Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #192

[mrjitty]

Just posting this as a general reminder about the Franks - see bolded from Judge Gulls ruling.

In Gull’s ruling regarding the Franks Hearing, she said “The Court finds the Affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant contained information that a reasonable belief existed that evidence of the murders would be found in the defendant’s home and vehicles. The Court does not find that the Affidavit submitted false statements or that the Affiant omitted statements with reckless disregard, nor does the Court find that the Affiant intended to mislead the Judge by failing to present information. As the Court has found the Affidavit for issuance of the search warrant was valid, the search itself was reasonable and legal under Indiana law and Fourth Amendment case law.”

I make the same comment about the phone. As I understand the Murdersheet and other coverage, at no point did the state's witness say the phone was back turned on. Rather defence counsel asserted it. This is generally the problem with trying to litigate the case based on pleadings rather than trial evidence.

At trial, I suspect the phone's status is not going to be established via cell tower evidence, but from it's onboard logs. I am not sure how it is possible to reach a conclusion on these things before trial. Maybe there will be a hearing on digital pre trial.

MOO

Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings

The special judge in the Delphi double murders case handed down several rulings Monday. Judge Francis Gull denied Richard Allen's motions.

www.wishtv.com

 

[grannygates]

Just posting this as a general reminder about the Franks - see bolded from Judge Gulls ruling.



I make the same comment about the phone. As I understand the Murdersheet and other coverage, at no point did the state's witness say the phone was back turned on. Rather defence counsel asserted it. This is generally the problem with trying to litigate the case based on pleadings rather than trial evidence.

At trial, I suspect the phone's status is not going to be established via cell tower evidence, but from it's onboard logs. I am not sure how it is possible to reach a conclusion on these things before trial. Maybe there will be a hearing on digital pre trial.

MOO

Judge in Delphi murders case hands down multiple rulings

The special judge in the Delphi double murders case handed down several rulings Monday. Judge Francis Gull denied Richard Allen's motions.

www.wishtv.com

This is the expert who just completed the updated cellebrite extraction a week before his depo. That was the third extraction that we know of. Wouldn’t the graykey or cellebrite programs just say what happened ? Am I missing something uniquely difficult here ? I don’t see how he can’t know if this is his expertise.



Also, Lawyer Lee does a good job of breaking down the legal arguments from both sides surrounding the phone pings, texts, etc. and also includes additional notes taken from the hearing, so I will share the link to her video if anyone is wanting to watch !

 

[sunshineray]

So what is going on here?

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

View attachment 524198

Interesting, is a change of plea on the horizon?

"A status conference in a criminal case is a meeting between the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney to discuss the status of the case, facilitate the exchange of information, and negotiate regarding a possible resolution. The judge may also be involved in the meeting, depending on the judge and the court."

STATUS CONFERENCE

blanchard.law

 

[susane7]

With all these discussions about BG or RA and the witnesses that spotted either a man dressed in blue, creepy man or muddy bloody man on or near the trail that day...

February 17th, 2017.

Did anyone see Abby and Libby anywhere along the trail or the bridge that day?

Just one person.

Two.


The killer - BG(RA imo) and BB.

 

[Niner]

I thought there were new dates or something since someone posted the cancellation part. That didn’t change then?

I "think" the first date of trial Oct. 14th was rescheduled to start on 10/15 - and the rest stay the same per the 2nd post above... I "think" !!

Do I have that correct??

 

[sunshineray]

Two.


The killer - BG(RA imo) and BB.

And Kelsei, she saw them enter the trails

 

[Megnut]

With all these discussions about BG or RA and the witnesses that spotted either a man dressed in blue, creepy man or muddy bloody man on or near the trail that day...

February 17th, 2017.

Did anyone see Abby and Libby anywhere along the trail or the bridge that day?

Just one person.

We can reverse it. Who did Abby and Libby see that day? They saw KG when they were dropped off, perhaps saw others in the parking lot. Along the path, it would seem they only saw one lady and one man who they commented on and then videotaped. We know he saw them because, given the setting, it would have been impossible for him not to have, considering he was walking right toward them. Interestingly, the Defense referred to the video as one containing AW and the supposed perpetrator, which gives us information we didn't have before but long suspected -- that AW was captured in the video too.

The girls must have felt, for a time, they had the whole park nearly to themselves.

Until he trapped them. With no one else around.

The terror is beyond comprehension.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I have no idea if the phone was turned on at 4.30 am or not. But I am sceptical of bare assertion by defence counsel that it "must have been turned on" for the following reasons.

Often in these cases, we do not have the device, so tower evidence of what the phone was doing would be critical. But here we have the device, and presumably reports of the phone logs.

If the phone was really switched back on at 4.30am, then the CAST expert has known this all along. So it would have been a critical part of the investigation since the early days of 2017. And therefore all of that would be evidenced in various parts of discovery the defence now has. So why would the defence attorney not put those records to the witness?

Or if for some reason, that log evidence does not exist, why would the state have not reached the same conclusion as the defence 7 years ago?

Instead, as we saw from the witness, and the states response to the newer Franks, the state case is that one cannot draw that conclusion from the pings.

There has to be some reason why that is IMO

Frustratingly, there is little clear reporting on this aspect - and I am guessing the reason is, there was not actually any examination on what the phone logs say.

MOO