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

[girlhasnoname]

I'd by no means consider BM a friend of the State by any stretch of the imagination. MO

Agreed. I liked BMcD in the beginning when she was covering the DTH episodes, she seemed fair and impartial and really seemed to bond with the families of Abby & Libby.

All of that changed when she jumped on the RL is guilty bandwagon. It seems like she has kind of faded from the main spotlight of players on the coverage these days (except an occasional tweet). I don't believe she has a relationship with LE or any of the girl's families anymore. That is my recollection from reading somewhere I can't recall or link so take it for what it's worth.

I think she is writing a book so she needs click$$$$ and like$$$$ to help sell it eventually.

All JMO

 

[photographer4]

You'd actually find humor in the trial process to date being destroyed and possible lengthy delays occurring, keeping the families in turmoil, in limbo and RA in the prison experience that his lawyers have described as the life of a POW?
Even though the SCOIN has determined unanimously that JG is an unbiased judge, it would amuse for her to recuse herself. That makes absolutely no sense to me as it would not benefit anyone. I have a far different view of the legal situation and the case itself. If the highest court in the state is not at ALL concerned with a judge being biased towards a defendant, isn't that an optimal situation, for that defendant, to getting a fair trial? JMO

I would be amused yes - at the antics of the Defense. Rather much as I've been amused by the social media commentary on the case, and the nonsense that goes with it. I've already stated many times that my heart does go out to the family and loved ones left behind, and I do wish for peace and whatever closure they can find in all of this. The amusement is more about the "tactics" deployed to date than at the matter at hand in and of itself.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This would make me laugh so hard. LMAO. She'd fight that to the end no doubt. Maybe that will be the next big "delay tactic" by the D?

I actually did wonder though if they could call the original judge to testify as to why he granted the original Search Warrant? Is that a thing? Does this happen?

Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too.

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think she'd have to recuse herself.

Not going to happen IMO, she has been humiliated and treated like a joke by this Defense. I think she'll see this case through to the end. I don't blame her one bit.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too.

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO

That was what I was asking though - someone upthread asked if JG might be called as a witness for the D (on what, I actually wasn't sure, and didn't ask yet). And I asked, how this would work because wouldn't that be a conflict of interest given she is the presiding judge on the case? WHo would then preside over her testimony and questioning? So someone suggested she may have to recuse? So I am wondering, is this a thing? Can they actually call her to the stand somehow???

 

[girlhasnoname]

That was what I was asking though - someone upthread asked if JG might be called as a witness for the D (on what, I actually wasn't sure, and didn't ask yet). And I asked, how this would work because wouldn't that be a conflict of interest given she is the presiding judge on the case? WHo would then preside over her testimony and questioning? So someone suggested she may have to recuse? So I am wondering, is this a thing? Can they actually call her to the stand somehow???

According to IN.gov

<snipped>

Rule 605. Judge’s Competency as a Witness

The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial. A party need not object to preserve the issue.

Indiana Rules of Evidence

 

[grannygates]

This is what I meant by “friend of the state”.IMO BM seemingly found the right connection early on in law enforcement to obtain inside information. MOO

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf

pdfhost.io

 

[photographer4]

I wonder if the defence intend to call Judge Gull as a witness?

IMO

Apparently this would not be allowed per this post: Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

 

[photographer4]

Why would Judge Gull recuse herself? She's done nothing to recuse herself for according to the SCOIN. The D is mad because she's mean to them, hurts their fee fees and doesn't jokingly call them ding dongs too.

The PCA and SW aren't going anywhere no matter how hard the D tries to spin it. Why not just get their completely innocent client to Court and prove it as soon as possible??? Should be easy to do based on what they've reported around the gag order.

JMO

What are "fee fees"? Again, someone upthread suggested she may need to if the D were to call her as a witness but I think you just clarified with a link that she cannot be called as a witness over the matter as she is the sitting judge.

 

[TTF14]

What are "fee fees"? Again, someone upthread suggested she may need to if the D were to call her as a witness but I think you just clarified with a link that she cannot be called as a witness over the matter as she is the sitting judge.

Does she get to just skip over it then? If something is brought up that requires her to be a witness? For example, how either she, TL, or the jail worker lied about that witness who was supposed to show up to court and testify? Can she just throw that out and not settle the matter?

IMO MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

There was a motion in limine re:ballistics filed (I believe June 2023) but I haven’t been able to find a PDF of it to read it for myself.

It was and denied.
My understanding is the defense motion never attacked the timing or location the bullet was found but rather the science used to connect it to RA’s SIg Sauer.


Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings

 

[grannygates]

It was and denied.
My understanding is the defense motion never attacked the timing or location the bullet was found but rather the science used to connect it to RA’s SIg Sauer.


Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings

Of course denied without hearing. it’s a rubber stamp at this point.

The relative paragraph in the link:

In her denial of the motion regarding the ballistics evidence, Gull said “Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant’s Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury.”

I’m looking for a PDF of the original motion so I can read what the defenses argument was. This paragraph doesn’t seem to say anything specific. MOO

 

[grannygates]

Does she get to just skip over it then? If something is brought up that requires her to be a witness? For example, how either she, TL, or the jail worker lied about that witness who was supposed to show up to court and testify? Can she just throw that out and not settle the matter?

IMO MOO

This is what I’m wondering. Is there going to be nothing further to find out who lied about this situation? MOO

 

[Willow Knight]

Holeman told RA in their last talk before his arrest that they found his bullet where they found the girls remains. Then we had the conspiracy theory lovers claiming no COC and no photographs were taken of the bullet at the crime scene showing it being literally being taken out of the ground. Huh?

We don't even have the State's evidence yet, thank goodness we shall see at trial.

JMO

Is this not almost unbelievable? Frightening the mindset of these people. Fabricate lies to get an accused murderer, Richard Allen, off on lies and technicalities. They spend their time not disputing the charge of murder because Richard Allen did not committee the murder, they spend their time attempting to get the charges dismissed due to technicalities.

Add the issue of the families of the victims not being able to discuss these lies is horrific for them to endure. What are these people going to say should the evidence lead directly to Richard Allen? "oh, I didn't know?" Of course the public wouldn't know, we haven't been privy to the state's evidence. The families pain and suffering can not be "taken back".

It is one thing for a person to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. To spread and support lies in hopes of getting an accused murderer set free is a whole other form of evil. Libby and Abby did nothing wrong, they are innocent.

 

[TTF14]

This is what I’m wondering. Is there going to be nothing further to find out who lied about this situation? MOO

It would be par for the course.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Of course denied without hearing. it’s a rubber stamp at this point.

The relative paragraph in the link:

In her denial of the motion regarding the ballistics evidence, Gull said “Defendant’s Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant’s Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury.”

I’m looking for a PDF of the original motion so I can read what the defenses argument was. This paragraph doesn’t seem to say anything specific. MOO

Based on this, can we assume she thinks the jury will be smarter than the D thinks the jury might be?

 

[TTF14]

Based on this, can we assume she thinks the jury will be smarter than the D thinks the jury might be?

Or more educated about firearms and ammunitions?

 

[photographer4]

Is this not almost unbelievable? Frightening the mindset of these people. Fabricate lies to get an accused murderer, Richard Allen, off on lies and technicalities. They spend their time not disputing the charge of murder because Richard Allen did not committee the murder, they spend their time attempting to get the charges dismissed due to technicalities.

Add the issue of the families of the victims not being able to discuss these lies is horrific for them to endure. What are these people going to say should the evidence lead directly to Richard Allen? "oh, I didn't know?" Of course the public wouldn't know, we haven't been privy to the state's evidence. The families pain and suffering can not be "taken back".

It is one thing for a person to be found not guilty due to lack of evidence. To spread and support lies in hopes of getting an accused murderer set free is a whole other form of evil. Libby and Abby did nothing wrong, they are innocent.

Not being a lawyer, I wanted to ask: is trying to get a case dismissed on technicalities somehow not part of what they're supposed to do? Isn't part of their job to highlight things that were done improperly (by the books), or skipped over? Is this not a valid strategy included in any trial defense?

In terms of the FM - I think I've asked this before, and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet - is the D allowed to outright lie in their FM or otherwise allowed to bend the truth in some way? I'm asking because they were quite clear in their assertion that a witness did NOT say she saw a muddy & bloody man etc etc. (I forget which FM, probably the first) among other things. If she did NOT say that she saw a muddy & bloody man, then how come that is what was represented by the State in I think their SW? MOO because I've no idea where the links are to this right this second and no time to go find them.

I wonder what the families may say at the conclusion of the trial when the order silencing them is lifted? Actually, will it be lifted post conviction or lack thereof? Or will they be held to the gag until all the possible appeals have played out?

 

[sunshineray]

I would be amused yes - at the antics of the Defense. Rather much as I've been amused by the social media commentary on the case, and the nonsense that goes with it. I've already stated many times that my heart does go out to the family and loved ones left behind, and I do wish for peace and whatever closure they can find in all of this. The amusement is more about the "tactics" deployed to date than at the matter at hand in and of itself.

Again we disagree as I find absolutely no humor whatsoever in the pain caused nor in the defense's "antics". MO

 

[girlhasnoname]

What are "fee fees"? Again, someone upthread suggested she may need to if the D were to call her as a witness but I think you just clarified with a link that she cannot be called as a witness over the matter as she is the sitting judge.

Feelings, sorry new age slang.