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

[MiniMoo]

Me too and I believe she will. I think it will be the totality of ALL the evidence, not just one single piece, that will send RA bye bye forever.

I'm glad that an unbiased jury of his peers will get to make that decision. I freely admit I find him guilty based on what has been presented so far, but that is just my opinion. No better or worse than anyone else's.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

Everyone deserves a fair trial!

I haven't kept up with this case so can't say whether or not I feel he is guilty or not, but I'm sure once it goes to trial it will all change.

 

[grannygates]

Wait three phones? Two victims had one phone that we know of. And RA had one. Where is the third phone from? Who owned :m/ brought that!?

The 3 phones were from the FBIs agents geofencing, 100m around the crime scene, at the time the state says the murders occurred. The state just says these people were interviewed and cleared, they didn’t say the phones belonged to LG or RA, so IMO I’m making an assumption that they are 3 other people possibly unrelated to the crime. But these phones vicinity to the crime scene during that time period (if the FBI geofencing agent’s map is correct) would make them important to the timeline. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Excuse my commenting 2 days after this filing. (vacation time here, checking in less frequently.)

Praecipe for Determination - All.pdf

The Praecipe for Determination filed 7/11/24 is not for Judge Gull to determine. It's filed on RA's docket so that it becomes part of this case's record. The issue is described in the Praecipe, and the determination request is directed to the administrative official(s) - the parties responsible for appointing IN Special Judges. There's clear procedural rules on the issue of a Judge who ignores or fails to respond to motions. Colloquially, that rule is known as Indiana's lazy judge rule.

IMO, here the D attempts to resolve some long-outstanding (long-ignored) motions this one via a higher authority. IIRC, Judge Gull told RA (via his temporary counsel) that there'd be a hearing on the Franks. It never happened.

It's the D's job to ensure RA's right to be heard. This is part of that effort.

JMHO

Cara Wieneke, RA's attorney who brought his 2 cases/writs to the SCOIN (1st writ - to force the Court to keep a proper docket, and 2nd writ - to force the Court to re-instate his choice of counsel) explains here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811384787761864867

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811384836482895976

Funny to see CW still shilling for the Defense. Seems strange how much time and attention she has devoted to Tweeting about the case on SM, but maybe the appeals in Indiana have slowed down some during the hot summer months.

I remember it differently, Judge Gull told the short interim D team S&L that IF they needed to file a FM or change their course from what R&B had submitted, she would allow it.

Someone please feel free to correct me.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

Funny to see CW still shilling for the Defense. Seems strange how much time and attention she has devoted to Tweeting about the case on SM, but maybe the appeals in Indiana have slowed down some during the hot summer months.

I remember it differently, Judge Gull told the short interim D team S&L that IF they needed to file a FM or change their course from what R&B had submitted, she would allow it.

Someone please feel free to correct me.

JMO

I highly doubt this will be successful. Indiana trial rule 53.4 does not require any sort of response from the judge in the case of repetitive motions. After 5 days, in fact, it's supposed to be deemed denied and a notice of denial does not need to be filed. This is to prevent, say, a defense from indefinitely postponing a trial by repeatedly filing motions with little substantive changes between them.

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I highly doubt this will be successful. Indiana trial rule 53.4 does not require any sort of response from the judge in the case of repetitive motions. After 5 days, in fact, it's supposed to be deemed denied and a notice of denial does not need to be filed. This is to prevent, say, a defense from indefinitely postponing a trial by repeatedly filing motions with little substantive changes between them.

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

JMO

Thank you, good to know. I thought it was just another stall and delay tactic form the Defense.

Will the hearing still be able to take place at the end of the month with this Motion pending against JG? She has been unable to rule while the other DQ of her by the Defense were filed IIRC.

MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The 3 phones were from the FBIs agents geofencing, 100m around the crime scene, at the time the state says the murders occurred. The state just says these people were interviewed and cleared, they didn’t say the phones belonged to LG or RA, so IMO I’m making an assumption that they are 3 other people possibly unrelated to the crime. But these phones vicinity to the crime scene during that time period (if the FBI geofencing agent’s map is correct) would make them important to the timeline. MOO

Can you please link the document with this information.
You are saying the defense has claimed that FBI geofencing shows 3 phones within 100m of the crime scene between 2:15-3:30.
I have yet to read a motion that claimed all 3 of the components you are claiming. But perhaps I missed it. Can you please link per TOS?

 

[grannygates]

Can you please link the document with this information.
You are saying the defense has claimed that FBI geofencing shows 3 phones within 100m of the crime scene between 2:15-3:30.
I have yet to read a motion that claimed all 3 of the components you are claiming. But perhaps I missed it. Can you please link per TOS?

From MSM per TOS:

That geofencing data, the defense claims, shows three people within 60 to 100 yards of the crime scene, on February 13th, 2017, during the time Abigail Williams and Liberty German were being murdered.

Delphi Defense Team Files Third Franks Motion, Wants Home Search Evidence Suppressed

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. -- The defense team for Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen have called for a third Franks hearing on grounds that police have intentionally sabotaged parts of the case with false information and have withheld crucial information.

wibc.com

 

[sunshineray]

They agreed likely under the belief it would be extended if needed or allowed time accordingly. I believe it wasn’t until the courtroom when she cancelled it at their request that she made clear it wasn’t going to be extended. At all. If she would have gone on record and said it could be if needed, perhaps they’d have not sought to cancel. Imagine what could have been dealt with if she had held pretrial case management etc before that point? Nothing really gets resolved usually when she holds court. IMO.

So in other words they just did another saying to the judge one thing and then changing their minds...like they did when they withdrew from the case and then changed their minds. So again, lied to the judge. It doesn't surprise and I think it's despIcable behavior.

Your answer includes it was probably their belief. Pretty rotten lawyering if they didn't make sure at THAT appropriate time what was what, IMO. Isn't that their fault!?

As far as pretrial hearings go, I think RA's lawyers have shown what their feelings are on those...to be avoided at all costs. We shall see soon if the scheduled July hearing will take place.

AJMO

 

[Tealgrove]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed because it contained no link. A link is provided by another member later in this thread>
I’ve never heard that RA got angry with a cop and told him not to F with his wife.

I know you said no link but it appears I’ve missed this.

Could you elaborate more on this please.

TIA

 

[Cyber sleuth]

From MSM per TOS:

That geofencing data, the defense claims, shows three people within 60 to 100 yards of the crime scene, on February 13th, 2017, during the time Abigail Williams and Liberty German were being murdered.

https://wibc.com/292961/delphi-defe...n-wants-home-search-evidence-suppressed/[/URL

Linked is the 3rd Franks Motion you have referenced.
I want to draw you attention to several parts:
Section 8: summary - geofencing shows 3 phones i
in or around the crime scene. ( area and timeline not specific)
Section 10- one phone was shown 60-100 of the crime scene at the time of the crime. ( only 1- most likely the victim).
Section 11- 2 other phones shows in or around the crime scene between 12:39-5:49pm. ( expanded geographic area and expanded timeline -could have been one of the parents searching and even RL)
So the defense does a lot of word trickery to fool someone into thinking 3 phones were at the crime scene at the time of the murders. But their motion does not specify this. In fact it points to less sinister conclusions.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HjUktVqcnrqHHMtaF3Z9OI4tMzYh7jyb/view

 

[m00c0w]

From MSM per TOS:

That geofencing data, the defense claims, shows three people within 60 to 100 yards of the crime scene, on February 13th, 2017, during the time Abigail Williams and Liberty German were being murdered.

Delphi Defense Team Files Third Franks Motion, Wants Home Search Evidence Suppressed

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. -- The defense team for Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen have called for a third Franks hearing on grounds that police have intentionally sabotaged parts of the case with false information and have withheld crucial information.

wibc.com

Let's take a look at what was actually said in the 3rd Franks motion:

Paragraph 8 states that they learned "at least 3 people were in or around the crime scene at a time while the murders were taking place [...] and none of the owners of the phones have any connection to [RA]."

So they know who the owners of the 3 phones are. Yet, they don't actually name any of them or suggest that there's any rational reason to believe they may have been involved in the crime.

Paragraph 10 states 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 [RA]."

So they double down on knowing who the owners are and that they have no connection to RA. Further, they only claim "at least one person" was 60-100 yards from the crime scene - not all 3. The prosecution explains in their response (as we've gone through numerous times already) that this was an incorrect interpretation of the map, and that the placement of the "pinpoints" did not actually mean the phones were at those points.

In summary, the "100m FBI geofence" that has been repeatedly referred to does not seem to exist, and the only mention of one phone potentially 60m away from the crime scene at the closest comes from the defense - which the prosecution says is a flat-out misrepresentation of the data.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Let's take a look at what was actually said in the 3rd Franks motion:

Paragraph 8 states that they learned "at least 3 people were in or around the crime scene at a time while the murders were taking place [...] and none of the owners of the phones have any connection to [RA]."

So they know who the owners of the 3 phones are. Yet, they don't actually name any of them or suggest that there's any rational reason to believe they may have been involved in the crime.

Paragraph 10 states 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 [RA]."

So they double down on knowing who the owners are and that they have no connection to RA. Further, they only claim "at least one person" was 60-100 yards from the crime scene - not all 3. The prosecution explains in their response (as we've gone through numerous times already) that this was an incorrect interpretation of the map, and that the placement of the "pinpoints" did not actually mean the phones were at those points.

In summary, the "100m FBI geofence" that has been repeatedly referred to does not seem to exist, and the only mention of one phone potentially 60m away from the crime scene at the closest comes from the defense - which the prosecution says is a flat-out misrepresentation of the data.

JMO

We were on the same track.
Defense consistently writes motions with this type of word play to fool the public consumer. One really has to go over the motions with a fine tooth comb to nudge out the truth.
A seasoned judge would never be fooled by this disjointed narrative.
All my opinion.

 

[mrjitty]

We were on the same track.
Defense consistently writes motions with this type of word play to fool the public consumer. One really has to go over the motions with a fine tooth comb to nudge out the truth.
A seasoned judge would never be fooled by this disjointed narrative.
All my opinion.

i hope we finally get hearings one way or another. i don’t care which Judge. I am sure any of them will run a fair process.

 

[somequestions]

Several people saw him on the trail, and he admits seeing them and having been seen by them. If they identified him (which he had no idea if they would be able to), it would look super weird that he didn't come forward immediately. In fact, this seems to have worked pretty well in his favor because you have people arguing that him having done that somehow means he probably didn't do it... which is exactly the point of having done it.

JMO

If a crime happens in a public area during a period of time that you were there and you do not come forward, does that mean you are the criminal responsible?

I do not think coming forward worked out very well for Richard Allen. Even after over 5 1/2 years it does not sound like any of the potential witnesses who went to CVS ever saw him there and thought that he looked like the man they saw out on the Monon High Bridge trail the day Abigail Willims and Liberty German were murdered.

As for phones, I would have believed him if he said he was simply out walking on the trails and forgot his phone at home or left it in his vehicle or couldn't remember if he had it on him that day while walking on the trails.

In my opinion, if Richard Allen had not come forward, police today would still be looking for the person who murdered Abigail Williams and Liberty German. As for whether there is all this evidence against him and detailed confessions regarding his involvement we have to wait for trial. But whether Richard Allen is the killer or not, I do not think coming forward helped him.

 

[grannygates]

Linked is the 3rd Franks Motion you have referenced.
I want to draw you attention to several parts:
Section 8: summary - geofencing shows 3 phones i
in or around the crime scene. ( area and timeline not specific)
Section 10- one phone was shown 60-100 of the crime scene at the time of the crime. ( only 1- most likely the victim).
Section 11- 2 other phones shows in or around the crime scene between 12:39-5:49pm. ( expanded geographic area and expanded timeline -could have been one of the parents searching and even RL)
So the defense does a lot of word trickery to fool someone into thinking 3 phones were at the crime scene at the time of the murders. But their motion does not specify this. In fact it points to less sinister conclusions.
Third Franks Notice & Request For Franks Hearing

My comment was regarding where the “3 phones” came from, not the accuracy of any of the actual locations claimed by either party. All we have is the defense and prosecution’s opinions of what this geofencing map says. Ill remain undecided until we have a deposition or testimony by an actual geofencing expert. I have no interest in debating a map none of us have seen. MOO

 

[Willow Knight]

I highly doubt this will be successful. Indiana trial rule 53.4 does not require any sort of response from the judge in the case of repetitive motions. After 5 days, in fact, it's supposed to be deemed denied and a notice of denial does not need to be filed. This is to prevent, say, a defense from indefinitely postponing a trial by repeatedly filing motions with little substantive changes between them.

Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure

JMO

Thank you. That is a good read. From your link:

Rule 53.4. Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial

(A) Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider ruling on a motion. No hearing shall be required upon a repetitive motion or upon motions to reconsider orders or rulings upon a motion. Such a motion by any party or the court or such action to reconsider by the court shall not delay the trial or any proceedings in the case, or extend the time for any further required or permitted action, motion, or proceedings under these rules.

(B) Effect of court’s delay in ruling upon repetitive motion or motion to reconsider ruling on a motion. Unless such a motion is ruled upon within five (5) days it shall be deemed denied, and entry of service of notice of such denial shall not be required. This Rule 53.4 does not apply to an original motion for judgment on the evidence under Rule 50 after the jury is discharged, to amend or make additional findings of fact under Rule 52(B), an original motion to correct errors under Rule 59, or for correction of relief from judgments under Rule 60 or to the original motions to the extent expressly permitted or expressly designated as extending time under these rules.

 

[WildHuncher]

I do not think coming forward worked out very well for Richard Allen. Even after over 5 1/2 years it does not sound like any of the potential witnesses who went to CVS ever saw him there and thought that he looked like the man they saw out on the Monon High Bridge trail the day Abigail Willims and Liberty German were murdered.

He appears to have misjudged. Hindsight is often clearer than foresight.

 

[Salah11]

I really don’t get why some are hung up on nobody recognizing him in CVS or his wife.

People don’t tend to think their neighbors or friends or husbands are capable of killing two teenage girls out on a stroll.

And we also are not privy to if his wife or his friends actually made comments in passing to him due to the gag order in place about his appearance to BG.

Moo

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I’ve never heard that RA got angry with a cop and told him not to F with his wife.

I know you said no link but it appears I’ve missed this.

Could you elaborate more on this please.

TIA

Page 11 in this Motion to Suppress but the interview begins on page 9.
https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2024/04/Motionpdf.pdf

 

[Argonaut]

Sorry for the change of subject. Some of my observations are in the text in the attached photo. I'm not sure why R. A. involved a car at all. Seems a bad idea. Whiteman Drive to Monon High Bridge