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

[ClearAhead]

I'm no legal expert so my question is: Considering he's still innocent in the eyes of the law, is it a horrible thing if she would have allowed one hearing that would appear to favor the defendant?

Shouldn't Richard Allen be innocent in her eyes?

You’re serious? The Judge didn’t personally set the benchmark for establishing a Frank’s hearing just to pick on RA. The D failed to prove LE lied so there will be no hearing.

You could say the same thing about criminal trials - If RA is considered innocent in the eyes of the law, why even have one?

 

[m00c0w]

I'm no legal expert so my question is: Considering he's still innocent in the eyes of the law, is it a horrible thing if she would have allowed one hearing that would appear to favor the defendant?

Shouldn't Richard Allen be innocent in her eyes?

If we want an unbiased judge, that would be inappropriate, yes.

—
(a) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory, and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.

(b) If these requirements as to allegations and offer of proof are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required, but if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a hearing.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)

Franks v. Delaware

supreme.justia.com

She is bound by the requirements set by SCOTUS in Franks v Delaware. If the defense does not meet the threshold for a hearing, they don’t meet the threshold and don’t get the hearing. Offering a “gimme” is undermining the judicial process and would be ethically inappropriate. Having a truly unbiased judge results in rulings like this.

JMO

 

[Tealgrove]

A vigorous defense would probably look more like trying to suppress the search warrant based on RA having an alibi for the time of the murders… An alibi corroborated by employer records, cell phone data, witness statements, video, receipts, purchases… Rehashing the same fantastic claims about Odinists is obviously not working and I don’t understand why they keep trying to push that one particular narrative.

Further, it’s definitely interesting how some will 100% buy into the Odinist theory with very little actual evidence (circumstantial included)… a theory based mostly on speculation and innuendo… yet also feel that the trove of evidence against RA is basically nothing and the state has basically no case.

JMO

BINGO!!!

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm no legal expert so my question is: Considering he's still innocent in the eyes of the law, is it a horrible thing if she would have allowed one hearing that would appear to favor the defendant?

Shouldn't Richard Allen be innocent in her eyes?

Her statement at the hearings, before the last ones, was "I don't manage the Prosecution's or the Defense's case, I just call the balls", which is exactly what a Judge should do. Impartial, which of course is not believed by many here, but was by the SCOIN and upheld each time since then.

If the Defense did not meet its burden of proof supporting their allegations in Franks 1, 2, 3, and 4, why would she be forced to have a hearing on the Motion?

It has nothing to do with her thoughts on RA's guilt or innocence.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I would have liked to see some testimony under oath, particularly from Tony Liggett.

IMO MOO

I bet you will at trial where it will be appropriate. JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

If we want an unbiased judge, that would be inappropriate, yes.

—
(a) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory, and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.

(b) If these requirements as to allegations and offer of proof are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required, but if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a hearing.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)

Franks v. Delaware

supreme.justia.com

She is bound by the requirements set by SCOTUS in Franks v Delaware. If the defense does not meet the threshold for a hearing, they don’t meet the threshold and don’t get the hearing. Offering a “gimme” is undermining the judicial process and would be ethically inappropriate. Having a truly unbiased judge results in rulings like this.

JMO

Thanks for the explanation.
Yes, we do want an unbiased judge.
When she calls Richard Allen an offender, it's a concern. IMO

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

08/01/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had Defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order under advisement following a hearing conducted on July 31, 2024, and having considered all the evidence and arguments of Counsel, now grants the Defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order and remands the defendant back to the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. Court to notify counsel, the Sheriff of Carroll County, and the Department of Correction of the change of the offender's status. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[girlhasnoname]

Filing a 5th Franks Motion at this point is like beating your head against a wall....time to try a new tactic if you've tried the same thing repeatedly and were given the exact same answer over and over.

Maybe they might try a different strategy now? Maybe they could focus on the upcoming trial and the evidence that they know is going to be presented at trial. Get some expert witnesses onboard to counter the evidence, And not Odinist experts---experts for discounting the bullet, and discounting the confessions, and to testify for his character and his lack of any previous crimes, and experts in eyewitness testimony weaknesses, etc.

Forget about trying to recuse the judge, or throw out the PCA or get the Odinists admitted or suppressing ALL the confessions---- time to deal with the evidence and use legal strategy to defend your client. IMO

They have no evidence or a legal strategy to prove RA innocent IMO

 

[mrjitty]

In my opinion, the info in Rick's tip given to DD is sufficient by itself for probable cause.

That is because it is quite likely the man the juvenile girls saw is Bridge Guy. And Rick himself says he saw a group that sounds a lot like those girls, at the right time.

That does not prove he is Bridge Guy - but it clears the low bar for a warrant IMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm wondering now, why he used his car at all and had to onerous park it with it's backside to the abandoned building, conceiling the license plates. Why didn't he walk? Though he may have arrived at that building NOT from his home, but from CVS, if he worked until noon. Do we know, if he worked his job throughout the morning?

I don't think the D has claimed publicly about what RA did that day. Everything else, but not that. lol

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Key evidence that's subjective, has no Chain of Custody and may have been found after the crime scene was unsecured.

All of which the defence will argue at trial.

 

[ClearAhead]

They have no evidence or a legal strategy to prove RA innocent IMO

When a defense has no strategy to defend their client’s innocence, that’s when blame rises to the surface (re biased judge, system is unfair).

 

[mrjitty]

I'm no legal expert so my question is: Considering he's still innocent in the eyes of the law, is it a horrible thing if she would have allowed one hearing that would appear to favor the defendant?

Shouldn't Richard Allen be innocent in her eyes?

This is an interesting idea but I think it mixes up the Judge's obligations to ensure a fair process, versus the gravity of RA's situation as a criminal defendant. In granting an arrest warrant, the Court has already found that there is a case to answer and that RA should be held in custody pending charges. In other words, the evidence against him rises to a level that the state, subject to judicial oversight, can deprive him of his liberty pre-conviction.

So that is pretty far from the Judge regarding him as innocent. Rather there is a strong suspicion he might be guilty. But of course the burden is on the state to show it.

This is why personally, i give some deference to the state as an institution when it charges anyone. As a general matter, the prosecutor only charges people were they think the prospects for success are good. (Of course sometimes there are mistakes or bad decisions).

MOO

 

[Vern]

Absolutely Cyber Sleuth! When I read over the PCA I am not nit picking each specific detail, I'm looking at the big picture of what info LE was given from these witnesses. I think it's fair to mention when the girls encountered BG, they had no idea he was about to murder 2 girls and their recall of what he looked like or was wearing was going to be scrutinized by half of America. Same with witnesses that saw his car parked where it was. They had no idea it was going to be an important detail the needed to memorize the exact car.

I think about my day to day life and things I see. I walk, run, and hike a lot. If I encountered someone a tad creepy and I pass by and say hello and they don't respond or give me even more icky vibes, I don't tend to stare at them to memorize every detail I can. I hurry along and get out of there. If I was asked later I could for sure say I passed someone that gave me a bad feeling. I might recall they had a hat on or their expression.. seemed angry, no expression at all, no smile when I say hi, etc. I could say I saw them and how they made me feel, what time I saw them, etc. I would not want to be counted on to make a sketch for the world to scrutinize and I sure wouldn't want my description to be the end all be all of saying this was or wasn't the guy because I got the color of his pants wrong.

None of these people witnessed a crime and none of them were the victim of a crime. They had no idea they needed to tell LE later exactly what they saw in detail. I think their statements should be taken as such and seen for the big picture. He said he was there and he said he parked exactly where several people saw a car and they were able to describe it was backed in and it stood out to them. Some details might be off, but nobody said it was a mini van or a large truck. Based on what is said RA said he parked there and several people describe a car that is very similar to one he had then. Again, their recall was after the fact and not knowing they even needed to remember the color or the type of car. Same with his clothing. He told LE the direction he walked and what he was wearing. Several people saw a man similarly dressed as RA claimed he was and similar to what BG is seen wearing and they saw him at times that were consistent with his movements and what he said he did when he walked the trail. It shows that RA could be BG based on his own statements and what several people observed.

IMO if the state puts them on the stand, then they’re fair game to the D team. I would rip them to shreds if I were RA’s lawyer. It’s not their job to worry about the mental anguish of the witnesses imo. Their only worry is RA. The jury may not like it. But that’s always a risk. You can’t always accomplish the task without risking making someone upset. IMO if a witness falls apart on the stand, if their testimony falls down with them, then I’m ok with that. A strong witness can still fall apart and be emotional but their statement won’t change and they’ll rebuke any suggestions by counsel that they didn’t see what they think or said they did.

As to "ripping to shreds" of the witness', IMO, I'm not so certain that's going to happen.

The juvenile girls' descriptions do somewhat differ, but as posted numerous times, they weren't looking at him with an eye to "remember him perfectly for tomorrow" so that the police could identify a murderer. If only everyone had the foresight of knowledge it is being expressed that they should have.

Did they all stare at him as they passed each other? Did a couple only glance at him because they were busy chatting away to each other the way teen girls do when out and about? Did the one who thinks he had something over his face at that point in time focus on him more (the SW does bring up scarfs/face coverings)? Why the assumption that they were all focussed on him exclusively at that point in time so should all match perfectly in their descriptions?

These girls saw him in totally different geography and lighting than the other witnesses did as well. They saw him on a wooded rail, in the trees, with the shadows that come with observing someone in darkened lighting circumstances.

Yes, surely their only thought about "things they needed to do tomorrow" was the requirement of having to head back to school afer a day off. They never knew they'd have to identify this random dude or his clothing perfectly. If they did, they would have taken a photo of him just as they did the bench.

You know what and who did though? A camera. The girls' camera on the phone. That's how we know the general description of what he had on.

The other female adult witness observed him on the platform of the bridge (doing whatever he actually was doing at the time (IMO perhaps watching fish/stock ticker/awaiting his preys arrival). On the platform in full sun, no trees, no shadows, no dark woods to play havoc with what the eyes are taking in. Her description is pretty bang on. Funny how that works. And, it is also pretty bang on to the description of the clothing that RA himself advised he was wearing that day, in that very spot on the trail, on that very platform, at that very time. The timing etc that he ONLY changed once he found out the girls' video recording and that adult witness existed. How mightily 'convenient'.

Then we have another witness who observed a man up on the road walking looking muddy and bloody as she drove past him. She was probably focussed on actually driving - as she should have been - a passed by him in a mere split second, in late afternoon sun. She had probably already driven many feet past him when her mind registered "WTH" did I just see.

The variations in the statements are all explainable IMO ... and we will find out at trial because there is, and has been, an actual gag order in effect.

 

[sunshineray]

Thanks for the explanation.
Yes, we do want an unbiased judge.
When she calls Richard Allen an offender, it's a concern. IMO

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

08C01-2210-MR-000001

08/01/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had Defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order under advisement following a hearing conducted on July 31, 2024, and having considered all the evidence and arguments of Counsel, now grants the Defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order and remands the defendant back to the custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County. Court to notify counsel, the Sheriff of Carroll County, and the Department of Correction of the change of the offender's status. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

She calls him the "defendant" three times and only says offender when addressing the DOC. I think it's just a case of using the general terminology used if someone's in the custody of corrections. MO

 

[mrjitty]

His misrepresentation of BB's and SC's witness statements.

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Franks Hearing.pdf

drive.google.com

The Judge already held that he didn't misrepresent anything. I've posted this a number of times

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.”

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

 

[Salah11]

She calls him the "defendant" three times and only says offender when addressing the DOC. I think it's just a case of using the general terminology used if someobe's in the custody of corrections. MO

Yes and it doesn’t mean she is biased because she used that term.

There have been multiple links now saying just the opposite.

IMO

 

[sunshineray]

They have no evidence or a legal strategy to prove RA innocent IMO

It appears there's not even a hint of having any sort of alibi of not being where he originally said he was, at the time he said he was either.

 

[Megnut]

I am curious, whether RA had a habit of

Parking nose out
Carrying a utility knife of some sort
Concealing and carrying

The association with catfishing is hard for me to dismiss, but on the chance that this was a spontaneous crime of opportunity, just actually what was his intent and when did he first intend it? Undressing makes it automatically a secually motivated crime IMO but did he begin his day with that intention?

If no link prior to that day, was he hunting for a victim? Did he go there to harm another? Might be have gone there to harm himself? On a mission to suicide, predetermined location? Just what exactly was he doing, contemplating on the platform? His life? Was he thinking about jumping? Was he studying vantage, mentally mapping his rover crossing? Selecting a crime scene within or without view? Scanning for potential witnesses?

Did he murder them ultimately because they were young and happy and chatty and he was not?

They had their whole lives ahead of them.

That is, until he and his ugly intentions showed up behind them.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

It appears there's not even a hint of having any sort of alibi of not being where he originally said he was, at the time he said he was either.

Nope, because he is guilty. He thought he was so clever by admitting he was out on the trail before somebody came forward who could ID him from CVS, so he thought he would get ahead of the train, not realising there was a video of him approaching the girls.

No wonder he Hates Libby, who was his downfall in all this.

IMHO

 

[AugustWest]

Yes and it doesn’t mean she is biased because she used that term.

There have been multiple links now saying just the opposite.

IMO

I can be free of a cold in December, then have a cold in March. One can be free of bias at one point, then not free of bias at some later point. Either way, calling a defendant an "offender" at any point in the judicial process is not a good look.

I tend to agree with @sunshineray that the verbiage was likely unintentional (but not the reasoning). However, @FrostedGlass was simply pointing out that it is hard to deny an appearance of bias when a judge uses this type of language. Judges who have been on the bench for a good period of time should automatically notice mistakes like this. Calling a defendant a term that has an implication of guilt completely goes against the concept of a presumption of innocence.