Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #191

[SouthEnd]

I think they face appeals ahead anyhow really. This case is a colossal mess!!

JG remains silent on all the “under advisement” matters. I doubt we go to trial in October. It’s like I said before - nothing ever gets sorted in her court hearings. I was shocked she finally vacated safekeeping!! Does not seem she has a set date by which she must rule over these matters - but - I am not a lawyer. I’ve asked before and no one seems to know!

Oh I am not worried about the under advisement time frames. Having followed other cases the court tends to take its time when replying. I am not in any way an expert in US law, but from Google - 90 days seems to be the time a Judge has to rule on a case they've taken under advisement in Indiana. Rule 53.2 - Time for Holding Issue Under Advisement; Delay of Entering a Judgment, Ind. R. Civ. P. 53.2 | Casetext Search + Citator

As for the motions I think it depends, I remember the 30 day limit for a motion that gets reset every time the defence files a new pretrial motion.

All interpretations are MOO

 

[SouthEnd]

Under Advisement Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

When a case is under advisement, the judge hearing the case is deliberating or thinking about his/her decision. A case can be under advisement during the time period between when the court has heard

definitions.uslegal.com

90 days? So is she waiting for the clock to expire to throw it out last minute to leave the D to scramble?? What was even the point of the pre trial hearings then??

Ah yes we both got there!

I wouldn't say it's an intentional tactic imo - pretrial hearings are just that, hearings before trial. Seldom does the defence present a prosecutorial-style case that requires so long to build up, so I don't think the court system was build in a way that allowed for months post pretrial hearings for the construction of a new defence. I think we are past the one year mark with R&B by now, so I hope there are alternative defence strategies ready as a backup (and imo that would be good for RA)

 

[Salah11]

Under Advisement Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

When a case is under advisement, the judge hearing the case is deliberating or thinking about his/her decision. A case can be under advisement during the time period between when the court has heard

definitions.uslegal.com

90 days? So is she waiting for the clock to expire to throw it out last minute to leave the D to scramble?? What was even the point of the pre trial hearings then??

What makes you say that’s her plan?

I keep forgetting this grand conspiracy that everybody is involved in.

What exactly does Judge Gull get out of it all?

moo

 

[grannygates]

I just watched that Nancy Grace YouTube video.

So, 32 mins in, they mentioned him going to his mate who was a conservative officer, and placing himself on the bridge. They believe the video then came out the day later. So another important part of the puzzle is surely his behaviour changed when he realised there was a video, and he had just told LE he was on the bridge?!


ETA - So my take is, his mate files the tip but doesn’t believe for one moment he could be involved and then when nothing comes of it, he doesn’t think anymore of it.
IMHO

I don’t think that has been said elsewhere that RA and DD were friends. Did Nancy Grace say where she found that info? If they were friends, you would think DD would know his buddies last name. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Salah11]

I don’t think that has been said elsewhere that RA and DD were friends. Did Nancy Grace say where she found that info? If they were friends, you would think DD would know his buddies last name. Just my opinion of course.

Nope but I believe it’s a trusted source as a video of her was posted the other day.

Isn’t it a small community so they could know each other by first name only as he worked in the CVS?!

MOO

 

[TTF14]

I don’t think that has been said elsewhere that RA and DD were friends. Did Nancy Grace say where she found that info? If they were friends, you would think DD would know his buddies last name. Just my opinion of course.

Not to mention recognize him as "BG" when he was standing up on the stage with all of the other gentlemen during that first big presser.

IMO MOO

 

[TTF14]

As for the motions I think it depends, I remember the 30 day limit for a motion that gets reset every time the defence files a new pretrial motion.

So, if the defense files another motion today, that starts the 30-day time clock on their outstanding motions all over again?

And, if the prosecution files another motion today, that starts the 30-day time clock on their motion in limine all over again?

Did the defense's filing for the transcripts start the time clock all over or does that not count?

 

[SouthEnd]

So, if the defense files another motion today, that starts the 30-day time clock on their outstanding motions all over again?

And, if the prosecution files another motion today, that starts the 30-day time clock on their motion in limine all over again?

Did the defense's filing for the transcripts start the time clock all over or does that not count?

Does JG have to respond to the filling for the transcripts? If not I would assume not. Also I do believe that the 'under advisement' responses and the written motions are independent of each other so the time clock shouldn't reset them BUT! Honestly? The legal system across the pond seems rather obscure to my untrained eyes, so for all I know even the filing for transcripts could reset the time.

The US justice system looks quite chaotic to me, as an outsider, but I believe the DT and the Court should all be aware of the time clock and the inner workings of pretrial motions. IMO

 

[grannygates]

Nope but I believe it’s a trusted source as a video of her was posted the other day.

Isn’t it a small community so they could know each other by first name only as he worked in the CVS?!

MOO

I don’t know if she’s an approved source but definitely shouldn’t be a blindly trusted source.

I’d take a big grain of salt if Nancy Grace blurts out some outrageous claim without citing any source and the public unable to verify that claim in any available court document. Just my opinion.

But I get irritated with all the misinformation being reported on this case because the average viewer won’t bother fact checking this, they’ll just believe it.

MOO

 

[Salah11]

I don’t know if she’s an approved source but definitely shouldn’t be a blindly trusted source.

I’d take a big grain of salt if Nancy Grace blurts out some outrageous claim without citing any source and the public unable to verify that claim in any available court document. Just my opinion.

But I get irritated with all the misinformation being reported on this case because the average viewer won’t bother fact checking this, they’ll just believe it.

MOO

Well we are all free to believe what we wish to. After all some believe RA is being framed by a large network of people that involve minors.

So I would much rather believe a Nancy Grace than a conspiracy like that and being a news corporation I’m sure they have sources.

IMHO

 

[tlcya]

Well we are all free to believe what we wish to. After all some believe RA is being framed by a large network of people that involve minors.

So I would much rather believe a Nancy Grace than a conspiracy like that and being a news corporation I’m sure they have sources.

IMHO

I am not a fan of NG by any stretch, but she is an approved media source here. As to the talking head, journalist, Susan Hendricks, in the video discussing DD, I don't take her words as gospel about the two men knowing each other. I feel she may just as easily have been taking creative license. And having looked for any other corroboration that the two knew one another prior I was unable to find it.

But I do agree that all are free to believe as they wish, even those whose opinions are based on a fantastical Frank's Motion that even the people quoted within have publicly stated mischaracterizes what they did/said/and believed.

 

[photographer4]

What makes you say that’s her plan?

I keep forgetting this grand conspiracy that everybody is involved in.

What exactly does Judge Gull get out of it all?

moo

I don’t have any idea what she gets out of it really? Perhaps the satisfaction of making the D wait? Hasn’t she had some of the motions before her for months now? I forget how long we waited for the pre-trial hearings or how much prior the motions were filed and so accessible to her. I guess I was hoping she’d have read them and begun to understand them somewhat before the hearings, and then would not sit on them too long before issuing rulings. I have a question for the legal people - can she just deny these without written explanation?

 

[photographer4]

Well we are all free to believe what we wish to. After all some believe RA is being framed by a large network of people that involve minors.

So I would much rather believe a Nancy Grace than a conspiracy like that and being a news corporation I’m sure they have sources.

IMHO

I’d be willing to take Nancy Grace’s word for it over Grey Hughes or murder Sheets etc…..

 

[SouthEnd]

I don’t have any idea what she gets out of it really? Perhaps the satisfaction of making the D wait? Hasn’t she had some of the motions before her for months now? I forget how long we waited for the pre-trial hearings or how much prior the motions were filed and so accessible to her. I guess I was hoping she’d have read them and begun to understand them somewhat before the hearings, and then would not sit on them too long before issuing rulings. I have a question for the legal people - can she just deny these without written explanation?

That's one way of interpreting the wait. Two considerations: are we certain that this is longer than she takes to decide on other cases? Without that info it is baseless speculation.

Secondly, for me guessing that JG could be taking longer to be contrarian would be equally as possible a motivation, as her wanting to get it over with/not being harassed online, thus having more to lose by taking longer than to gain.

IMO: I don't think any of the above is the actual answer. I accept bureaucracy for what it is: slow, agonising, and more often than not, impersonal.

 

[SouthEnd]

IMO: I don't think any of the above is the actual answer. I accept bureaucracy for what it is: slow, agonising, and more often than not, impersonal.

Snipped To Add an Addendum:
Bureaucracy is impersonal IMO but in many western countries it is not blind - aka it systemically places a heavier burden to the more vulnerable parts of the population - either by making itself inaccessible or because of centuries of elite (white, male, upper-class) dominating law-makers. IMO.

(That's also why we see people wrongfully convicted because they didn't have access to resources / did not understand their rights) JMO.

 

[tlcya]

I’d be willing to take Nancy Grace’s word for it over Grey Hughes or murder Sheets etc…..

you tubers and talking heads tend to be the very last sources I believe. The order for me is something like LE, prosecution, MSM using direct quotes from case players, my own psychic senses, youtubers/talking heads

 

[photographer4]

That's one way of interpreting the wait. Two considerations: are we certain that this is longer than she takes to decide on other cases? Without that info it is baseless speculation.

Secondly, for me guessing that JG could be taking longer to be contrarian would be equally as possible a motivation, as her wanting to get it over with/not being harassed online, thus having more to lose by taking longer than to gain.

IMO: I don't think any of the above is the actual answer. I accept bureaucracy for what it is: slow, agonising, and more often than not, impersonal.

I like your reasoning SouthEnd!

 

[photographer4]

you tubers and talking heads tend to be the very last sources I believe. The order for me is something like LE, prosecution, MSM using direct quotes from case players, my own psychic senses, youtubers/talking heads

I’m with you here. I prefer LE, court documents (either side really, but actual court documents), MSM (though I exclude some for being general bellends… ) and then those involved in the case and then YT or talking heads. I generally don’t bother with the latter.

 

[Salah11]

I’m with you here. I prefer LE, court documents (either side really, but actual court documents), MSM (though I exclude some for being general bellends… ) and then those involved in the case and then YT or talking heads. I generally don’t bother with the latter.

I don't normally listen to YouTubers, but The Murder Sheet has been a wonderful resource for the underhand tactics the defence have been using. I am glad there are podcasters willing to expose the underbelly of such sinister behaviour. I salute them and their bravery in putting their necks on the line.
After all, we want justice for Libby and Abby and such behaviour is just furthering the family's agony.

IMHO

 

[ClearAhead]

I don't normally listen to YouTubers, but The Murder Sheet has been a wonderful resource for the underhand tactics the defence have been using. I am glad there are podcasters willing to expose the underbelly of such sinister behaviour. I salute them and their bravery in putting their necks on the line.
After all, we want justice for Libby and Abby and such behaviour is just furthering the family's agony.

IMHO

I agree. I also appreciate MS for their insightful explanations and the knowledge they share about the topics they discuss. It’s very obvious that often reporters in MSM are just writing an article that’s assigned and don’t have a clue what they’re writing about.

MOO