IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
mrjitty said:
The point about the Franks motion is they included all the irrelevant tosh about Odinism, sensitive crime scene details and accused people of murder - all of which has nothing to do with a Franks motion

They should have filed a clean motion, and if they wanted to file the other parts of the motion (which relates to what legal application exactly?) it should have been under seal so it could be redacted.
Click to expand...
Thumbs up as to the RBBM above in RED. So many agree with this (including me).

With respect, I'll jump off your post with a few points:

LE's investigation(s) evidence, alternative POIs uncleared, and witnesses were the source of the
O-Theory embedded in the Frank's memo. Few care for the D's awkward presentation and burdening the Frank's memo. That being said, the alternative case has entered the courtroom as evidence in support of reasonable doubt. What a headache for the State, shining daylight on other avenues of the investigation like that.

1699222210675.png
1699222272339.png
Completely Normal:
If D has evidence or a reasonable theory that someone else may have committed the murder, they can present it to the Court. The D doesn’t need to prove the alternative perpetrator(s)' guilt. The D can present alternate theory, evidence and argument to create reasonable doubt. The alternative perpetrator can even be POIs the LE failed to develop.

The Judge determines if evidence related to the D’s alternate theory should be excluded, limited, or allowed at trial.

The P is more than welcome to tear apart the alternate theory. The P is the only party that has the burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the trial defendant is guilty of the murder.

Completely Unusual*:
The J (a) *removing the Defendant's Defense counsel for (b) *gross negligence (c) *without the Defendant present.
 
Emma Peel said:
Thumbs up as to the RBBM above in RED. So many agree with this (including me).

With respect, I'll jump off your post with a few points:

LE's investigation(s) evidence, alternative POIs uncleared, and witnesses were the source of the
O-Theory embedded in the Frank's memo. Few care for the D's awkward presentation and burdening the Frank's memo. That being said, the alternative case has entered the courtroom as evidence in support of reasonable doubt. What a headache for the State, shining daylight on other avenues of the investigation like that.

View attachment 458469
View attachment 458470
Completely Normal:
If D has evidence or a reasonable theory that someone else may have committed the murder, they can present it to the Court. The D doesn’t need to prove the alternative perpetrator(s)' guilt. The D can present alternate theory, evidence and argument to create reasonable doubt. The alternative perpetrator can even be POIs the LE failed to develop.

The Judge determines if evidence related to the D’s alternate theory should be excluded, limited, or allowed at trial.

The P is more than welcome to tear apart the alternate theory. The P is the only party that has the burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the trial defendant is guilty of the murder.

Completely Unusual*:
The J (a) *removing the Defendant's Defense counsel for (b) *gross negligence (c) *without the Defendant present.
Click to expand...
If the D had presented the Odin stuff to the J in an effort to be able to introduce it, and she said "pfft... it's nonsense!" What would have happened next? It would never have been brought up? Would it still be on record for appeal?
 
FrostedGlass said:
If the D had presented the Odin stuff to the J in an effort to be able to introduce it, and she said "pfft... it's nonsense!" What would have happened next? It would never have been brought up? Would it still be on record for appeal?
Click to expand...
I would think defense is allowed to present an alternate suspect defense at trial.
 
steeltowngirl said:
I would think defense is allowed to present an alternate suspect defense at trial.
Click to expand...
introduction of alternative suspect to trial proceeding - would need to be "allowed" by the court.

e.g. if the introduction of evidence/witnesses doesn't happen until trial begins ... J removes the jury to hold mini hearing on evidence, etc. etc. JMHO
 
Emma Peel said:
Thumbs up as to the RBBM above in RED. So many agree with this (including me).

With respect, I'll jump off your post with a few points:

LE's investigation(s) evidence, alternative POIs uncleared, and witnesses were the source of the
O-Theory embedded in the Frank's memo. Few care for the D's awkward presentation and burdening the Frank's memo. That being said, the alternative case has entered the courtroom as evidence in support of reasonable doubt. What a headache for the State, shining daylight on other avenues of the investigation like that.

View attachment 458469
View attachment 458470
Completely Normal:
If D has evidence or a reasonable theory that someone else may have committed the murder, they can present it to the Court. The D doesn’t need to prove the alternative perpetrator(s)' guilt. The D can present alternate theory, evidence and argument to create reasonable doubt. The alternative perpetrator can even be POIs the LE failed to develop.

The Judge determines if evidence related to the D’s alternate theory should be excluded, limited, or allowed at trial.

The P is more than welcome to tear apart the alternate theory. The P is the only party that has the burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the trial defendant is guilty of the murder.

Completely Unusual*:
The J (a) *removing the Defendant's Defense counsel for (b) *gross negligence (c) *without the Defendant present.
Click to expand...
Is this list of exhibits in a separate doc from the D memo? I looked in the D memo and couldn’t find it, TIA. Also thanks for posting, I love organized lists!
 
Emma Peel said:
introduction of alternative suspect to trial proceeding - would need to be "allowed" by the court.

e.g. if the introduction of evidence/witnesses doesn't happen until trial begins ... J removes the jury to hold mini hearing on evidence, etc. etc. JMHO
Click to expand...
Are you referring to the rules on admissibility of evidence?
 
It appears this ain't the Judge's first rodeo.
Below see the last time, 2018, the replacement Defense moved to have their client's revocation of counsel by Judge Gull reviewed. But they opted to simply make the objection record and they didn't pursue to the interlocutory review.


Private attorneys in death penalty cases create dilemmas for judges, public defenders - The Indiana Lawyer


June 12, 2018 | Marilyn Odendahl
Click to expand...

An appeal withdrawn
Defense attorneys say private counsel representing a death penalty defendant is rare in Indiana. Public defenders typically defend individuals charged with capital crimes because of the cost of the case coupled with the demands of preparing for trial.
Click to expand...
Until the beginning of 2018, the state had two death penalty cases represented by private counsel who needed to draw upon public funds to support their defenses. In addition to Turner, Fort Wayne attorney Nikos Nakos of Nakos & Adams was defending Marcus Dansby, who is accused of stabbing and shooting to death three adults and an unborn child.

landis-larry-mug
Landis
Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, said he empathizes with the dilemma judges confront in these cases. The bench has to weigh the defendant’s right to choose counsel against the ability of the attorney to provide representation.

The Fort Wayne case, State of Indiana V. Marcus D. Dansby, 02D06-1609-MR-000010, could have provided some guidance for resolving that dilemma. Allen Superior Judge Frances Gull removed Nakos at the beginning of the year and appointed two public defenders, Michelle Kraus and Robert Gevers II.

Kraus said Gull carefully laid out her reasons for replacing Nakos. The judge made a record, citing caselaw and the standards from the American Bar Association, as she detailed what private counsel had done and not done on the Dansby case.

Nakos disputed that he was not adequately representing his client. He claimed he had hired a mitigation expert but Gull, after she signed the order allowing the expense, wanted more documentation showing the expert was qualified. That individual got angry and quit.

When Nakos found another, he said Gull referred to his submission to the court as containing “stupid (stuff).” In January 2018, he filed a motion for the judge to recuse herself and soon after, Gull removed him from the case.

Once the public defenders were appointed, they filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal. Kraus explained the central question under the Sixth Amendment was whether the defendant’s right to an attorney of his own choice trumps his right to effective counsel. Although the trial court granted the petition, the public defenders decided not to proceed to the Indiana Supreme Court and withdrew the appeal.

Kraus said an appeal would have likely stayed the case for several months and the defendant wanted to keep things moving forward. The defense, she said, believes they have preserved the issue and, if needed after the trial, can revive the issue.

Although private counsel in death penalty cases is rare, Landis would still like to see the Indiana Supreme Court address the Sixth Amendment issue.

“At some point that dilemma needs to get resolved and it may ultimately get resolved in the Fort Wayne case if there is a trial and conviction,” he said. “If the verdict is appealed, that will be one of the appellate issues.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FrostedGlass said:
Snipped and highlighted for focus.
Have we seen any proof that MW did not meet the criteria?
Click to expand...
Well, we know he never passed his bar exam, so he is not a lawyer. And he does not work for AB's firm. And he is not a paid expert or consultant. And not a co-worker.

Those are the only options in the criteria for who could be told about the photos and documents in discovery.
FrostedGlass said:
Where is the MW affidavit and why can't we see it?
Click to expand...

I don't know but I'd love to see it. Maybe it had too much info that could hurt the case?
 
Last edited:
FrostedGlass said:
Maybe you know that but I don't. If he had MW sign docs and get approved, MW's betrayal could still qualify as "snookered". Aren't you curious about the affidavit?

Do we know if prosecution had to follow those guidelines, too?
Click to expand...
If MW signed Docs and got on the short list of those who saw the docs, and was given approval by the court, would he then steal shots of them to give away to others?

I don't think he'd take that chance. I think he felt more comfortable because he wasn't on the list of those who had access. JMO
 
FrostedGlass said:
Maybe you know that but I don't. If he had MW sign docs and get approved, MW's betrayal could still qualify as "snookered". Aren't you curious about the affidavit?

Do we know if prosecution had to follow those guidelines, too?
Click to expand...
If MW signed Docs and got on the short list of those who saw the docs, would he then steal shots of them to give away to others? I don't think he'd take that chance. I think he felt more comfortable because he wasn't on the list of those who had access. JMO

I think AB would have said " I took all the appropriate steps, hired a consultant, had him sign and I got the courts approval, and he still stole the images and sent them out.

I think that would have covered AB's butt pretty well. That doesn't seem to be what happened. JMO
 
Emma Peel said:
SBM and BBM

Thank you.

So, not exactly a smoking gun. (sorry for the gun pun)

It seems to me the 5 year time gap for testing, plus the chain of custody, who found the casing and when, and the fact the the Crime Scene team missed the bullet ... combined with the 50/50 science on this type of evidence the experts are obliged to reference ... means the P won't build their case around that casing ... IMO, it will be offered as possibly corroborative - at best.
JMHO
Click to expand...
Did the crime scene investigators miss the bullet originally in their processing of the scene? I don't remember that, would you mind linking me to that. Now you've got me curious.

I agree the P won't build their case around the bullet, they've got plenty of other evidence, including RA's 5 own confessions. What I do find odd is that a single bullet of the same make and caliber was found in a keepsake style box in RA's home during the search. Seems very odd to me, like why would you have one particular bullet like that unless it meant something very sentimental to you? Like leaving one at the crime scene and one at home for the two girls?.....

JMO
 
katydid23 said:
If MW signed Docs and got on the short list of those who saw the docs, and was given approval by the court, would he then steal shots of them to give away to others?

I don't think he'd take that chance. I think he felt more comfortable because he wasn't on the list of those who had access. JMO
Click to expand...
If he was not on the list, I would imagine that the others in the office would have been suspicious of him going freely in and out of where the discovery was kept.

We can't know the answers to our questions because JG decided to do this all behind closed doors and can't or won't (for whatever reasons) release the transcript.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 40 more.
Total: 2,515 (members: 41, guests: 2,474)

Online statistics

Members online
41
Guests online
2,474
Total visitors
2,515
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,491
Messages
18,141,187
Members
231,409
Latest member
relaxininaz
Back
Top