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

[TTF14]

I frankly (pun not intended) have no idea if she goofed or not. I can see the presumed argument from her side that the defense was just filing repetitive motions, so she did not have to really acknowledge them. I can see the defense’s side that they believe their motions were not repetitive. I have zero idea how the CAO would have ruled. All I know is the CAO didn’t actually rule on anything except for the defense apparently having waived their ability to file in this instance.

JMO

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

 

[m00c0w]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I understand the concept of the lazy judge law. They never affirmed she had a duty to meet the deadline in the first place. That’s my whole point. She’s not a “lazy judge” if she didn’t have to respond to the motions to begin with, and we ultimately don’t know if the CAO would have said she did or did not have to respond. Saying they did is totally mischaracterizing what the ruling/denial says.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

Because I’m not in her head to know exactly what she’s thinking or why she does anything she does. However, it makes sense that she would believe these to be repetitive motions since they were pretty… repetitive.

 

[TTF14]

Because I’m not in her head to know exactly what she’s thinking or why she does anything she does. However, it makes sense that she would believe these to be repetitive motions since they were pretty… repetitive.

It also makes sense (to me, IMO) that she didn't rule on them because she can't stand the defense team. Or just didn't want to have to make a ruling.

IMO MOO

 

[MollyDDD]

Do they have to prove he was the only one responsible to get the conviction? Not a lawyer so it’s a genuine question.

I would think so, but what do I know.

 

[m00c0w]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Let's say you have a "lazy journalist" rule at your job that says you have to post a tweet within 30 hours of an event, except if you get COVID.

Three events happen. You have COVID during those three events.

Your colleague that doesn't like you files a complaint with your boss saying that you violated the "lazy journalist" rule.

Your boss says that while initially investigating, he found you did (as a simple matter of fact) miss these deadlines. However, he also noticed that your colleague took too long to file the complaint. So the complaint is getting thrown out without further evaluation.

Your boss never actually determined whether or not you were at fault. They just determined the complaint was not valid based on the timing of the events in question. The substance of the claim was never actually evaluated. It would not be proper to say you violated the lazy journalist rule.

 

[photographer4]

Let's say you have a "lazy journalist" rule at your job that says you have to post a tweet within 30 hours of an event, except if you get COVID.

Three events happen. You have COVID during those three events.

Your colleague that doesn't like you files a complaint with your boss saying that you violated the "lazy journalist" rule.

Your boss says that while initially investigating, he found you did (as a simple matter of fact) miss these deadlines. However, he also noticed that your colleague took too long to file the complaint. So the complaint is getting thrown out without further evaluation.

Your boss never actually determined whether or not you were at fault. They just determined the complaint was not valid based on the timing of the events in question. The substance of the claim was never actually evaluated. It would not be proper to say you violated the lazy journalist rule.

With great respect, I think we may be talking about two diff things. I am NOT commenting on the overall lack of ruling / ruling against her removal. I am not even looking at why the motion was invalid.

I am ONLY pointing out the the SCOIN agreed with the D that JG failed to rule within the time she should have.

I can’t keep trying to explain my point. I’m sad. I feel I’m usually much better at expressing myself in writing and didn’t imagine I had failed so hard here. Again though, thanks for the discussion.

I am hopefully now off to enjoy the weekend. I hope you are too!

 

[m00c0w]

It also makes sense (to me, IMO) that she didn't rule on them because she can't stand the defense team. Or just didn't want to have to make a ruling.

IMO MOO

Could be. She could also be a secret Odinist covering for her friends. Lots of possibilities, but the defense can't seem to get it together to actually do something about it.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

RSBM

This is where I am at. Forget the orders and lets just look at the ethics.

For the second time, the defence is caught up in a humiliating and troubling leak. This should not be happening. Let alone twice.

MOO

Actually THREE times. The first was when one of the D lawyers accidentally sent a bunch of private legal info to the wrong person in his directory. So instead af a colleague getting the witness list for the defense, it was sent to one of his former clients.

The 2nd was the big one, that triggered MW's friend's tragic suicide.

And then this kerfuffle, which didn't have to happen if they were more selective with their inner circle. IMO

 

[photographer4]

Actually THREE times. The first was when one of the D lawyers accidentally sent a bunch of private legal info to the wrong person in his directory. So instead af a colleague getting the witness list for the defense, it was sent to one of his former clients.

The 2nd was the big one, that triggered his friend's tragic suicide.

And then this kerfuffle, which didn't have to happen if they were more selective with their inner circle. IMO

Before I go enjoy the weekend, I’m sorry who was friends with the suicide guy? I thought he was someone who killed himself after being asked to speak to police about the MW photos? Wrong person I am thinking of here? If not, whose friend was he? Ty.

 

[m00c0w]

I would think so, but what do I know.

No, he is being charged with what is ordinarily known as felony murder (paragraph 2 of the code cited below). During the commission of a felony (kidnapping in this instance), two girls died. He is therefore responsible for their death. They don't have to prove he actually killed them, or that he was the only one that killed them.

2023 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 42. Offenses Against the Person :: Chapter 1. Homicide :: 35-42-1-1. Murder

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

Prosecutor files request to amend charges against Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen

The motion was filed on the same day the Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments in the Delphi murders case.

www.wthr.com

 

[katydid23]

I appreciate what you said and can understand the importance of keeping certain details under wraps while investigating a crime. However, after almost eight years of investigating and still no conviction yet, anyway.
I think if the general public was given a little more information about the evidence, perhaps that would or could have opened up some other avenues to look into. Perhaps that could have expedited the process as well. I’m just afraid that the longer this saga drags on, the more likely a juror could find a reasonable doubt. JMO

I don't think so as long as the prosecution does have some solid evidence to set forth. It won't matter if it is held back now, if it is presented clearly during the case in chief.

It would be weakened if it was leaked piecemeal before the trial begins, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Before I go enjoy the weekend, I’m sorry who was friends with the suicide guy? I thought he was someone who killed himself after being asked to speak to police about the MW photos? Wrong person I am thinking of here? If not, whose friend was he? Ty.

OOps, that should have said "The 2nd was the big one, that triggered MW's friend's tragic suicide."

 

[photographer4]

OOps, that should have said "The 2nd was the big one, that triggered MW's friend's tragic suicide."

Ty for clarifying.

 

[katydid23]

But wouldn't the Supreme Court have to follow the rule of the law had they filed at a different point? They did say what she did was wrong (paraphrasing). So, you're saying that even though they said she was wrong they still wouldn't have been obligated to grant the motion?

IMO MOO

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.”

 

[katydid23]

Do they have to prove he was the only one responsible to get the conviction? Not a lawyer so it’s a genuine question.

Nope. He is being charged also with kidnapping, which is a felony. Any time someone dies because the defendant is committing a felony, the charge of murder kicks in. IMO

 

[katydid23]

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....

 

[grannygates]

Let's say you have a "lazy journalist" rule at your job that says you have to post a tweet within 30 hours of an event, except if you get COVID.

Three events happen. You have COVID during those three events.

Your colleague that doesn't like you files a complaint with your boss saying that you violated the "lazy journalist" rule.

Your boss says that while initially investigating, he found you did (as a simple matter of fact) miss these deadlines. However, he also noticed that your colleague took too long to file the complaint. So the complaint is getting thrown out without further evaluation.

Your boss never actually determined whether or not you were at fault. They just determined the complaint was not valid based on the timing of the events in question. The substance of the claim was never actually evaluated. It would not be proper to say you violated the lazy journalist rule.

I think I’m misunderstanding your last paragraph.. If the judge missed deadline as recognized by the CAO, who’s fault would it be other than her own ? If it’s gotten to the point that this ruling is now 100 days overdue, what excuse would constitute this not being her own fault?

 

[MollyDDD]

Nope. He is being charged also with kidnapping, which is a felony. Any time someone dies because the defendant is committing a felony, the charge of murder kicks in. IMO

I’m sorry, I need clarification on that. If he kidnapped her, how can he be charged with murdering her?

 

[Tealgrove]

I wonder what the Defence’s next move will be?

They have tried and tried to get Judge Gull removed for various reasons. That’s not happening. They are stuck with her.

The Odinist Fantasy is just that so it’s not going to fly. We know that for sure now.

They have unsuccessfully tried to have the SW thrown out. No luck there either.

Yikes those are 3 pretty big strike outs.

Their client seems to want to confess to anyone who will listen. The D kinda tries to sweep that under the rug and just ignore it which is odd IMO.

2 years on and every now and then they remember RA’s in the “big house” and “oh ya, we better get back on this and get him moved” and then that kinda dies away.

Love to know the last time they met with RA in person and discussed their strategies with HIM! Since their dog and pony show seems to make the rounds of YouTubers, and various others to discuss strategy one would think they might carve out some “me time” for RA.

Maybe they’re cooking up some other SODDI Defence. Who’s left to throw under the bus? Maybe RL? Maybe they’ll go after a guy that can’t defend himself.

Stay tuned…I’m sure they have a few tricks still up their sleeves.

MOO