Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #195

[Knitty]

09/04/2024

Order Issued The Court, having had the State's Motion in Limine under advisement following a hearing conducted on August 1, 2024, and having heard and considered the evidence, admitted exhibits, arguments of counsel, Defendant's Supplemental Submission Regarding State's Motion in Limine (filed August 13, 2024), and the State's Response to Defendant's Memorandum of Law (filed August 26, 2024), grants paragraphs 1 through 6, over defendant's objection, and grants paragraphs 8 through 12 over defendant's objection. As it relates to paragraph 7, the burden is on the defendant to show a nexus between Odinism, cult or ritualistic killing, Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, Johnny Messer, Elvis Fields, Ned Smith, Rod Abrahms, Kegan Kline, Jerry Kline, Ron Logan and the murders of the two victims. The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence. The Court finds the defense has failed to produce admissible evidence demonstrating a nexus between Odinism, cult or ritualistic killing, Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, Johnny Messer, Elvis Fields, Ned Smith, Rod Abrahms, Kegan Kline, Jerry Kline, Ron Logan and the murders. Therefore, the Court grants paragraph 7 of the State's Motion in Limine over defendant's objection. The Court will not permit the evidence submitted by the defense in support of their arguments regarding third-party perpetrators in the trial of this cause as the probative value of such evidence is greatly outweighed by confusion of the issues and its potential to mislead the jury. The Court will allow that evidence to support an offer of proof at the trial if one is made by Counsel. Jury selection will commence in Allen Superior Court October 14, 2024, with trial commencing in the Carroll Circuit Court, concluding November 15, 2024. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones Order Signed:

MOD NOTE: After consultation with the mod/admin team:

"The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence. The Court finds the defense has failed to produce admissible evidence demonstrating a nexus between Odinism, cult or ritualistic killing, Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, Johnny Messer, Elvis Fields, Ned Smith, Rod Abrahms, Kegan Kline, Jerry Kline, Ron Logan and the murders."

Now that we know the Court has not seen any "admissible evidence" in that regard, this equates to / aligns with WS policy that speculation must be based on some "known fact". Therefore, speculation on those individuals is off limits.

ETA: This includes general discussion of Odinism.

 

[iamshadow21]

From the ruling:

"The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence"

As the Court has not seen any "admissible evidence" to support such speculation, this equates to / aligns with WS policy that speculation must be based on some "known fact".

Going forward, any general discussion of Odinism or speculation on any of the named individuals is off limits.

Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate the promptness of this, @Sillybilly and @Knitty , we know you and the other mods are always very busy.

 

[Tealgrove]

The path is less murky on the way to justice for Abby and Libby.

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

So, going forward, any speculation on trial tactics from the defense?

I think it would make sense to take each witness and piece of evidence as it comes. Chip away at it, ask questions that highlight what it doesn't tell.

Because of the gag order, we don't know much outside the PCA of what the state has, but we can guess what they probably don't.

Video of the defendant or his car (besides Libby's video) arriving at or leaving the scene.

Detailed phone data for the defendant, either placing him in the area or not.

The knife used in the crime.

Whether the attack was completely opportunistic, or whether he'd watched the girls before, either in town or at sporting events or at church. This was a very small place, 3,000 people, and the family of one of the girls used the CVS for printing for the girls' memorial. He could have had his eye on any number of potential victims just doing his job, watching customers come and go, watching kids walk down the street. Unless there is clear tangible proof of stalking behaviour, it's probably not something they could prove. I've talked on another thread (Moscow, maybe?) about a family member of mine who used to go to shopping centres just to people watch. That was that person's stalking behaviour, and it only came out after they had been charged with other offenses in their mandated therapy, and it was nothing that they could have been charged with because all they were doing was watching people in a public place. But it was part of their pathology, and was absolutely not benign.

Someone a page or two back talked about maybe RA's low level job being a sign of poor functioning, perhaps because of mental health. But I think it's important to consider that maybe it was the perfect job for someone who wanted to be centrally placed, but also wanted to know everyone's business. Every single person who handed over a prescription or a credit card to him was handing over identifying information that he could have used, if he chose, for his own ends. And perhaps he never did. But I can see him liking knowing he could, if he chose to.

MOO

 

[sunshineray]

Rule 14 - Interlocutory Appeals, Ind. R. App. P. 14 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 14 - Interlocutory Appeals, Ind. R. App. P. 14, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Interlocutory appeals for this decision, as well as the decision to disqualify the judge, are called "discretionary appeals." This means that the trial court (aka Judge Gull) would make the decision of whether to certify the appeal and allow it to proceed to the Indiana Supreme Court. So, the answer is yes, the defense could try to have the judge removed, but the decision of whether to send it to the ISC is Judge Gull's decision. I'll give you one guess as to what I think her decision would be on that.

Since she's already been ruled unanimously not bias by that SCOIN and she has followed the law in her rulings on the confessions and SODDI motions, that would be the correct thing to do, if that situation should arise. MO

 

[AugustWest]

Since she's already been ruled unanimously not bias by that SCOIN and she has followed the law in her rulings on the confessions and SODDI motions, that would be the correct thing to do, if that situation should arise. MO

Your reasoning implies that once a person is one thing, they can never become something else. It also implies that the SC of Indiana has also reviewed her ruling on confessions and SODDI, which they have not.

ETA: changed verb tense

 

[sunshineray]

So, going forward, any speculation on trial tactics from the defense?

I think it would make sense to take each witness and piece of evidence as it comes. Chip away at it, ask questions that highlight what it doesn't tell.

Because of the gag order, we don't know much outside the PCA of what the state has, but we can guess what they probably don't.

Video of the defendant or his car (besides Libby's video) arriving at or leaving the scene.

Detailed phone data for the defendant, either placing him in the area or not.

The knife used in the crime.

Whether the attack was completely opportunistic, or whether he'd watched the girls before, either in town or at sporting events or at church. This was a very small place, 3,000 people, and the family of one of the girls used the CVS for printing for the girls' memorial. He could have had his eye on any number of potential victims just doing his job, watching customers come and go, watching kids walk down the street. Unless there is clear tangible proof of stalking behaviour, it's probably not something they could prove. I've talked on another thread (Moscow, maybe?) about a family member of mine who used to go to shopping centres just to people watch. That was that person's stalking behaviour, and it only came out after they had been charged with other offenses in their mandated therapy, and it was nothing that they could have been charged with because all they were doing was watching people in a public place. But it was part of their pathology, and was absolutely not benign.

Someone a page or two back talked about maybe RA's low level job being a sign of poor functioning, perhaps because of mental health. But I think it's important to consider that maybe it was the perfect job for someone who wanted to be centrally placed, but also wanted to know everyone's business. Every single person who handed over a prescription or a credit card to him was handing over identifying information that he could have used, if he chose for his own ends. And perhaps he never did. But I can see someone liking knowing he could, if he chose to.

MOO

Not having the defendant's phone data in the area would be a big problem for the defendant since he himself has said he was using his phone while there on the trails, that day. MO

 

[Niner]

so.... Just to keep my records/notes straight - there was NO hearing today, 9/4/24 - correct? TIA!

 

[sunshineray]

Your reasoning implies that once a person is one thing, they can never become something else. It also implies that the SC of Indiana has also review her ruling on confessions and SODDI, which they have not.

I'm saying that her credibility, honor and integrity have been validated by the SCOIN. That says a lot, to me, about her worth as a judge. MO

 

[TTF14]

so.... Just to keep my records/notes straight - there was NO hearing today, 9/4/24 - correct? TIA!
Correct. JG doesn’t keep a timely record.

 

[mrjitty]

i do feel messed the D pursued a poor strategy here. they might have been more successful with one of the alternate suspects if they’d been focussed on it and not blown credibility with wild theories.

MOO.

 

[iamshadow21]

Not having the defendant's phone data in the area would be a big problem for the defendant since he himself has said he was using his phone while there on the trails, that day. MO

Yeah, I think the defense would have liked to have data showing he was checking stocks or driving away from the bridge when the girls were being abducted, but they've never actually presented those things as anything other than the defendant's narrative so I'm guessing they do not have the actual phone data to prove it.

MOO

 

[snarast]

So, going forward, any speculation on trial tactics from the defense?

I think it would make sense to take each witness and piece of evidence as it comes. Chip away at it, ask questions that highlight what it doesn't tell.

Because of the gag order, we don't know much outside the PCA of what the state has, but we can guess what they probably don't.

Video of the defendant or his car (besides Libby's video) arriving at or leaving the scene.

Detailed phone data for the defendant, either placing him in the area or not.

The knife used in the crime.

Whether the attack was completely opportunistic, or whether he'd watched the girls before, either in town or at sporting events or at church. This was a very small place, 3,000 people, and the family of one of the girls used the CVS for printing for the girls' memorial. He could have had his eye on any number of potential victims just doing his job, watching customers come and go, watching kids walk down the street. Unless there is clear tangible proof of stalking behaviour, it's probably not something they could prove. I've talked on another thread (Moscow, maybe?) about a family member of mine who used to go to shopping centres just to people watch. That was that person's stalking behaviour, and it only came out after they had been charged with other offenses in their mandated therapy, and it was nothing that they could have been charged with because all they were doing was watching people in a public place. But it was part of their pathology, and was absolutely not benign.

Someone a page or two back talked about maybe RA's low level job being a sign of poor functioning, perhaps because of mental health. But I think it's important to consider that maybe it was the perfect job for someone who wanted to be centrally placed, but also wanted to know everyone's business. Every single person who handed over a prescription or a credit card to him was handing over identifying information that he could have used, if he chose for his own ends. And perhaps he never did. But I can see someone liking knowing he could, if he chose to.

MOO

The only clear approach seems to be to cast doubt on RA as BG.

I doubt that will work.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

The only clear approach seems to be to cast doubt on RA as BG.

That’s going to be mighty hard to do with dozens and dozens of confessions, his placing himself on the bridge, allegedly his own unspent bullet at the crime scene etc.
There is a reason the defense felt compelled to write fairy tale fiction in an attempt to paint him as innocent. It’s because they saw the discovery and they saw the evidence and they knew they could not defend him in court.
Shortly after being named as RA’s lawyers, they declared RA was factually innocent. They have not produced one fact in that direction. And you know that if they had one, we would have heard about it.

 

[m00c0w]

Now that the judge has declared the defendant is not allowed present a defense, how long will the trial last? 2 days?

IMO MOO

They are certainly allowed to present a defense. They are not allowed to implicate third parties without a material connection to the crime. They will need to focus on discrediting evidence, providing alibis for RA, impeaching witness testimony, etc.

MOO

 

[ClearAhead]

That’s going to be mighty hard to do with dozens and dozens of confessions, his placing himself on the bridge, allegedly his own unspent bullet at the crime scene etc.
There is a reason the defense felt compelled to write fairy tale fiction in an attempt to paint him as innocent. It’s because they saw the discovery and they saw the evidence and they knew they could not defend him in court.
Shortly after being named as RA’s lawyers, they declared RA was factually innocent. They have not produced one fact in that direction. And you know that if they had one, we would have heard about it.

That’s right and it’s not the fault of RA’s attourneys if they have no defense, however much they enjoyed the attention given to them by SM and MSM.

Their options were very limited. It was RA who shut the door on that, initially by coming forward to LE and placing himself on the bridge in case anyone remembered seeing him, then later by confessing to anyone who’d listen. Libby has nailed the door shut with her video IMO. The D has nothing left. They can’t blame the murders on mental illness because RA knew the difference between right and wrong by claiming he didn’t see the girls, essentially lying to cover up the murders and cleaning up afterward. JMO and MOO

 

[Vern]

That’s right and it’s not the fault of RA’s attourneys if they have no defense, however much they enjoyed the attention given to them by SM and MSM.

It was RA shut the door on it, initially by coming forward and placing himself on the bridge in case anyone remembered seeing him or LE , then by confessing to anyone who’d listen. Libby has nailed the door shut with her video IMO. The D has nothing left. They can’t blame the murders on mental illness because RA knew the difference between right and wrong by claiming he didn’t see the girls, essentially lying to cover up the murders then cleaning up afterward. JMO and MOO

An additional point for me is RA "getting caught in a lie" when he changed his timing from 1330-1530hrs on te trail to "gone by 1330hrs on the 13th" which, of course, occured years after he had come to find out about the video, with audio, recorded by the girls and the eye witness accounts of a man on the bridge and on the road (the eye witness' to seeing BG that he was unaware of when he gave his verbal "I was on the bridge" statement).

 

[Salah11]

I wonder what the next defense tactic will be here, as they have done RA such a disservice.

Moo

 

[Ravenmoon]

Now that the judge has declared the defendant is not allowed present a defense, how long will the trial last? 2 days?

IMO MOO

He is allowed to have a defense.
His attorneys just need to move forward with facts instead of ridiculous, dramatic, fanciful tales.
They only need to focus on his innocence and raise doubts about the validity of the Prosecution information.
There should be nothing to fear at all if there is nothing to hide.

JMO

 

[Ravenmoon]

Rule 14 - Interlocutory Appeals, Ind. R. App. P. 14 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 14 - Interlocutory Appeals, Ind. R. App. P. 14, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Interlocutory appeals for this decision, as well as the decision to disqualify the judge, are called "discretionary appeals." This means that the trial court (aka Judge Gull) would make the decision of whether to certify the appeal and allow it to proceed to the Indiana Supreme Court. So, the answer is yes, the defense could try to have the judge removed, but the decision of whether to send it to the ISC is Judge Gull's decision. I'll give you one guess as to what I think her decision would be on that.

Is it at all possible that the Defense team could ask to be removed?
Can they step down?