this point, IMO they're LUCKY she HASN'T sanctioned them for filing frivolous, unanswerable motions. This isn't kindergarten. Even though she DID once already, IT'S NOT HER JOB to show the Defense how to file motions, how to write motions, how to invite a hearing, etc.

The Defense represented to SCION that they, and they alone, were ready to go to trial back when. On fact, they leveraged it, saying SCION would be jeopardizing RA's right to a speedy trial if SCION didn't reinstate them.

They accepted the trial dates, didn't object to the projected timeline ... knowing full well they had not filed an alibi defense nor achieved standing for a third party one. Judge twice denied it. Defense came just make one up, name people without having substantiated evidence. Them's the rules.

It's the defense who suddenly needed way more time, more than the State needs -- which is unprecedented in my limited experience of criminal trials! Some Defenses put on no witnesses. It's not required. They may have done all their work during cross. Perfectly acceptable. But the thing here is, the Defense couldn't, wouldn't, didn't make a case before the Judge for why they needed as much or more time than the State. They didn't say, "we intend to call these witnesses, these experts and we expect that to take eleventeen days". And they didn't do that because IMO they're still trying to backdoor their pet theory, the swimming dog with no legs (the Odinism fantasy). They need more time in order to find an expert who will say something, anything they can use to tie it in. So far, the Judge has been right about quashing that. Odinism isn't on trial. RA is.

Just like the Judge would rule that, say, any episodes in TA's past, if there were some, maybe can't be presented by the State, not because they're prejudicial but because they're UNFAIRLY prejudicial, the Judge is within her scope to deny third party defenses that don't hold water.

There is NO REASON for the Defense not to be ready if they were ready before.

It is my opinion they aren't ready now and they weren't ready then.

JMO

Just out of curiosity because I’ve been away for quite a long time did the defence actually state that they needed “more time” then the prosecution in this case?

 

[Megnut]

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.

"Going after other suspects"?

LE needs PC to go after anyone!;; But they did get tips and leads ans looked at other persons of interest, like RL. Investigations aren't linear either. LE might have been hot in one direction which then stalled, then had to abandon it when they'd exhausted it.

We don't even know State's whole case, only the small pieces contained in the AW. At the time of his arrest, they only knew what they knew! I imagine there's more than a bus load now. DNA returns, fiber comparisons, device data recovery, new tips!

It won't be a flimsy case.

JMO

 

[MiniMoo]

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?

Some valid points and you are right - some things are absolutely necessary and should be. Agreed!

When it comes to the law, regulations and rights of the accused the police and lawyers may have sufficient evidence, enough proof to convict and even reliable witnesses yet just one misstep can undo it all.

So, it is important to get it right every step of the way.

It is not uncommon to have delays either.

 

[grannygates]

I am not a lawyer but I did Google some stuff.

IMO she is not required to rule on motions she has previously ruled on. Just because a regurgitated motion is LONGER doesn't make it substantially different.

There are rules for a reason. How to file. Where to file. The Defense knows this and are creating the exact chaos this forum is experiencing-- the illusion of some kind of prejudicial bias. The judge isn't responding to motions. False narrative. She is. When warranted, she rules. If warranted, she'd hold hearings. If not warranted, no hearing. If not warranted, no ruling. At this point, IMO they're LUCKY she HASN'T sanctioned them for filing frivolous, unanswerable motions. This isn't kindergarten. Even though she DID once already, IT'S NOT HER JOB to show the Defense how to file motions, how to write motions, how to invite a hearing, etc.

The Defense represented to SCION that they, and they alone, were ready to go to trial back when. On fact, they leveraged it, saying SCION would be jeopardizing RA's right to a speedy trial if SCION didn't reinstate them.

They accepted the trial dates, didn't object to the projected timeline ... knowing full well they had not filed an alibi defense nor achieved standing for a third party one. Judge twice denied it. Defense came just make one up, name people without having substantiated evidence. Them's the rules.

It's the defense who suddenly needed way more time, more than the State needs -- which is unprecedented in my limited experience of criminal trials! Some Defenses put on no witnesses. It's not required. They may have done all their work during cross. Perfectly acceptable. But the thing here is, the Defense couldn't, wouldn't, didn't make a case before the Judge for why they needed as much or more time than the State. They didn't say, "we intend to call these witnesses, these experts and we expect that to take eleventeen days". And they didn't do that because IMO they're still trying to backdoor their pet theory, the swimming dog with no legs (the Odinism fantasy). They need more time in order to find an expert who will say something, anything they can use to tie it in. So far, the Judge has been right about quashing that. Odinism isn't on trial. RA is.

Just like the Judge would rule that, say, any episodes in TA's past, if there were some, maybe can't be presented by the State, not because they're prejudicial but because they're UNFAIRLY prejudicial, the Judge is within her scope to deny third party defenses that don't hold water.

There is NO REASON for the Defense not to be ready if they were ready before.

It is my opinion they aren't ready now and they weren't ready then.

JMO

Judge Gull said on May7 that she would rule on the outstanding Franks (3&4). Then she didn’t. So that’s why the defense was able to file this.

 

[grannygates]

"Going after other suspects"?

LE needs PC to go after anyone!;; But they did get tips and leads ans looked at other persons of interest, like RL. Investigations aren't linear either. LE might have been hot in one direction which then stalled, then had to abandon it when they'd exhausted it.

We don't even know State's whole case, only the small pieces contained in the AW. At the time of his arrest, they only knew what they knew! I imagine there's more than a bus load now. DNA returns, fiber comparisons, device data recovery, new tips!

It won't be a flimsy case.

JMO

We do know through the depositions that TL and JH have testified under oath that they do not have any direct evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no digital data and no cellphone data, nothing that connects RA to the crime scene or the victims. From what I’m gathering, IMO, their entire case has become the “incriminating statements” from solitary confinement.

 

[photographer4]

"Going after other suspects"?

LE needs PC to go after anyone!;; But they did get tips and leads ans looked at other persons of interest, like RL. Investigations aren't linear either. LE might have been hot in one direction which then stalled, then had to abandon it when they'd exhausted it.

We don't even know State's whole case, only the small pieces contained in the AW. At the time of his arrest, they only knew what they knew! I imagine there's more than a bus load now. DNA returns, fiber comparisons, device data recovery, new tips!

It won't be a flimsy case.

JMO

I hope the state has everything needed to get their conviction and that the judge does a good enough job to avoid any sort of appeal or mistrial. I have faith there is something to their case. This can’t be all a witch hunt.

 

[Megnut]

Just out of curiosity because I’ve been away for quite a long time did the defence actually state that they needed “more time” then the prosecution in this case?

IIRC the Judge allotted for a three week trial, to account for opening statements, closing arguments, not sure about jury selection and witness testimony. By my math, that's 15 days minus let's say 1 or 2 days for opening/closing, 13 days for testimony. Assuming a generous Prosecution/Defense split, maybe 8/5. I believe the Defense objected last minute, saying they needed two (or was it three?) weeks to present their yet-undefined defense. So, ostensibly, 8 days for the State and a full eclipse of the sun 10 (or 15) for the Defense.

The Judge was genuinely incredulous. She IS aware of the case, having seen materials from both sides. The Defense has at least twice recently represented readiness for trial -- if they truly were it would have been easy to answer the Judge. With a list of witnesses, lay and expert, who they'd call. And what they expected them to testify to and a general estimate of how long that might take. They didn't do that. Which tells me they don't have a defense and have no idea who they'll be calling because of chronic unsuccess in advancing much of anything so far.

Meanwhile IMO the Judge is not to be toyed with. She's not going to waste her time, or RA's responding to motions that are redundant, unfounded, etc.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

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.

Not me either, since this judge won't allow transparency in the courtroom by way of livestreaming.

 

[TTF14]

Just out of curiosity because I’ve been away for quite a long time did the defence actually state that they needed “more time” then the prosecution in this case?

No, they did not say that.

 

[TTF14]

We do know through the depositions that TL and JH have testified under oath that they do not have any direct evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no digital data and no cellphone data, nothing that connects RA to the crime scene or the victims. From what I’m gathering, IMO, their entire case has become the “incriminating statements” from solitary confinement.

But, we only know about what's in the depositions from the totally fabricated Franks memo, remember?

 

[TTF14]

Judge Gull said on May7 that she would rule on the outstanding Franks (3&4). Then she didn’t. So that’s why the defense was able to file this.

if she'd just held a Franks hearing to begin with, none of this would be happening. Instead the defense has been forced to keep refiling it (while adding stuff to it) to make a record for appeal.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

IIRC the Judge allotted for a three week trial, to account for opening statements, closing arguments, not sure about jury selection and witness testimony. By my math, that's 15 days minus let's say 1 or 2 days for opening/closing, 13 days for testimony. Assuming a generous Prosecution/Defense split, maybe 8/5. I believe the Defense objected last minute, saying they needed two (or was it three?) weeks to present their yet-undefined defense. So, ostensibly, 8 days for the State and a full eclipse of the sun 10 (or 15) for the Defense.

The Judge was genuinely incredulous. She IS aware of the case, having seen materials from both sides. The Defense has at least twice recently represented readiness for trial -- if they truly were it would have been easy to answer the Judge. With a list of witnesses, lay and expert, who they'd call. And what they expected them to testify to and a general estimate of how long that might take. They didn't do that. Which tells me they don't have a defense and have no idea who they'll be calling because of chronic unsuccess in advancing much of anything so far.

Meanwhile IMO the Judge is not to be toyed with. She's not going to waste her time, or RA's responding to motions that are redundant, unfounded, etc.

JMO

I don’t know so asking genuinely - did the prosecution do these things? Lay out who they’d call, what they’d expect them to say, how long it generally would take? Because it isn’t ok if she left it so open ended that the the Prosecution could leave the D with literally no actual time to defend RA. I believe that was their argument when they withdrew from the May trial - that she would not limit the prosecution and had no idea what the case was as she had not seen it.

 

[TTF14]

I don’t know so asking genuinely - did the prosecution do these things? Lay out who they’d call, what they’d expect them to say, how long it generally would take? Because it isn’t ok if she left it so open ended that the the Prosecution could leave the D with literally no actual time to defend RA. I believe that was their argument when they withdrew from the May trial - that she would not limit the prosecution and had no idea what the case was as she had not seen it.

Correct.

 

[photographer4]

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.

So the mental health professional who was seeing RA in corrections… did not? Have a conflict of interest then? I mean given her participation in social media groups about this case? Not sure I recall her name. No link so MOoOoO

 

[Megnut]

We do know through the depositions that TL and JH have testified under oath that they do not have any direct evidence, no DNA, no fingerprints, no digital data and no cellphone data, nothing that connects RA to the crime scene or the victims. From what I’m gathering, IMO, their entire case has become the “incriminating statements” from solitary confinement.

I can't speak to this absolutely, but we aren't at trial.

We won't know what the State has for evidence until it's admitted at trial.

But I can speak to this: defense attorneys love to ask good questions to the wrong guys. It's especially effective in ans around preliminaries. Ask the guy who has no information about something for whom he's not the proper authority! It's very effective too (even if kind of unscrupulous IMO). Makes the officer/witness look stoopid when in actuality is just not something for which they have personal knowledge. In huge investigations with lots of tentacles, many agents might be involved, each aware of a segment or arc of data. One might be altogether unaware of any DNA matches. Another, unaware of digital links.

The PCA is not a trial! There's an ongoing investigation that an arrest breaks open! New tips, more finessed searches, etc, etc...

I think the State has the goods.

JMO