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

[katydid23]

I agree 100%. Judge Gull needs to recuse herself or she likely will be removed. A possible alternative would be Baldwin and Rizzo reinstated and Gull remains! But I feel certain we will see Judge Gull shot down in some form. JMO

Should the attorneys be sanctioned or is everything they've done just fine?

 

[TL4S]

Here's the good news, as I see it. Regardless of which attorneys or judge end up working this case, the evidence against RA is the same. Come trial, whenever that may be, and assuming there is one, the sitting jury is going to be given that evidence which is allowed through the process (suppressions, Franks, etc.). The evidence is there now, and it will be there then.

Let RA's rights be preserved, let the evidence speak for itself, and let the jury do their jobs. That day will come, I truly believe. And if LE, or the P, or the D, or the judge, did anything to jeopardize the case, let them face their repercussions. This case has issues being seen all the way to the SCOIN, so I do have faith that there are people working to assure that things are being done correctly, so that not only are RA's rights being preserved, but that there aren't massive appeals issues down the road. If RA is convicted, all of what we're seeing right now is going to strengthen that conviction, I hope. If he's acquitted, let the system learn from some of the breakdowns that happened, and move forward. There's a lot of frustration (understandably) here at the moment, but I am feeling better about the case then I was at any point in the last several months. JMO.

L and A, and their families, will have to wait, which is painful and cruel, but NOTHING will change what happened to them, so I'm keeping them in a separate place in my heart while the judicial system works out its kinks. JMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

To add the secret chamber hearing where the media reported the D quit, was 5 days after the MS podcast abt the leaks, on October 19.

October 14-MS podcast re: leaks by the D
October 19-hearing where D quits/DQ’d for gross negligence by JG

When did MS report the leak to LE? October 5? Do they usually put out 1 podcast a week, or do they release them as info comes in?

Now that you bring it up, on Oct 14, I was taken aback when MS ("journalists") described that they'd sought the opinion of "legal experts" other than themselves who "advised them" that the consequences to the Defense for the Leak could well be removal. And they broadcasted that, 5 days before JG did exactly. It was a helluva thing to "predict" ...

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I don’t think either B and R have been charged either civilly or criminally. They’ve only been dismissed. So I don’t think I have to determine liability to realize they are responsible.
I have stopped caring what the ex-defense’s hired guns and cronies have to say about any of this as they push the narrative that the poor upon and persecuted B and R are totally blameless.

BBM - who does that refer to?

I need help understanding something. I just read in exhibit T transcript where Rozzi says they verbally withdrew as a strategic move to protect their client and to avoid the "lashing" that was about to take place in open court. So, did they strategically withdraw, or did she remove them? Thanks for helping me understand

Someone else (either AB, BR, or H) described the discussion in the chambers on 10/19 as being given a "Hobson's choice" by JG. (Wikipedia: "a free choice in which only one thing is actually offered.") AB 'made a verbal motion to withdraw' and JG said that RB would submit withdrawal in writing (which he did not actually submit).

IMO - It was basically like being told by your boss, "you have to resign or I will fire you." That isn't a choice as to whether or not you still have a job. The decision to agree to withdraw put the interests of RA first by avoiding a hearing that would have no purpose other than to make RA's defense look bad because JG had already decided on the outcome: that they would no longer be allowed on the case (before any due process could be had). AB/RB are arguing that the withdrawal was coerced.

 

[TL4S]

Here's the good news, as I see it. Regardless of which attorneys or judge end up working this case, the evidence against RA is the same. Come trial, whenever that may be, and assuming there is one, the sitting jury is going to be given that evidence which is allowed through the process (suppressions, Franks, etc.). The evidence is there now, and it will be there then.

Let RA's rights be preserved, let the evidence speak for itself, and let the jury do their jobs. That day will come, I truly believe. And if LE, or the P, or the D, or the judge, did anything to jeopardize the case, let them face their repercussions. This case has issues being seen all the way to the SCOIN, so I do have faith that there are people working to assure that things are being done correctly, so that not only RA's rights are preserved, but that there isn't massive appeals issues down the road. If RA is convicted, all of what we're seeing right now is going to strengthen that conviction, I hope. If he's acquitted, let the system learn from some of the breakdowns that happened, and move forward. There's a lot of frustration (understandably) here at the moment, but I am feeling better about the case then I was at any point in the last several months. JMO.

L and A, and their families, will have to wait, which is painful and cruel, but NOTHING will change what happened to them, so I'm keeping them in a separate place in my heart while the judicial system works out its kinks. JMO.

 

[zh0r4]

Now that you bring it up, on Oct 14, I was taken aback when MS ("journalists") described that they'd sought the opinion of "legal experts" other than themselves who "advised them" that the consequences to the Defense for the Leak could well be removal. And they broadcasted that, 5 days before JG did exactly. It was a helluva thing to "predict" ...

Isn’t one of them a lawyer? Surely the legal expert wasn’t someone associated with the P? (Since the P is who recommended their DQ to JG)

 

[Emma Peel]

Isn’t one of them a lawyer? Surely the legal expert wasn’t someone associated with the P? (Since the P is who recommended their DQ to JG)

To be fair, (said MS) while one of MS is a lawyer, he's not a trial attny so, they consulted an "expert lawyer" for that opinion, IIRC. MOO

 

[Knitty]

This thread is closed. Please continue at Thread #171