Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[photographer4]

No, I don't think that is what the ruling said.

What I took from it was that every time the DT filed a new Frank's motion, the judge was legally able to 'pause' any written responses for the previous motions. So essentially, instead of filing a motion asking for the courts to rule upon the judge being late, they were dismissing/nullifying that issue, by the repetitive Frank's motions.

They were basically 'releasing' the judge from having to respond to the previous filing, by filing their new motion.

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case

The attorneys for Richard Allen asked the Supreme court to remove Judge Francis Gull, after they say she showed a bias.

www.wishtv.com

The court ruled that Allen waived any right to relief in this manner by “filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. The court also ruled that because “Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief.”

If you read the actual order, it says “failed to respond by…” I think the date was May 29, but I don’t have it before me and I don’t have a link to it. I only have a screenshot and mods have asked we post link with screen shots so I can’t post it. Read the entire order. It is up near the top somewhere. So they agree she failed to rule by X day but they kept filing motions which waived RA’s right to relief. The relief he sought being her removal from the case.

As always, since I have no link, moooooo. Maybe someone can post the actual court order link to help people see my point here. The article I cited upthread made the same point. The Scion agreed she failed to respond by X date etc etc.

 

[grannygates]

If you read the actual order, it says “failed to respond by…” I think the date was May 29, but I don’t have it before me and I don’t have a link to it. I only have a screenshot and mods have asked we post link with screen shots so I can’t post it. Read the entire order. It is up near the top somewhere. So they agree she failed to rule by X day but they kept filing motions which waived RA’s right to relief. The relief he sought being her removal from the case.

As always, since I have no link, moooooo. Maybe someone can post the actual court order link to help people see my point here. The article I cited upthread made the same point. The Scion agreed she failed to respond by X date etc etc.

I got you @photographer4 !

2024-07-19 - Notice of Chief Administrative Officer's Determination Pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1E.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[photographer4]

Indiana Supreme Court refuses to remove judge in Delphi murders case​

The attorneys for Richard Allen asked the Supreme court to remove Judge Francis Gull, after they say she showed a bias.

www.wishtv.com
The court ruled that Allen waived any right to relief in this manner by “filing motions beyond the time that either party could have legitimately raised a claim for removal. The court also ruled that because “Mr. Allen filed a motion seeking to advance the matter before the trial court, Mr. Allen has waved any relief.”




Seems ironic that the DT was likely getting bad advice upon their filing of motions, after we just got a look behind the scenes with their legal advisors.

According to AM, she and her husband and CW and MA were giving the DT legal advice concerning what motions should be filed and when to file them....oops....

I mean who says it was these in particular they received advice about from CW? Could be on any number of issues imo.

 

[photographer4]

Because it is a 'cause and affect thing.'

If two burglars go into a house, and the homeowner wakes up and shoots/kills one of them, guess who will be charged with murder?

The surviving burglar can be charged with murder, because during the felony, their partner died. They can hold the survivor responsible.

IF RA was bridge guy, and he forced the girls off the bridge, down the hill, and handed them off to Odinists, or KAK, or anyone else, who then killed the girls----RA would still be charged with their murder.

Reason being, he was in the process of a felony which resulted in someone's death.


The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.[1]

Felony murder rule - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I thought the kidnapping charges were dropped and instead he was charged with murder only: “Judge Frances Gull approved both counts of murder but dismissed both counts of kidnapping during a hearing on Monday in Fort Wayne”

Murder charges approved, kidnapping charges dismissed for Delphi murders suspect

The special judge in the Delphi murders case made a few key decisions in two separate hearings on Monday that will determine how the case moves forward.

www.wndu.com

Not that it matters he is still facing big penalties. But then I wonder, if they can’t get him for murder, does that mean they can bring it back as a kidnapping that lead to their deaths charge and do this all over again?

 

[sunshineray]

I wonder if they just wanted to draw attn to the lazy judge thing by filing for her removal, but since they also knew it would create a massive long delay if she was infact removed, filed something further to prevent them from actually removing her. May be actually a clever move on their part.

Oh so they were inept and foolish on purpose so the judge they've been trashing and hounding for months and months, all the way to the SCOIN, could stay because that was really their intention? To what purpose did they maybe do this clever thing? To influence the public and therefor prospective jurors? And that kind of unethical skulduggery seems clever? Ya got my head spinning on this one...I just don't see it. I think is was probably just a lack of legal intelligence, plain and simple. I wonder who actual wrote those redundant briefs and who thought it was a good idea? Maybe the zealous pro bono people were the ones that messed up? But then again AB & BR, the buck stops with them doesn't it? Just some thoughts.

 

[grannygates]

My compete laypersons interpretation was that the CAO agreed that the judge failed to meet the expected deadline for ruling but that their (the CAOs) expectation was that if counsel was unhappy with the slow timing of the judges rulings, they expected the defense to stop work and file the praecipe at the 31 day mark rather than continue working and filing additional motions, regardless of whether they were completely unrelated filings etc.

Not a lawyer obviously but it doesn’t seem right to me that a person forfeits their right to a timely ruling just because you continue working on your case while you await a response that a judge said they would give to you.

All MOO

 

[sunshineray]

That's my wish but I bet it won't happen in October. The defense isn't ready and will make up some other delay tactic.

At this point I'm just hoping the pretrial evidentiary hearings happen as scheduled.

 

[sunshineray]

Apparently JG isn’t ready either. The whole lazy judge thing that was filed by the D and which the Supreme Court Agreed with. Yikes! I’ll be a bit surprised if anything even gets discussed and resolved in the upcoming pretrial.

How many pre trial hearings would be kinda normal for a double homicide case? Just wondering.

I suspect the odds are better the defense will file something to delay the hearings, like they've done ad nauseam. JMO

 

[photographer4]

Basically, it seems they got some bad legal advice from the Due Cause Gang, because all of those repetitive motions they filed were nullifying their prior motions.

Instead of just filing a complaint about JG not responding to their Franks motion, they instead just filed another Frank's Motion, over and over.

Each time they did that, Judge G had the legal right to ignore the previous motion. So they outwitted themselves?

I think they were clever. They highlighted her failure to rule. We have seen her drag her butt on ruling in other matters as well, so I believe they were highlighting the concern in a public way. I further believe they knew they would waive RA’s right to have her removed by filing over themselves. This worked because while they wanted to highlight her inaction, they didn’t end up starting over with a ruling that would have forced her off the case. Interesting move imo. All imo actually because I don’t have the relevant link to the order.

 

[sunshineray]

YEP, but some don't stop to think before they type.. shocker.

Certainly a hard lesson some associated with the defense have recently learnt.

https://murdersheetpodcast.com/

 

[photographer4]

I'm not pretending anything. I'm saying the CAO never made a ruling as to the judge's actions or lack thereof, so we have no idea what the CAO would have ultimately done if the defense had filed the motion properly in the first place. There are potential affirmative defenses to why she never entered responses, but the motion apparently never got past the first cursory stages. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that the CAO ruled one way or the other regarding the judge, when the simple fact is that they denied the motion because the defense waived their right to the remedy multiple times.

JMO

How is a denial of a motion not issuing a ruling? They appear to have ruled that yes, she failed to meet the deadline BUT they couldn’t grant the order sought (her removal) due to them filing further motions.

If there had been no ruling (motion granted or denied), wouldn’t we have had continued silence forever instead of “denied and here is why”?

 

[photographer4]

At this point I'm just hoping the pretrial evidentiary hearings happen as scheduled.

I’m hoping they happen and that matters get resolution! A lot of times I feel like JG never really actually gets anything accomplished or settled at hearings. She just decides to hear it later or not hear it at all (eg: no hearing on her removal of B&R). Mooooo.

 

[photographer4]

Dang, what I wouldn't give for a good old admonishment from the Mods to move along from this circular argument.

I remember those days all too well, as I'm sure others who have been here for years do as well. Those were the days. Sigh.

Are we sure we haven’t beaten this horse to death yet? Lmao.

 

[photographer4]

I definitely agree with you. I think we’d all agree that we would want to protect the dignity of the victims and save the family from being re-traumatized but releasing some info is going to prompt the public to give tips and information to keep the investigation active.

We heard in the early years the original prosecutor Ives discussed the 3-4 “signatures” found at the scene. This seems like something helpful for the public to know more about in case it could trigger someone to call in and identify a group or persons. I wonder if these signatures were also what connected the crimescene of the murdered elderly couple in Kentucky. I believe that one had religious tones to it. I don’t think we have heard how LE is relating these signatures in RAs case.

all MOO

I am unfamiliar with a murdered couple from Kentucky - where may I find more info on this? Sounds worth learning more about!

 

[grannygates]

I am unfamiliar with a murdered couple from Kentucky - where may I find more info on this? Sounds worth learning more about!

This is a good article that can give you a quick run down:

Investigators looking into possible link between Stephenson murders and Delphi case

Boone County investigators were recently in northern Indiana looking into the tip.

www.fox19.com

 

[photographer4]

Oh so they were inept and foolish on purpose so the judge they've been trashing and hounding for months and months, all the way to the SCOIN, could stay because that was really their intention? To what purpose did they maybe do this clever thing? To influence the public and therefor prospective jurors? And that kind of unethical skulduggery seems clever? Ya got my head spinning on this one...I just don't see it. I think is was probably just a lack of legal intelligence, plain and simple. I wonder who actual wrote those redundant briefs and who thought it was a good idea? Maybe the zealous pro bono people were the ones that messed up? But then again AB & BR, the buck stops with them doesn't it? Just some thoughts.

I think if it was intentional, their reasons are their own. I can’t begin to imagine why they may want to highlight her failure to rule on their motion. Similarity, if it was an oversight on their part, then so be it. Mistakes do happen. Doesn’t seem to have actually affected the trial that I can see so…. Here is hoping the trial happens in Oct as scheduled.

 

[photographer4]

I suspect the odds are better the defense will file something to delay the hearings, like they've done ad nauseam. JMO

Possibly. Perhaps we will hear some more disclosure has not been included to the D, or that other interviews were recorded over or are unavailable or didn’t happen etc. Maybe they’ll spar with NM over some motion he may yet make to ban their use of certain words at trial… who knows. Should be an interesting pre trial and few months leading up to trial.

I wanted to add to this; although I participate in this discussion, I have not lost sight of the fact that two kids were killed and two families and many loved ones are forever altered. As interesting as I find the court proceedings, I would just as soon live in a world where these were not necessary as that would mean we live in a better world than we actually do. I wish peace and closure to the families and loved ones and hope that if RA is guilty that the state can prove their case.

 

[photographer4]

This is a good article that can give you a quick run down:

Investigators looking into possible link between Stephenson murders and Delphi case

Boone County investigators were recently in northern Indiana looking into the tip.

www.fox19.com

Thank you! I didn’t expect an answer at this hour! You’re so fast!!

 

[sunshineray]

I think they were clever. They highlighted her failure to rule. We have seen her drag her butt on ruling in other matters as well, so I believe they were highlighting the concern in a public way. I further believe they knew they would waive RA’s right to have her removed by filing over themselves. This worked because while they wanted to highlight her inaction, they didn’t end up starting over with a ruling that would have forced her off the case. Interesting move imo. All imo actually because I don’t have the relevant link to the order.

I find it astonishing that you find what, IMO, is legal foolishness as something clever but to each their own. If you were right, that those motions were planned, there are rules in place against filing "vexatious litigation"? Couldn't the defense therefore be in danger of being sanctioned for that if this was all planned out, a "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions"?

Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[photographer4]

I find it astonishing that you find what, IMO, is legal foolishness as something clever but to each their own. If you were right, that those motions were planned, there are rules in place against filing "vexatious litigation"? Couldn't the defense therefore be in danger of being sanctioned for that if this was all planned out, a "repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions"?

Vexatious litigation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well, I can’t answer your question as I am not a lawyer. Interesting to see if there is some rule about this and whether and how it could come into play here if at all.